2,0\? .
.\?\5
\?\"\"3,
| | R E P 0 R T
Čz., " , 7, , º, ... ', SELECT COMM ITTEE
ON
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
(BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL;
ToGETHER witH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE,
MINUTE s o F E v. I D E N C E.
APPENDIX AND INDEX.
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Pºinted,
1 May 1872.
177.
REPORT --> 2 -- sº -> &_e
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE - - dº
APPENDIX - tº *- tºn º gº
INDEX – - gº - * º -
Tuesday, 19th March 1872.
Ordered, THAT the MUNICIPAL CoRPORATIONs (Borough FUNDs) BILL be read a
second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Thursday, 11th April 1872.
*ºsºsºsºs ºrºss-mm-arm
Ordered, THAT the Select Committee on Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Bill
do consist of Twenty-one Members.
Committee nominated of—
Mr. Hibbert. Mr. Mellor.
Mr. Winterbotham. Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. M'Laren. Mr. Tipping.
Mr. Delahunty. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. M undella. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Hinde Palmer. Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Sir John Ramsden. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Serjeant Simon. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Charles Howard. * Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Cawley.
Ordered, THAT the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.
Ordered, THAT Five be the quorum of the Committee.
Ordered, THAT all Petitions presented in reference to the Municipal Corporations
(Borough Funds) Bill be referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
Wednesday, 1st May 1872.
Ordered, THAT the Committee have power to report the Minutes of Evidence taken
before them to The House.
THE following Petitions relating to the Municipal Corporations (Borough Funds) Bill
were referred to the Committee:—
I N F A V () U. R.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Stockton.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Hereford.
Mayor, Aldermen, &c. of York.
Mayor and others of Worcester, in council assembled.
Members of the Lichfield Local Board, in the county of Derby; Harvey Whiston, clerk.
—— Aberdare Local Board of Health, in the county of Glamorgan; Rees H. Phip,
chairman, and others.
Members of the Local Board of Health for the district of Loughborough.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Saint Helen's, under their common seal; J. March,
IQ3, VOI’. g
Members jº. Local Board of Health for Barton, Eccles, Winton, and Monton, in the
county palatine of Lancaster; George Frenbath, clerk.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Blackburn, in the county of Lancaster, in council
assembled; Thomas Bury, mayor; John Marsh, clerk.
— Hartlepool; Thomas Belk, town clerk. .
—— Huddersfield, under their corporate common seal; Wright Miller, mayor.
Members of the Local Board for Bognor, in the county of Sussex.
Tow Law, in the county of Durham; Alexander Reid, chairman.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Batley, in the county of York, in council assembled;
R. D. Righley, mayor. -
177. a 2 Mayor
HD
IN FAVOUR—continued.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Newport, in the Isle of Wight; Francis Pittis, deputy
mayor.
—— Penryn.
Local Board for the District of Ossett-cum-Gawthorpe, in the County of York.
Mexborough, in the County of York.
Mayor, Aldermen, and others of Wakefield.
Bootle-cum-Linacre.
Bath.
Local Board for the District of Ince, in the county of Lancaster.
—— Tonbridge, in the county of Kent; Joseph Isard, chairman.
Provost, Magistrates, and Council of Leith.
Mayor, Aldermen, and others of Rochester.
Bradford, in the county of York.
Gloucester.
Members of the Wallasey Local Board.
— Local Board of Newtown and Llanllwchairn, in the county of Montgomery;
R. Lloyd, chairman ; W. Cooke, clerk.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Wrexham.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Ryde, Isle of Wight.
—— Romsey Infra, county of Southampton.
—— Aberavon.
Local Government Board of Slough.
Local Board of Thornaby, in the county of York.
Coventry Gas Company.
West Hartlepool Improvement Commissioners.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Devonport.
— Chester.
West Hove Improvement Commissioners.
Local Board of Consett; W. Jenkins, chairman.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Wigan.
Members of the Meltham Local Board.
Hexham Local Board.
Local Board of the district of Tyldesley-cum-Shakerley, county of Lancaster.
Atherton, in the county of Lancaster.
Widnes, in the county of Lancaster.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Waterford.
Chesterfield. .
Members of the Local Board of Health for the district of Leadgate, county of Durham.
Town Commissioners of Athlone. *
Members of the Local Board of the district of Hindley, in the county of Lancaster.
-- Bacup, in the county of Lancaster.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Gateshead.
Members of the Local Board of Health for Ely.
Rugby.
—— Aston, county of Warwick.
North Bierly, county of York.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Maidenhead, county of Berks.
Members of the Local Board of Health for the district of Jarrow, county of Durham.
Local Board of New Shoreham. -
—— Crowle, in the county of Lincoln ; Geo. Storey, chairman.
Local Board of Health of Gainsborough, in the county of Lincoln; Edward Pearson,
chairman.
Shirley, in the county of Southampton.
Members of the Southampton Chamber of Commerce; R. Legg, president.
Mayor, Alderman, and Burgesses of Southampton.
Local Board of Birstal, in the county of York.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Scarborough, in the county of York.
Local Board of Soothill Upper, in the West Riding of the county of York.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of King's Lynn.
Local Board of Health at Tottenham, in the county of Middlesex.
Middleton and Tonge Improvement Commissioners; Samuel Sawton, chairman.
Local Board of Health at Radcliffe.
— Gorton, near the city of Manchester.
—— Heywood, in the county of Lancaster.
—— Failsworth.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Belfast.
——Doncaster, in the county of York.
Stourbridge Improvement Commissioners; H. Hughes, chairman ; John Taylor, clerk.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Folkestone, in the county of Kent.
Penzance, in the county of Cornwall.
Local Board of Ripley, in the county of Derby.
Ilkestone, in the county of Derby.
Local Government Board of Bridlington, in the East Riding of York.
Local
IN FAVOUR—continued.
Local Board of Health of Waterloo with Seaforth.
Local Board of Charlton Kings, county of Gloucester.
— Hyde, county of Chester.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Chipping Wycombe, county of Buckingham.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Barnsley, county of York.
Norwich.
Margate.
Bridgend Local Board of Health.
Local Board of Health for the district of Aberdare.
––– Halliwell, county of Lancaster.
—— Astley Bridge, county of Lancaster.
Town Commissioners of Aberystwith, county of Cardigan.
Local Board for the district of Ventnor, Isle of Wight.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Sheffield.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Nottingham.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
—— Walsall.
——- Bolton.
—— Brechin.
—— Burntisland.
—— Aberdeen.
Crewe Local Board.
Newport.
Pendlebury.
Boston.
Tain.
Preston.
Paisley.
Cambridge.
Tenby. .
Royal Burghs of Scotland.
Rhyl Improvement Commissioners.
Dunfermline.
Lenton.
East Retford.
Sheffield (2).
Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Manchester.
Corporation of Wolverhampton.
Longton.
Bilston Town Commissioners and Board of Health.
Local Government Board for the District of Hindley.
Garston Local Board. yº
Provost, Magistrates, and Council of Portobello; Thomas Wood, provost, on behalf of
meeting. -
Brechin.
Burntisland.
Aberdeen.
Edinburgh.
North Berwick.
A. G. A.I. N S T.
Colchester Gas Company.
Liverpool United Gas Company.
Bideford Gas and Coke Company.
Knottingley Gaslight Company.
Lichfield Gaslight Company; M. B. Morgan, chairman.
|Blackburn Gaslight Company.
Leamington Priors Gas Company; (name illegible), chairman.
Dudley Gaslight Company. *"
Holyhead Gas Company.
Sheffield United Gaslight Company.
Derby Waterworks Company.
Dover Gaslight Company.
Lancaster Gas Company.
Tunbridge Wells Gas Company.
Bedford Gaslight Company; (name illegible), chairman.
Derby Gaslight and Coke Company; J. Heygate, chairman ; J. Fisher, secretary.
Saint Alban's Gas Company.
Worksop Gaslight and Coke Company.
177. a 3 Birmingham
AGAINST-continued.
Birmingham Waterworks Company.
Mansfield Gas Company.
Brighton Gaslight and Coke Company.
Ventnor Gas and Water Company.
Radcliffe and Pilkington Gas Company; D. Brandwood, secretary.
York United Gas Company. t
Saint Helen's Gas Company.
Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gaslight Company; Benjamin Green, secretary.
Prescot Gas Company.
Sheffield Waterworks Company.
|Bristol Waterworks Company.
Mold Gas and Water Company.
Blackburn Waterworks Company.
Rossendale Union Gas Company; John Aitken, chairman.
Croydon Commercial Gas and Coke Company.
Lowestoft Water, Gas, and Market Company; J. H. Orde, chairman.
Boston Gaslight and Coke Company.
Plymouth and Stonehouse Gaslight and Coke Company.
Winchester Water and Gas Company; C. Woolridge, secretary.
Cardiff Waterworks Company.
Cardiff Gaslight and Coke Company.
Folkestone Gas and Coke Company.
Rendal Union Gas and Water Company.
Owners and Occupiers of Property within the borough of Halifax, in the county of York.
Dukinfield Gas Company.
Ludlow Union Gas Company; Ambrose Ground, secretary.
Norwich Waterworks Company.
Owners and Occupiers of Property in the city of Norwich.
Gravesend and Milton Waterworks Company; Thomas Troughton, secretary.
Gravesend and Milton Gaslight Company; C. Spencer, chairman.
Weymouth Consumers' Gas Company; James Robertson, chairman.
Portsmouth Waterworks Company; (illegible), secretary.
Durham Gas Company; H. J. Marshall, chairman.
Accrington Gas and Waterworks Company.
Cambridge University and Town Gaslight Company.
Great Yarmouth Gas Company; J. H. Orde, chairman.
Devonport Gas and Coke Company. *
York New Waterworks Company; John Craven, chairman.
York United Gaslight Company.
Warrington Waterworks Company; James Riley, secretary.
Bristol United Gaslight Company.
Cheltenham Gas Company; W. N. Skillimore, chairman.
Nottingham Waterworks Company; William Gibson, chairman ; Walter Browne, clerk.
Nottingham Gaslight and Coke Company; William Hunt, clerk.
South Shields Gas Company.
Huyton and Roby Gas Company.
Knottingley Gaslight Company.
Barnstaple Water Company.
Barnstaple Gas Company.
Stratford-upon-Avon Gas Company.
Bridlington Gaslight Company.
Wrexham Gas Company; Joseph Jackson, deputy chairman ; F. Walker, secretary.
Stretford Gas Company; Reuben Spencer, director; James Moore, secretary.
Chelmsford Gaslight and Coke Company.
Elland-cum-Greetland Gas Company; John Walker, chairman.
Falmouth Gas, Coal, and Coke Company.
Peniston, Thurlstone, and Oxspring Gas Company.
Worcester New Gas Company.
Swinton and Mexborough Gas Company.
Glossop Gas Company.
Harrowgate Gas Company.
Weston-Super-Mare Gas Company.
Kilkenny Gas Company.
Hyde Gas Company.
Shipley Gas Company.
Leicester Gas Company.
Ossett Gas Company.
Mirfield Gas Company.
Padiham Gas Company; Thomas Holland, secretary.
Colney Hatch Gas Company.
Sutton-in-Ashfield Gas Company; Sam Littlewood, chairman; C. Plumbe, secretary.
Braintree and Bocking Gas Company.
Brentford
[ vii. J.
AGAINST-continued.
Brentford Gas Company.
Guildford Gaslight and Coke Company.
Preston Gas Company; John Billington Booth, chairman.
Chesterfield Waterworks and Gaslight Company.
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company.
Maidstone Gas Company; Ambrose Warde, chairman.
Wolverhampton Gas Company; John Underhill, chairman.
Stockton and Middlesborough Waterworks Company.
Epsom and Ewell Gas and Coke Company; John Steele, chairman.
Edinburgh Gas Company.
Birmingham Gaslight and Coke Company.
Hartlepool Gas and Water Company.
Selby Gas Company; Jonathan Hutchinson and others. g
Belper Gas and Coke Company; William Machin Ingle, secretary; W. B. Whitaker,
manager.
Richmond Gas Company.
Cheltenham Waterworks Company; E. W. Shewell, chairman.
Staffordshire Waterworks Company.
Neath New Gas Company; William Dore, secretary.
Ashton Gas Company.
Birmingham and Staffordshire Gaslight Company. -
Dunoon Gaslight Company; Archibald Oswald, chairman.
Reading Gas Company.
Southampton Gaslight and Coke Company.
Saint Helen's Gas Company. -
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company.
Preston Gas Company.
Bath Gaslight Company.
Lichfield Gas Company; M. B. Morgan, chairman.
Croydon Commercial Gas and Coke Company.
Dover Gaslight Company.
Leicester Gas Company.
Bristol United Gaslight Company.
Dudley Gaslight Company; T. Collet, secretary.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks Company. w
Whitby Gas Company.
Radcliffe and Pilkington Gas Company.
Birmingham Waterworks Company.
Thirsk Gas Company.
Sligo Gaslight Company.
Great Yarmouth Gas Company.
Rendal Union Gas and Water Company.
Edinburgh Gas Company.
Lowestoft Water, Gas, and Market Company.
Brighton and Hove General Gas Company.
Sunderland and South Shields Water Company.
Elland-cum-Greetland Gas Company. &
Southampton Gaslight and Coke Company.
Sunderland Gas Company.
Ipswich Gaslight Company.
Halifax. -
Portsea Island Gas Company (Two Petitions).
Kingston-on-Thames Gas Company.
Warwick.
Hampton.
Bangor Water and Gas Company.
FOR ALTERATION.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Salford.
—— Exeter.
— Coventry.
–– Oldham, in the county of Lancaster.
—— Halifax.
—— Middlesborough.
—— Droitwich, in the county of Worcester.
—— Lancaster.
—— Banbury.
— Dewsbury, county of York.
-—— I fi 1.
177 Liver a 4 Members
L. viii
FoR ALTERATION.—continued.
Members of the Watch Committee of Tynemouth; Charles Adamson, mayor, on behalf
of committee. *:-
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Bewdley.
— Evesham; W. T. Allard, Mayor, and others.
Members of the Edinburgh Cobden Club. -
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Totnes, county of Devon.
Members of the Margate Commercial Union; G. Amos, chairman.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Kendal. .
Stalybridge Gas Company.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Glossop. -
Members of the Town Council of Kidderminster. -
Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Ashton-under-Lyne, in the county of Lancaster;
F. A. Frost, mayor; W. Marshall, clerk.
Deal.
Eastbourne.
New Windsor.
Perth.
Harwich.
Wisbech.
Dudley.
E X P E N S E S O F. W I T N E S S E S.
Number of Expenses
& Days Allowance TO'TAL
N A M E Profession From whence absent from during J of € Expenses
OF Ol' Home Absence º y allowed
* g ... it Summoned. under from to
W I T N E S S. Condition. Orders of Home. London Witness.
e and back.
Committee.
36. s. d. £. s. d £. s. d.
Marwick, James David - || Town Clerk - - || Edinburgh - - 8 8 8 - || 6 1 - || 14 9 –
Watt, James - sº - | Provost of Leith - I - ditto º tº 8 8 8 – || 6 || – || 14 9 –
Miller, Peter - * - || Baillie gº - I - ditto º tº E 8 8 8 – | 6 || – || 14. 9 –
Wormald, Joseph tº - || Town Councillor - I - ditto tº tºp 8 8 8 — | 6 || – || 14 9 –
| fº
ToTAL - - - £. 57 16 —

R. E. P 0 R. T.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE to whom the MUNICIPAL CoRPORATIONs
(Borough FUNDs) BILL was referred ;-HAve considered the said Bill, and
taken Evidence thereon, which they have agreed to report to The House; and
have gone through the Bill, and made Amendments thereunto, and have
amended the Title as follows:–“A Bill to authorise the application of Funds
of Municipal Corporations, and other Governing Bodies in certain cases.”
1 May 1872.
sº ºn
177. fy
X PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
PROC EED INGS OF THE COMMITTEE.
Monday, 15th April 1872.
tºº ºsmºsºsº ºsmº
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Mr. Hibbert. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Winterbotham. Mr. Joshua Bielden.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Mr. Mellor.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Charles Howard. Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Leeman. Mr. Carter. tº
Mr. M'Laren. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Sir John Ramsden. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Hibbert was called to the Chair.
[Adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock.
Wednesday, 17th April 1872.
MEMBERS P RESENT :
Mr. HIBBERT in the Chair.
Mr. Carter. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Cawley. Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Mr. Neville-Grenville. Mr. Tipping.
Mr. Joshua Fielden. Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Mellor. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Delahunty. Mr. Charles Howard.
Mr. M“Laren. Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Sir John Ramsden. - Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach. Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Leeman.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, “That it is expedient to receive evidence as to the
necessity and propriety of that portion of the Bill which proposes to impose burdens on
ratepayers in respect of costs heretofore incurred ”—(Mr. Cawley).-Question put, and
agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, “That it is not necessary or desirable to hear any
evidence as to the other portions of the Bill”—(Mr. Hinde Palmer).-Question put—The
Committee divided :
Ayes, 15. Noes, 4.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach. Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Colonel Beresford. Mr. Mellor.
Mr. Carter. Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Cawley. Mr. Tipping.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Charles Howard.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. M*Laren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. xi
The Committee proceeded with the consideration of the Bill.
Preamble postponed,
Clause 1, amended, and agreed to.
Clause 2.—Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out the word “promote”—(Mr.
Fielden).-Question put, That the word “promote ’’ stand part of the clause.—The Com-
mittee divided :
Ayes, 12. Noes, 6. .
Colonel Beresford. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Cawley. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Delahunty. Mr. Mellor.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Charles Howard. Mr. Tipping.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. MI*Laren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Amendments made.—Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3.—Amendment proposed, in line 32, to leave out the words “an absolute majority
of the whole number of the governing body,” in order to insert the words “at least two-thirds
of the governing body present and voting”—(Mr. Hinde Palmer)—instead thereof.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,”-put, and
agreed to.
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, after the words “governing body,” in line 33, to insert
the words “not disqualified by law from voting in consequence of personal interest"—
(Mr. Hinde Palmer)—Question put, That those words be there inserted.—The Committee
divided :
Ayes, 7. Noes, 11.
Mr. Delahunty. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Carter. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Leeman. Mr. Cawley.
Mr. M*Laren. Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Mundella. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Hinde Palmer. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Charles Howard.
Mr. Mellor.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Another Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word “Parliament,” page 3, line 1,
to the end of the Clause—(The Chairman).-Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Another Amendment proposed, page 3, line 2, to leave out the words “containing a
population of less than 3,000 inhabitants” — (Mr. Fielden).-Question put, That the
words “containing a population of less than * stand part of the Clause.—The Committee
divided :
Ayes, 8. Noes, 8.
Mr. Carter. .." Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Cawley. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Delahunty. Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Charles Howard. Mr. Gregory. -
Mr. Leeman. 1Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. M“Laren. Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Mr. Tipping.
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Ayes.—Clause, as amended,
agreed to.
Clause 4, amended, and agreed to.
Clause 5, postponed.
177. b 2 Clause
xii PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
Clause 6, agreed to.
Clause 7, postponed.
Clauses 8, 9, agreed to.
[Adjourned till Friday next, at Twelve o'clock.
Friday, 19th April 1872.
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Mr. HIBBERT in the Chair.
Mr. Mellor. Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Carter. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Cawley. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Neville-Grenville. Mr. Charles Howard.
Mr. M*Laren. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Delahunty. * Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Thomas Moore and Mr. John Yeomans were severally examined.
[Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock.
Monday, 22nd April 1872.
$ºmºsºme
MEM B E R S PRESENT :
Mr. HIBBERT in the Chair. &
Mr. Carter. Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Leeman. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. M*Laren. Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Mellor. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Tipping. Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Delahunty. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Mundella. g Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. R. Blakelock Smith examined.
[Adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve o’clock.
Wednesday, 24th April 1872.
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Mr. HIBBERT in the Chair.
Mr. Mellor. © Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Mundella. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Leeman. Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Carter. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. M*Laren. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Peter Miller, Mr. James D. Marwick, Mr. James Watt, and Mr. Joseph Wormald
were severally examined.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Twelve o'clock.
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. xiii
Tuesday, 30th April 1872.
cºmmºs ºmºsºmºre ºne
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Mr. HIBBERT in the Chair.
Mr. Cawley. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. t Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Leeman. Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Gregory. Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Tipping. Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Delahunty. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Mellor. Mr. Winterbotham.
Mr. Carter. Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Joshua Fielden. Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. M“Laren.
The Committee deliberated. --
The Chairman stated that he had received the following letter:—
“To the Select Committee of the House of Commons upon the Municipal Corporations
Bill (Borough Funds).
“14, George-street, Halifax,
“Gentlemen, 24th April 1872.
“As solicitors for and on behalf of the 25, owners and occupiers of property who have
petitioned the House of Commons against this Bill, and who represent property within the
Borough of Halifax rated to the poor as follows:—
f. S. d.
As occupiers, in the sum of - - - 25,687 17 3
As owners, 95 tº gº dº 33,181 13 —
And also on behalf of 22 other owners and occupiers of property, who have signed a copy
of the same petition, and who represent property within the Borough rated to the poor as
follows:–
£.
As occupiers - tº & tº tº {-> gºe tº 3,918
As owners { * tº gº ſº º * dº 2,896
we respectfully request that the petitioners may be allowed to adduce evidence before
the Committee in support of the various allegations in their Petition.
“The petitioners, for the most part, are earnest supporters of Municipal Government,
but they entertain strong opinions (formed by observing what has taken place in Halifax in
recent years) adverse to the present Bill.
“We are informed that the Committee have already decided to restrict evidence to
Section 5 of the Bill, and also to objectionable expenditure made within the last three years.
Within that period very large sums of money have been expended by the Town Council of
Halifax, in the following matters:—
“In 1869, in opposing a Bill in Parliament promoted by the Bradford Corporation.
“In 1870, in opposing a Bill in Parliament promoted by Mr. John Crossley and
others for the Conservancy of the Rivers Aire and Calder.
“In 1871, in promoting a Bill for the Conservancy of the Rivers Aire and Calder.
“In 1871, in promoting a Waterworks Bill.
“Also in the following litigations:—
“The Freeholders of Skircoat, v. the Corporation.
“Holdsworth’s injunction against the Corporation.
“Webster's injunction against the Corporation.
“The Petitioners impeach the legality of much of the expenditure incurred being paid
out of the corporate funds, and they seek to satisfy the Committee, by evidence, that the
facts and circumstances connected with several of the above proceedings are such as to dis-
entitle the Town Council to the special intervention of Parliament. The present Bill would
legalise the payment out of rates, and of moneys raised by mortgage of the property of the
Borough, of large sums, which the Petitioners believe to be not only illegal, but incurred in
177. b 3 proceedings
Xiv PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE
proceedings utterly indefensible, and such as no prudent person, himself responsible for
costs, would have entered into.
“We may state that the persons for whom we make this application constitute many of
the most prominent firms in Halifax, and comprise every shade of political opinion.
“Awaiting the favour of the Committee's permission to tender evidence upon Section 5 of
the Bill, in the presence of such persons as the Town Council of Halifax may desire to re-
present them, -
“We have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
“Your most obedient Servants,
“ Wavell, Philbrick, Foster, and Wavell.”
Motion made, and Question proposed, “That evidence be taken in support of the Petition
of the Ratepayers of Halifax against the fifth clause of the Bill”—(Sir M. Beach.)—
Amendment proposed to leave out from the word “That” to the end of the Question, in
order to add the words, “the Mayor of Halifax having expressly stated to the Chairman,
and to Mr. Leeman, that the Corporation of Halifax do not intend to seek the benefit of
Clause 5 of the Bill, upon that understanding no evidence be heard from Halifax upon the
clause,”—(Mr. Leeman)—instead thereof.-Question put, That the words proposed to be left
out stand part of the Question.—The Committee divided :
Ayes, 5. . Noes, 10.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Joshua Fielden. Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Mellor. Mr. Delahunty.
Sir John Ramsden. Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Tipping. - Mr. Leeman.
Mr. M*Laren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Question, That those words be there added,—put, and agreed to.
The Committee proceeded with the consideration of the Bill.
Postponed Clause 5.—An Amendment made.—Another Amendment proposed, in line
16, after the word, “body,” to insert the words “or the persons forming the governing body
at the time when such expenses were incurred, or a majority of then "-(Mr. M'Laren)—
Question put, That those words be there inserted.—The Committee divided :
Ayes, 5. Noes, 12.
Mr. Delahunty. Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Leeman. Colonel Beresford.
Mr. M*Laren. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Mundella. Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Serjeant Simon. Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Mellor.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Mr. Tipping.
Further Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 31, after the word “ that,” to leave out the words,
“if any rated inhabitant of the district shall object to such application' –(Mr. Winter-
botham).-Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause—put,
and agreed to. *
Further Amendments made.
Another Amendment proposed at the end of the Clause, to add the words, “Provided
also, that nothing in this Section shall authorise such allowance to be made in respect of
costs and charges which have been incurred by any governing body, unless it shall appear
that such governing body had acted bond fide, and in the belief that such costs and charges
. might
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. XY
might be lawfully incurred”—(Mr. Stanley)–Question put, That these words be there
added.—The Committee divided:
Ayes 9.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Mellor.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Mr. Tipping.
l Noes 9.
Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. M'Laren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Winterbotham.
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Woes.
Question put, That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill.—The Committee
divided :
Ayes, 11.
Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. M'Laren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Mr. Tipping.
Mr. Winterbotham.
Postponed Clause 7, agreed to.
Noes, 7.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Mellor.
Sir John Ramsden.
New Clauses brought up, read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause:—“The provisions of this Act shall not extend to the payment of the costs,
charges or expenses incurred in the promotion of a Bill for the compulsory purchase of
the undertaking of any Company which has not during the same Session made application
to Parliament for an extension or amendment of the powers conferred by its special Act”
—(Sir M. Beach)—read a first and second time.—Question put, That this Clause be added
to the Bill.—The Committee divided:
Ayes, 8.
Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Cawley. !
Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Neville-Grenville.
Mr, Mellor.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Tipping.
Noes, 8.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr, M*Laren.
Mr, Mundella.
Mr. Hinde-Palmer.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Winterbotham.
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.
Preamble amended, and agreed to.
Title amended.
Ordered, To Report the Bill as amended to the House, together with the Minutes of
Evidence, and Appendix.
177.
b 4
[ xvi
LIST OF W IT N E S S E S.
Friday, 19th April 1872.
PAGE.-
Mr. Thomas Moore and Mr. John Yeomans tº wº * * iº tº gº - 1
Monday, 22nd April 1872.
Mr. Ralph Blakelock Smith - - - - - - - - - 20
Wednesday, 24th April 1872.
Mr. James David Marwick - º ſº wº tºº ſº tºº $º º - 42.
Mr. Peter Miller tº * tº tº tº tºp sº tº * sº tº - 54
Mr. James Watt tº tº tº º tº tºº gº º mº º tºº – 62
- - - - - - - - - 64
Mr. Joseph Dawson Wormald
M I N U T E S () F E W I D E N C E.
Friday, 19th April 1872.
MEMBERS
Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Colonel Beresford.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Gregory,
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Howard.
PRESENT :
Mr. Hibbert.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Mellor.
Mr. McLaren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Neville Grenville.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr.Frederick Stanley.
MR. HIBBERT IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. THOMAS MooRE and Mr. John YEOMANs, called in ; and Examined.
1. Chairman (to Mr. Moore).] YoU are the
Mayor of Sheffield 2–Yes.
2. (To Mr. Yeomans.) You are the Town
Clerk of Sheffield 2–Yes.
3. (To Mr. Moore.) How long have you been
in office?—This is my fourth year.
4. You were in office when the Sheffield
Corporation applied to Parliament for the Water
Works Bill ?—Yes; I was in office when they
applied for a Bill to take the waterworks, and
two Bills for the gas. That was in 1870. One
Bill was to purchase the waterworks and another
to purchase the gasworks, and another to make
new works.
5. Will you state briefly the reasons why the
corporation applied to Parliament to purchase
the water company’s works?—At that time
the water company laid before the justices, ac-
cording to their Act of Parliament, certain regu-
lations between them and the water consumers.
Those regulations were heard for 13 days before
the justices. The corporation opposed them be-
cause they considered them very restrictive and
unjust, and very unreasonable to their customers.
During the hearing of those regulations before
the justices, the very day before the last day the
company could give notice to apply for a Bill. I
remember it well; Saturday was the last day
they could give notice, and on the Friday even-
ing, about four o’clock, it came to my knowledge
that they were going to apply for a Bill, and in
that Bill they almost literally put in the regula-
tions they proposed, which we considered unjust
before the justices, and sought to get rid of many
of their obligations; for instance, they wanted to
put off the constant supply until 1876.
6. When should the constant supply have been
given 2–In 1869.
0.84.
7. At what time 2—In July, I think, That Mr. T. Moore
Bill can be put in if you like.
and Mr.
8. I do not think it is necessary 2—I made a J. Yeomans.
statement that the regulations they proposed in
that Bill were almost identical with those pro-
posed in the first instance before the justices, and
that would bear me out. The Bill can be com-
pared with the regulations proposed in the first
instance which we thought unjust.
9. What were the regulations to which you
objected 2–As to the fittings chiefly.
10. What regulations did they propose as to
the fittings? — They proposed certain sized
ferules, very small ferules, not sufficient to give
what we considered a proper supply, and they
also proposed to do away with cisterns, and to
have the strength of the pipes from the cistern
the same strength and weight as they had to it
where there was no pressure ?'—Perhaps in some
cases there was 300 lbs. pressure on the supply
pipe and perhaps from two up to 10 lbs. from the
cistern ?—These were some of the regulations;
but here is a copy.
11. Mr. Mellor.] Were those lead pipes?—
Yes.
12. And on account of the price you objected 2
—On account of the cost.
13. Chairman.] As they were proposing to do
away with cisterns, were all these regulations
made with the intention of carrying out a con-
stant supply 2 – Yes; they professed so, and
then another part of the regulations was to com-
pel us to alter every water-closet. They got
these powers in 1860 by their Act of Parliament,
and they connived at or allowed their customers
to fix water-closets and their fittings; and then
in 1869, they say, “We will have all these
altered.” We considered, and so did their cus-
A. tomers,
19 April
1872.
2 MIN UTES OF
SELECT COMMITTEE
EVIDENCE TAKEN IBEFORE
Mr.T. Moore tomers, that the course they had taken was very
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
harsh and unjust, and the plumbers and engineers
who supported the corporation made their calcu-
lation, and they stated that it would cost the
consumers 150,000 l. if their regulations were
carried out as they first proposed them.
14. What was the date when you opposed
these regulations before the magistrates ?– Before
the justices; in 1869.
15. What time?—I think we began in Septem-
ber, and it finished about December. There were
several adjournments, I think.
16. Did the corporation oppose these regus
lations because you considered that they would
be injurious to the inhabitants of Sheffield 7–
Certainly. That was the object. They con-
sidered themselves the conservators, and pro-
tectors of the inhabitants in that respect. Be-
sides, I think we were a party to the Bill in some
way or other.
17. What was the result of this application to
the magistrates and your opposition ?—With very
few exceptions our propositions were confirmed.
We made a counter-proposition. Here are their
propositions in the first column, and ours in the
second ; and then the regulations as granted by
the justices (handing the same). You will find
them there in four columns.
18. Will you state some of the leading points 2
—The company wished them to have retrospec-
tive action; I think I have stated the principal
part of them ; they were unreasonable, and cal-
culated to cause great and unnecessary expense.
19. You made certain objections to the regu-
lations, and then you say that with few exceptions
your propositions were confirmed by the magis-
trates?—Yes.
20. Can you mame any of those points?—The
first regulation was absolutely disallowed.
21. What was that ?—I do not know whether
you will think me tedious if I read it.
22. Just name one or two 7–That was with
respect to the ferule. By the Water Works
Clauses, the general Act, it ought to be a half-
inch ferule, and they wanted what they call a P
ferule; that is about three-sixteenths of an inch ;
and we objected to that.
23. Your objection was allowed by the magis-
trate – Absolutely.
24. With respect to cisterns, they proposed to
abolish the cisterns 2 — Yes. In that case, I
think, wherever they could prove a leakage, with
six months’ motice, the magistrates allowed that,
and I think a good many of those cisterns have
been done away with ; and that is a great hard-
ship. Many have been erected since they got
their Act of Parliament.
25. You objected to the alteration which they
proposed, of the waterclosets; did the magistrates
allow that ? – They wanted to have power to
compel every one to alter, and they got the
power to compel us to alter if we re-arranged or
removed a watercloset, but generally not to alter
existing arrangements until they became defec-
tive.
26. As I understand, the magistrates allowed
most of your objections?—Yes.
27. I want to know whether the magistrates
allowed your objections to apply to both the
retrospective and prospective works?—Yes, in
some cases. I think your point is the water-
closets.
28. No ; I want to know whether your reply,
saying that they allowed your objections in the
retrospective cases, applies merely to the water-
closets or the other matters which you mentioned
before?—I think in some others.
29. Had your reply about allowing it retro-
spectively, reference merely to the waterclosets
or to all the other points P – To all. Their
object was to take it entirely retrospective, and
if they had got their regulations to that extent,
it would have cost their consumers 150,000 l.
30. I understand you to say, that the magis-
trates allowed your objections to be confirmed
with respect to the alterations which they pro-
posed in all waterclosets and cisterns, and other
matters that were then in existence?--No ; they
did not allow them to make or alter them, except
we were renewing. It was prospective. I will
illustrate that; I have just altered my house;
altered the watercloset; and they made me
comply with the regulations. But unless you
renew your watercloset they cannot compel you.
31. Mr. Mundella.] The changes affect the
the future, not the past?—Yes, except cisterns.
When they find underground cisterns leaking,
they can give six months’ notice, and make them
do away with them entirely.
32. Chairman.] You went to considerable
expense, I presume, in opposing these regula-
tions before the magistrates?—The cost to us
was 1,500 l. We were heard 13 days by counsel;
at least both sides. I am stating it in round
numbers; we were represented by counsel on
each side, and engineers. They had two Queen's
Counsel, I think, opposed to us; Mr. Pollock
and Mr. Pope.
33. What took place, then, after this; did the
corporation make an application to the water-
works company to give a constant supply 2–
Yes; we gave them notice before the regulations
Call) (2 OI).
34. Mr. Cawley.] The notice was given under
the Act of Parliament, and the regulations were
a consequence of the notice, were they not ?—
The regulations ought to have been made in 1860.
35. After you gave them notice for the con-
stant supply, in order to prepare for it, they
pººl the regulations under their own Act 2
— J. G.S.
36. Chairman.] I notice that in the objections
made on behalf of the Sheffield Waterworks
Company in this Bill, they state that the justices
allowed the regulations substantially as made by
the company ?—You have a literal copy of their
propositions, and of our propositions, and what
the justices allowed; and I believe that will
bear me out.
37. Is it the case that the justices allowed
these regulations to be enforced prospectively,
but not retrospectively 2–Not retrospectively;
and that was one of our great objections to the
regulations.
38. Upon those grounds you say the justices
confirmed your objections to a considerable ex-
tent 2—We were perfectly satisfied with them.
The corporation could have no wish to waste
water. It is a waste of capital. We did not
want to do an injustice to the water company by
any means.
39. Did the company commence to give a
constant supply P – Yes; and it lasted one
month.
40. That was in the year 1869?–In the year
1869.
41. Why did they discontinue the constant
supply 2–Because of the non-completion of the
works.
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 3
works. . The works were not completed accord-
ing to the Act of Parliament. If they had con-
structed the works as they ought to have done,
they would have been able to give us a better
supply.
42. Did they give any reason for discontinuing
it to you, as a corporation?—I am sure I do not
remember. The reason was they had not the
water. They had not sufficient storage, and
they had not the water. We have been several
times within a few days of being destitute en-
tirely of water.
43. When the company discontinued the con-
stant supply, what action did the corporation
then take 2–When they had not the water it
would have been very wrong in the corporation
to take any action. We did not take any. It
was proper that the water should be husbanded
and made as much of as possible.
44. Did the company take any action in the
autumn of 1869 —They brought forward their
regulations.
45. But after these regulations were allowed
by the justices, what action did the company
then take 2—They gave notice of a Bill in Par-
liament to get rid of their obligations in a
measure, pending the decision of the justices.
46. I understood you to say the corporation
took no action ?—Not until the Water Company
took action in promoting a Bill to get rid of their
obligations.
47. The company gave notice to bring in a
Bill f—Yes.
48. What did they propose in that Bill?—They
proposed almost literally the regulations they
had proposed before the justices, and they also
proposed to postpone the constant supply until
1876, and to get rid of constructing some of the
works, and to postpone the period of constructing
others until 1882.
49. Did the corporation then consider the pro-
posal of this Bill?—Not before we gave notice,
because we were driven to a few hours, but after-
wards we did.
50. When you gave notice for the corporation
Bill, did you know what the company were pro-
posing to do in their Bill?—Only by the adver-
tisement.
51. By seeing their advertisement 2–Well, I
cannot say that ; we got to know that they were
going to advertise. On the Friday evening we
learned by some means or other that they were
going to advertise the following day, and that
was the last day they could legally advertise, so
that we had to send a special messenger to Lon-
don to get it in the “Gazette.”
52. To get your notice —To get a counter
notice in the “ Gazette.”
53. Really, when you gave your notice, you
had not seen their notice 2–No, we simply knew
that they were going to promote a Bill; we did
not know what the Bill would be.
54. Did the corporation bring before the town
council, or before the ratepayers, any notice to
oppose the company’s Bill; did they call a public
meeting 2—I had better explain; in the first in-
stance there was no chance of consulting them if
we must give a notice, and I took the responsi-
bility. After the notice was published, I brought
it before the town council, and I can read you
the resolution if you like: “It was resolved that
this committee, having thoroughly considered
the position of the town with relation to the water
company, and the very unsatisfactory character
0.84.
of the º future arrangements of the com-
pany, and especially the notice respecting the
proposed new Bill of the company, which seeks
to relieve the company of the obligation to give
a constant supply of water, upon which under-
standing the Act of 1864 giving the company
power to charge an increased rate was obtained,
feels compelled, for the protection of the bur-
gesses, to recommend the council to apply at
once to Parliament for powers to purchase the
works of the company, and to obtain the control
of the water supply of the town of Sheffield, and
hereby confirms all such steps as may have been
already taken by the town clerk for the purposes
aforesaid.” i
55. Was that resolution passed by the Town
Council 7–By a committee, in the first instance.
56. A committee of the Town Council, I pre-
Sume you mean?—There was a water com-
mittee.
57. Does that mean a committee of the Town
Council 2–Yes.
58. And that committee passed the resolution
which you have just read 2–Yes.
59. After that was there a special meeting, or
a meeting of the Town Council, to consider that
recommendation ?–Yes; I think it was brought
on at the ordinary meeting.
60. Did they pass a similar resolution ?—Yes;
this was confirmed.
61. Was there any opposition to it 2–Yes;
we have shareholders and people interested in
the water.
62. Can you state by what majority that
resolution was passed ?–I can state this ; there
were only 14 members of the council who ever
opposed anything of the kind, and the council
was composed then of 56 members.
63. After that was there a public meeting
called 2–Yes.
64. What took place at that meeting 2—There
was a very large meeting, and I think at that
meeting there were only two hands held up
against it. I convened the meeting from a re-
quest presented to me, and it was a very large
meeting indeed. There were only two hands
held up against the action of the council. There
were more than 3,000 people, and only two hands
were held up against our action.
65. Was there more than one public meeting
to consider the Bill ?—I think not.
66. What was the notice which was given
when the public meeting was called ; was it for
the purpose of opposing the company’s Bill, or
for the purpose of promoting your own Bill ?—
To get the sanction of the ratepayers to endorse
the action of the Town Council with respect to
the Bill, and to oppose the company’s Bill.
67. It included both 2–Yes.
68. Was there a petition read and carried at
that meeting in favour of opposing the Water
Company’s Bill 2–I think not a petition, it was
a resolution. (Mr. Yeomans.) And a petition
to O,
69. (To Mr. Moore.) Do you remember what
the resolution was that was carried; before you
read it will you state the date of the public
meeting 2—17th February 1870. “That this
meeting, having regard to the position of the
town with relation to the Water Company, and
the very unsatisfactory nature of the past and
proposed arrangements of the company, and
especially the proposed Bill, which seeks to re-
lieve the company of the obligation to give a
A 2 Constant
Mr.T. Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
l 9 April
1872.
4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.T.Moore constant supply of water, which the Act of 1864,
and Mr.
9. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
giving the companies powers to charge a largely
increased rate, requires, feels compelled, for the
protection of the town, to oppose the Bill pro-
moted by the company, and to support the Bill
promoted by the corporation of Sheffield.”
70. The corporation proceeded with their Bill?
—Until the Water Company withdrew theirs.
71. When did the Water Company withdraw
their Bill ?—I think it was about the 16th of
March; some time in March.
72. Then the corporation withdrew their Bill?
—Yes; after a meeting to consider their position.
73. That resolution was passed by the town
council 7–It was passed first by the committee,
“That the Water Company, having withdrawn
their Bill to be relieved from the obligation to give
a constant supply of water; and to extend the
period for the completion of their works, this
Committee is of opinion that it is not desirable
to proceed with the Bill for the purchase of the
waterworks now being promoted by the corpo-
ration.”
74. Was that resolution confirmed by the town
council 7–It was; that would be in April, I
think.
75. And then the Bill was withdrawn 2–Then
the Bill was withdrawn.
76. Can you state to the Committee what was
the expense of the corporation in opposing the
company’s Bill and promoting their own Bill, on
the occasion to which you have just alluded ?–I
think altogether it amounted to 4,113 l.
77. Does that include the 1,500 l. paid before
the magistrates with respect to the regulations?
—No ; it was in addition to that.
79. Were those expenses audited by the audi-
tor of the corporation ?—No ; they have not been
audited for this reason: we are in debt, and were
afraid of interfering with our creditors. If we
begin to audit and pull off, they will expect us to
pay, and we have no funds to pay.
79. Were they ever passed by the committee
or by the town council 7–No, they have not
been. Our creditors have behaved remarkably
well to us, and we wish to keep quiet.
80. You say your creditors have been very kind
to you; I suppose these amounts are still um-
aid –Yes; in a great measure. I think there
is 1,000 l. paid towards the opposition of the
water, but then we thought we could legally pay
it; and we were advised by Mr. Manisty that
we could pay any expenses incurred in opposing
the Water Company’s Bill, and we did pay 1,000/.
towards the opposition. The company prevented
us from paying it out of the rates by taking out
an injunction.
81. From what source have you paid the
1,000 / ; I presume it was from private sources 2
—No, it was for the opposition. We were ad-
vised by Mr. Manisty that we could legally pay
both the expenses incurred in opposing the regu-
lations and in opposing any Bill in Parliament;
but, to our regret, we learned afterwards, by a
writ of certiorari, that we had not that power,
and I think this week or next they are applying
to quash the orders. They are still pursuing it.
82. Did the Water Company take proceedings
against you to restrain you from paying these
expenses?–Yes.
83. What did they do in the first instance 2–
By injunction.
84. What was their next proceeding 2—We
paid the 1,000 l. that I named, and the 1,500 l.
for the regulations, and then they took out a
writ of certiorari, and brought us before the
Queen's Bench.
85. When was judgment given 2–Judgment
was given some time last summer. -
86. In June 1871 2––June 10th, 1871. I have
a copy of the judgment. (The same was handed
in, see Appendia.)
87. Before you took these proceedings, either
for opposing the regulations before the magis-
trates or before the other proceedings with
respect to the Bills, had you been led to believe
that you could properly expend the money of the
Corporation for those purposes?—Yes; we un-
derstood that it was legal to spend money in
opposition, but not in promoting Bills; and I
believe that was the first case on record where
steps were taken to prevent any one paying
*y out of their borough funds to oppose any
111.
88. Then when you promoted this Bill you
knew that if you were unsuccessful you probably
might have to find the money yourselves
for promoting the Bill?—Yes, we were perfectly
aware of that.
89. Chairman (to Mr. Yeomans).] I suppose,
as town clerk, you prepared this case when the
proceedings were taken against you?—Yes, I
did.
90. Can you state to the Committee the prin-
cipal points which were raised in the judgment
which has just been put in 2–The corporation
were advised that they had such an interest in
the matter that they were justified in opposing
the company’s Bill. When the water company
took out the writ of certiorari against the cor-
poration it involved the necessity of the corpo-
ration appearing in the Court of Queen's Bench,
and they appeared there by counsel, and argued
that the corporation had such an interest on
behalf of themselves, as owners of property,
and the public benefit of the inhabitants, that
they were justified in protecting the bur-
gesses. The Court of Queen's Bench thought,
according to the construction of the 92nd section
of the Municipal Corporations Act, that the
words were not sufficiently extensive to enable
the corporations to do that, and they expressed
their regret that such was the case. They
thought it was a laudable proceeding on behalf
of the corporation to take care that the town
was supplied well with water.
91. Was that the opinion of the Lord Chief
Justice?—It was.
92. Did the other judges agree in that deci-
sion ?—Yes, they did more or less; substantially.
93. In addition to the words you have stated
which the Lord Chief Justice used, that the
corporation were actuated by the laudable desire
to protect the true interests of the borough, and
to prevent the water company from frustrating a
very important sanitary provision, did he use
other words, saying that he wished he could
protect the corporation against the expenses
which must now fall on the individual members ?
—He did.
94. And that it was impossible to strain the
words of the Act of Parliament to that extent?
—That is so, looking at the words of the 92nd
section of the Municipal Corporations Act.
95. With respect to the 1,500 l. for the cost of
opposing the regulations before the magistrates,
has that money been paid –It has been paid;
and
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 5
and that item was passed by the water committee
of the town council.
96. And by the auditor 2–Audited by them,
and afterwards passed by the auditors.
97. By your own auditor 2–Yes, by the au-
ditors on behalf of the burgesses.
98. Has that to be refunded under this de-
cision ?–That is a most difficult question of law.
It is impossible to say how the Court of Queen's
Bench will deal with it. I believe the Court of
Queen's Bench will quash the orders made by
the municipal corporation.
99. Will that apply also to the thousand pounds
which has been paid out of the other 4,100 l. 2–
Yes, that will be placed on the same footing.
100. Do these words appear in the 92nd sec-
tion of the Municipal Corporations Act: “And
all other expenses not herein otherwise provided
for which shall be necessarily incurred in carry-
ing into effect the provisions of this Act, and in
case the borough fund shall be more than suffi-
cient for the purpose aforesaid, the surplus
thereof shall be applied under the direction of
the council for the public benefit of the inhabi-
º and the improvement of the borough **—
€S.
101. Were those the words under which you
presumed you had power to pay this money 3–
Yes; and also the words which were placed in
the Acts of Parliament of the Sheffield Water-
works Company, which expressly state that the
constant supply to the borough shall be given at
the request of the town council of the borough
of Sheffield.
102. And did you advise the town council that
in promoting your own Bill and opposing the
other Bill, you were doing it for the public
benefit of the inhabitants and the improvement
of the borough 2–Yes, we were advised so. I
did not express those words to them, but the
corporation regarded that duty placed upon them
for the public benefit of the burgesses of Shef-
field. The town had suffered very much for
many years for want of water, in its commercial
as well as sanitary arrangements.
103. Had there been any complaint on the
part of the ratepayers with respect to the defi-
cient supply of water –Many complaints.
104. Made to the corporation?–Made to the
corporation. The corporation had an inquiry
taken upon the matter, and there was a great
loss of wages to the working classes; 1,500 l. a
week.
105. In what way ?—In consequence of the
stoppage of the machinery in the works of the
to WI).
106. From the deficient supply of water 2—
Yes.
107. Do the mills principally take their supply
of water from the water company ?—A very con-
siderable number do.
108. Was this year, in which the supply was *
so deficient, a year of drought?—Yes, it was an
exceedingly dry year.
109. What year was it?—I think it was 1865
and 1866.
110. What was the year 1869; was that a
year of drought?—I do not think it was so par-
ticular in that year, if I remember right.
111. Has there been a general deficiency in
the supply of water at Sheffield up to this time;
up to the year 1869?—Yes.
112. Had there been a deficiency for some
years past, or only some particular year !--There
9.84,
had been a deficiency for some years past. The
company had never been able to keep up to their
statutory obligation to the town.
113. After the bursting of the reservoir, did
the company obtain a new Act 2—They did.
114. Did it give them some additional powers
for additional charges —Yes; it gave them an
increase of 25 per cent. for 25 years.
115. And on what grounds did thay obtain
that additional increase?—They obtained it on
the grounds that they admitted their liability to
all damages, and that they could not give that
supply of water to the town unless they had an
increase of rates and paid the damages, and they
could not pay the damages which had been in-
curred and construct their reservoirs so as to
give a supply of water to the town unless they
had that increase.
116. In what year was that Act obtained ?—
In 1864.
117. There was nothing, then, in seeking to
obtain powers for these additional charges;
nothing with respect to giving any additional
supply of water, or constant supply?—Yes, there
was; the condition of obtaining that increase of
charge and to make additional rates was, that
they should proceed with their works. They
had obtained their Act in 1853 to make their
reservoirs, and the Committee said they had not
proceeded with that diligence which they ought
to have done, and they also said, “We shall
put you under an obligation, that if you do not
give a constant supply in five years from the
passing of that Act and complete your reservoir
in another certain time, your dividends shall be
suspended.”
118. Have you got that clause ; can you refer
to it?—I have the Act with me. They were
under an obligation by their previous Acts to
give a constant supply, and the time was ex-
tended. I will read the clause: “ Section 84
of the Company’s Act of 1853 is hereby repealed,
and in lieu thereof the following provision shall
take effect, namely, the water supplied by the
company need not be constantly laid on under
pressure in other pipes than the main pipes of
the company until the expiration of five years
from the passing of this Act, and then only if
required by the council of the borough of Shef-
field.” Then the following section applied: “If
before the 14th day of June 1873, the whole of
the works specified in the Company’s Act 1853,
or in any previous Acts, not being the extension
of mains or pipes, are not completed, or if the
company fail to perform the obligation imposed
upon the company by the preceding section
within the period of five years thereby limited ”
(that being the expiration of the time for giving
the constant supply), “it shall not be lawful for
the company or the directors thereof to pay any
dividends on the ordinary capital of the company
until such works are completed or obligation
performed, as the case may be.” They were
placed under an obligation to give a constant
supply as one of the considerations for obtaining
the increase of 25 per cent.
119. The mayor has stated that you gave
notice to them to give that constant supply; I
presume that notice was given under the powers
of the clause which you read?—Yes; the com-
pany and the burgesses and also Parliament
looked upon the Corporation of Sheffield as the
guardians of the public interest.
120. Sir M. H. Beach (to Mr. Moore).] I
A 3 presume
Mr.T.Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.T.Moore presume you are acquainted with the retro-
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
spective provisions of the Municipal Corporations
Bill ? –Yes.
121. Supposing the clause containing those
provisions to become law, what is the total sum
to which the ratepayers of Sheffield would be-
come liable –The total sum is something like
14,000 l. in round numbers.
122. Can you give me the items of which that
sum is composed, beginning from the commence-
ment?—Yes; we spent on the Water Bill and
opposition 4,113 l.
123. Mr. Mundella.] Did you spend money in
1869 —That was the regulations.
124. Is that included in that sum ?—No ; in
1869 we were before the justices with the regu-
lations, We spent 1,500 l.
125. Sir M. H. Beach..] If you add that 1,500 l.
to 14,000 l. that makes something more than
15,500 l. 2—No ; I will tell you what the 14,000 l.
is composed of. It is composed of these round sums:
4,113 l. for the Water Bill and opposition; and
then, in connection with gas, it was 6,065.l. 2 s. 3d. ;
the regulations cost us 1,500 l. Then the writ
of certiorari I estimate at about 1,000 l., and our
Bill that we promoted this year will cost us
another 1,000 l. Those five items will amount to
something like 14,000 l. nearly.
126. Was not there a Bill in 1871 –There
was an Improvement Bill in 1871.
127. Have you included them in that total?—
No ; it was in 1870 we had three Bills. -*
128. Was not there a Bill in 1871 —That was
an Improvement Bili.
129. Did not the Improvement Bill contain
clauses empowering you to pay the Parliamentary
expenses prohibited by the injunction ?—The
draft did.
130. And to enable you to pay the future
Parliamentary expenses?—It did. We, for peace,
compromised it thus: a kind of mutual friend of
the corporation and the company came to us and
said, “Now your Bill will pass; there will be no
opposition to it if you strike out these two
clauses; ” and we foolishly did do so. We were
too credulous.
131. Was that Bill opposed for any other
reason except that it contained those clauses 2–
Yes, it must have been, because we struck out a
great number of clauses to avoid opposition.
132. Mr. Carter.] But on any other clauses 2
—Yes, it was opposed on many clauses; on a
great number.
133. Sir M. H. Beach..] What was the cost
of that Bill?—I am sure I do not know what the
cost of that would be. The town clerk thinks
about 3,000 l. ; I am not prepared to say,
exactly.
134. But that Bill was passed last Session;
do you mean that you cannot accurately state
what was the cost of proceedings which happened
a year ago?—I have not it on my mind ; I was
not prepared.
135. (To Mr. Yeomans.) Cannot you give us
that information ?—It was estimated at about
3,000 l.
136. How long does the Corporation of Shef-
field take to settle their Bills?—It depends upon
whether there is legal power.
137. (To Mr. Moore.) Did the Improvement
Bill contain a clause enabling you to pay the
expenses of passing that Bill 2–Yes, the usual
clause.
138. Therefore, as regards the expenses of
passing that Bill, they do not come under the
head of expenses to be imposed upon the rate-
payers, under the fifth clause of this Municipal
Corporation Bill ?—No.
139. Then turning to the items which you
have given me, perhaps I had better first begin
with the item of 1,500 l., the cost of the opposi-
tion before the justices; I think you told us that
that item was audited 2–Yes; I was one of the
water committee of the town council.
140. Have you a professional auditor 2–Yes,
a borough auditor.
¥. Is he a professional man; an accountant?
- E. 63S.,
142. By whom is he appointed 2 – By the
council, I think.
143. Mr. Carter.] He is your borough trea-
surer, is he not ?–No ; the mayor appoints one,
and the burgesses appoint two auditors.
144. You have not, as a corporation, a pro-
fessional auditor ; you have borough auditors
appointed by the ratepayers, and an auditor ap-
pointed by the mayor, but you have no profes-
sional auditor? — But they are professional
auditors; they are accountants.
145. Mr. Mundella (to Mr. Yeomans).] Are
these three gentlemen accountants or not ?—It
so happens that two of them were accountants,
but they are not obliged by law to be ac-
COuntants.
146. Two are appointed by the burgesses and
One by the mayor; is that so 2–That is so.
147. Sir M. H. Beach (to Mr. Moore).] This
item of 1,500 l. was audited by these three gen-
tlemen, one of them being yourself?—No ; in
the first instance the water committee of the
Town Council investigated the accounts that
came in, in connection with the regulations.
There was a sub-committee appointed to go
through the accounts, and to see whether the
charges were correct or not, and in case of
excess we tried to get some reduction; after
that they were passed and came in the ordinary
way into our books, and were confirmed by the
Council, and were audited by the regular auditors.
148. Have they been so audited by those
regular auditors 7–Yes; everything is audited
yearly.
149. I understand that that special item of
1,500 l. has been audited by the regular audi-
tors 2–In the ordinary way, and passed by the
council.
150. I turn to the next item, the two items of
2,716 l. 16 s. 2d. and 1,396 l. odd for the opposi-
tion to the Water Bill of 1870; have those items
been passed by your regular auditor 2–No ; they
have not been paid. I wish they had ; that is
our difficulty ; 1,000 l. has been paid on account
of them.
151. Can you tell me whether the Bill, in
opposition to which that expenditure was in-
curred, ever came before a Committee of either
House 7–I do not understand your question;
do you mean the Water Bill that we pro-
moted.
152. I understand you to tell me that you
incurred the expenditure of 2,716 l. and 1,396 l.
in opposition to the Bill promoted by the water
company in 1870 ?—No ; in promoting and op-
posing. In promotion of a Bill of our own to
purchase them, and the opposition to their Bill.
153. That includes both promotion and oppo-
sition ?—Yes.
154. Can you tell me if either of the Bills, one
of
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONs (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 7
of which you promoted, and the other of which
you opposed, ever came before a Committee of
either House? — No ; the company withdrew
theirs, and the corporation thought they had gone
far enough to answer their purpose, and they
withdrew theirs too.
155. How was it you incurred such very large
expenditure in opposition to Bills, which were
never considered in Committee 2–You know
better than I do the expense of agents and
solicitors, and the fees of this House, and there
is 1,396 ſ. put down for witnesses for prepara-
tion.
156, Who were those witnesses 2–Sir Joseph
Heron, town clerk of Manchester; George
Ramsden; Joseph Beadle, C.E., London; M. B.
Jackson, C. E.; Holmes, and Johnson; John
Hawkshaw, civil engineer; Mr. Booth, civil en-
gineer; George Padley, T. H. Berry, Man-
chester; Lawson & Mansergh, civil engineers;
Mr. McGowan, town clerk of Bradford; Mr.
T. B. Foster, C.E., and others.
157. Is the mass of that engineering evidence 2
—Yes; the expensive part of it is.
158. And the money paid, I suppose, was
given in the light of a retainer 2–Money was
not paid to the witnesses, I am sorry to say ; I
wish it was. The Committee will understand
that witnesses cannot come here without prepa-
ration ; they spend many days at home and in
their offices preparing themselves, and they charge
us for that. The expenses of the witnesses would
have been very trifling. If we had come here a
day or two there would only have been the two
or three days’ expenses; the preparation is the
greatest cost.
159. Of what items is that 2,716 l. composed ?
—The fees of this House.
160. How much are they –I am sure I can-
not tell you. I have not the bill; it includes
Parliamentary agents, solicitors, and counsel.
161. Mr. Mundella (to Mr. Yeomans).] What
counsel did you retain 2–Mr. Denison, Mr.
Venables, Serjeant Atkinson, Mr. Bidder, and
Mr. Blackburn. -
162. Sir M. H. Beach (to Mr. Moore).] The
next item you mentioned was one of 6,065 l, in
opposition as I understand to the Gas Company’s
Bill ?—No, not in opposition. We promoted two
Bills, one to purchase and the other to erect new
works. It was an alternative.
163. Did those Bills come before a Com-
mittee ?—Yes.
164. What happened to them —We failed to
prove the preamble.
165. Is it a fact that those Bills were thrown
out without the Committee calling for the case of
the Gas Company ?—It is.
166. Upon those Bills rejected in such a way,
you spent the sum of 6,065 l. 2 –- Yes; it is
quite as expensive to some to be rejected as to
succeed.
167. To whom is that money owing 2—It will
be owing to the agents, and counsel, and Parlia-
mentary solicitors and witnesses, and all that kind
of thing.
168. Counsel at any rate are paid at the time 2
—No, they are not. -
169. And they are not paid yet 2—No, not in
this case. The counsel sympathise with us very
much. We sent one of them a cheque for 200 l.,
and he sent it back to us again.
170. Of course that item of 6,065 l. has not
been audited either ?—No.
0.84.
171. I understand that the two items of Mr.T.Moore
1,000 l. each relating to costs incurred for the
Bill to the present Session and the costs of the
certiorari are mere estimates ?—Yes.
172. They might double that sum ?—No, that
is impossible. I will guarantee them for that
money, and take the difference,
173. Was there any discrepancy between the
statements made by the finance committee of
the town council and the town clerk as to the
cost of opposing the Water Company's Bill of
1870 ?—I think not. I do not think the town
clerk ever did make a statement. I do not re-
member that he made a public statement ; if he
did he never made a statement except from esti-
mate. I do not think the town clerk ever said
anything at all about the account after he got
the Bills in ; only before he got them in.
174. Before he got them in he made an esti-
mate 2–Yes.
175. Is it the fact, that before he got the
accounts, he estimated them at 1,429 l. 2–No,
nothing like that ; and then his estimate
only went to the extent of the water and the
gas, because the regulations were defined; they
were settled, and the last two items, of course,
did not come into his consideration when he
made the estimate. I made an estimate myself,
and I can tell you what the estimate was. I
estimated the expenses in connection with water
would be something like 3,000 l., and l thought
the expenses in connection with the gas might
be 3,500 l. ; that was my estimate.
176. (To Mr. Yeomans.) Did you ever make
any estimate of these costs?—I did.
177. Can you tell me what it amounted to ?—
I believe it amounted to about 5,721 l. 5 s. 6 d.,
without the costs of opposition ; with the costs
of opposition it amounted to 7,151 l. 4 s. 9 d.
178. That was higher than the sum actually
incurred 2–I am not prepared to say ; it is
about the amount as regards these particular
Bills, the gas and the water, and the water oppo-
sition; I believe that is the figure it will result
at, about that ; it will be between 7,000 l. and
10,000 l. There has been 1,000 l. paid on ac-
COunt.
179. (To Mr. Moore.) Can you tell me what
expenditure the corporation have incurred pre-
viously to the year 1869, within your knowledge,
in opposition to Bills in Parliament?—No ; but
I have seen the statement put forward by the
Water Company and the Gas Company—I think
by the Water Company, I think that is pretty
correct with reference to the Bills brought for-
ward. Their coming forward for Bills so con-
stantly is very expensive and troublesome, and
we have to look after the public interests. They
have only been in existence about 42 years, and
have been here, I think, 14 times; that refers to
the Water Company only.
180. You referred to the Water Company in
1864; I think the corporation opposed that Bill,
did they not ?--Yes, they opposed it; but they
were not the only people that opposed it. They
opposed it on account of the 25 per cent. ; they
wanted 25 per cent. in perpetuity, and the cor-
poration got it limited to 25 years. There was
the ratepayers opposition as well.
181. Did the corporation also obtain the inser-
tion of the requisition for the constant supply, or
did the Water Company propose that themselves?
—I think they proposed a greater length of time.
I fancy they proposed to extend the completion
A 4 of
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEF ORE
SELECT COMIMITTEE
Mr.T. Moore
aud Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
of their work for 10 years. We got it limited
to five years, as the time for the constant supply
to COmmence.
182. Can you tell me what the opposition to
the Bill cost?— I think over 3,000 l.
183. Would the figures 3,436 l.be pretty nearly
correct?—I think so, as far I can remember.
184. Was that account audited by your regu-
lar auditors?—Yes; as all accounts are audited
when they go through the books.
185. Turning to the Gas Company; you have
opposed them, I think, more than once in Par-
liament, have you not ?—Yes; I think so. I do
not remember more than once.
186. Was there not an occasion in 1866 7—I
think so.
187. Do you know what the reason of the oppo-
sition to their Bill was at that time 2—Yes; we
wanted greater illuminating power, and we wanted
the cost of the gas reduced.
188. Did you obtain at that time what you
demanded ?—We increased the power, I think,
from 9 to 15 candles. We asked for 18.
189. If these figures are right, that opposition
only cost you 774 l. 2–I dare say it is right. I
believe those figures have been taken from the
corporation books.
190. Then, again, there was an occasion in
1870, was there not?—Eighteen hundred and
seventy was the two Bills.
191. What induced you to apply, in 1870, for
a Bill for the purchase of the Gas Company's
undertaking 7–Do you mean as a corporation ?
192. Yes?—I think these would be the rea-
sons: seeing that almost all large towns are in
possession of gas and waterworks, Sheffield being
almost the only large town that is without them,
and seeing also that this House had a tendency
to favour corporations, they thought it was a
proper thing to do. They did not see why Shef-
field should not have possession of gas and water
as well as other large cities and boroughs.
193. Had you any ground of complaint of the
proceedings of the Gas Company ?—I think the
general complaint is this: they can only make a
certain profit; they can only pay a dividend of
10 per cent. ; and their earnings are so extra-
ordinary that, before they will reduce the price
of gas, there is endless waste in those companies.
That is the great evil of gas companies; instead
of reducing the price of gas they waste the money
in plant, and in salaries, and in everythling of the
kind.
194. That is a general objection to gas com-
panies, is it not ?—Yes.
195. You had no particular fault to find with
the Sheffield Gas Company ?—The same fault.
196. Put no particular fault to find with them P
—No ; we considered they were wasting our
property, our money, by not reducing the price
of gas.
197. What was the price of gas at that time?
—I think 3 s. 3 d.
198. Are you aware whether that price com-
pares favourably or not with the charge at many
other places?—We had a list comparing all the
large towns, and it did not compare favourably.
199. Can you state any towns that were lower?
—I think there are a great number lower, but I
have not the list with me. I fancy Manchester
is considerably lower. There are a great number
much lower, but I have not the list with me.
200. Had you, before promoting this Bill for
the compuisory purchase of the gas works, made
overtures to the Gas Company for the purchase
of their undertaking 2—Yes; there was an offer
made.
201. What was the result of the negotiation;
was there much difference between you ?—They
made no counter offer. They would not enter-
tain it.
3. Mr. Mundella.] The offer came from you?
- C CS.
203. Sir M. H. Beach..] Are you aware of the
reasons which induced the Committee of Parlia-
ment before whom those Bills came to throw
your Bills out without calling for the evidence
of the company ?—I understood it was this: be-
cause there was no precedent. You must under-
stand the company was not in Parliament ask-
ing for extension of powers, therefore the Com-
mittee considered there was no precedent, and I
believe they threw the Bill out for that, but I
cannot see the justice of it. If it is right to
have gas works in a large town like ours, I think
it is right to take them without a precedent.
204. In fact you attacked the Company with-
out any movement on their part?—I do not call
it attacking.
205. In the same Session of 1870 you pro-
moted a Bill, of which you have already spoken,
for¥. compulsory purchase of the water works
– I eS.
206. Had you previously made any offer to
the Water Company for the purchase of their
works?—We did not do so because they objected
to call a public meeting. We asked them to call
a meeting of their shareholders, and they objected
to do so. That was as much as to say, “We will
have nothing to do with you; we will not enter-
tain any offer you may make us.”
207. With what object was the meeting of
shareholders called ?–They would not call one.
208. To be called ?–To try to arrange terms;
that is, to see whether the shareholders were
willing to sell, and, if so, we should have made
them an offer.
209. Mr. Cawley (to Mr. Yeomans).] With re-
gard to the opposition with respect to the fittings,
I should like you to give the Committee the
clause under which that proceeding is taken, the
clause authorising the making of the regulations?
—The clauses under which the magistrates had
power to make the regulations are clauses 6 and 7
of the Sheffield Water Works Act of 1860:
“The company from time to time may make
reasonable regulations for the purpose of pre-
venting the waste or misuses of water supplied
by them, including regulations prescribing the
nature, strength, size, and position of the pipes,
cocks, and other apparatus to be used, and regu-
lations interdicating the user of any pipes, works,
or other apparatus which might tend to such
waste or misuser. No such regulations which
shall be made by the said company as aforesaid
shall be valid or binding unless the same shall be
allowed by and under the hands of two or more
justices assembled at some petty sessions of the
peace in and for the said borough ; and it shall
be incumbent on such justices, on the request of
the said company, to examine into the regulations
which may be tendered to them for the purpose,
and to allow of or disallow or to modify, alter,
and vary the same or any of them as to them
may seem meet: Provided always, that no such
regulation shall be confirmed by such justices
unless a copy of such regulations and notice of
the company’s intention to apply for a con-
firmation
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL. 9
firmation of the same, and of the time when
such application is intended to be made shall
have been advertised in one or more news-
papers published in the said borough, one month
at least, but not more than six weeks, before the
hearing of such application; and any party ob-
jecting to or aggrieved by any such regulations,
and giving notice of the nature of the objection to
the said company 10 days before the hearing of
such application, may by himself, his attorney, or
agent, be heard hereon by the said justices:
Provided also, that for one month at least prior
to any such application for confirmation of such
regulations, a copy of such proposed regulations
shall be deposited at the office of the town clerk
of the borough ; and it shall be lawful for all
persons at all reasonable times to inspect such
copy without fee or reward, and to be furnished
by the said town clerk with a copy thereof, or of
any part thereof, on payment of 6 d. for every
100 words so to be copied ; and at, and imme-
diately prior to, the allowance or confirmation of
such regulations, evidence shall be adduced by
the company before such justices that notice of
such intention as aforesaid was duly given, and
that a copy of such proposed regulations had
been advertised and deposited as before directed;
and the production of the certificate signed by
such justices shall at all times be evidence that
the regulations therein mentioned or referred to
have been duly confirmed, without adducing
proof of the signature of such justices.” That is
in 1860.
210. Do you know whether or not that is the
first Act which has given that qualification to
the making of regulations; the approval of the
justices; whether or not those Acts did not, at
all events many of them, contain a power for the
company or corporation, as the case may be, to
make similar regulations?--Do you refer to the
public Act or the private Act.
211. All private Acts incorporate the public
Act; there is no public Act in the ordinary
sense of a public Act; the Waterworks Clauses
Act is only an Act applying to a place not incor-
porated?—Under the Waterworks Clauses Act
of 1847, which is generally incorporated in most
of the private Acts, there is power for a company
to inspect all the fittings of a consumer, and
under that Act they have power to object to any
fitting which is calculated to give waste; I am
not able to speak as regards every private Act
because I have not read every private Act, but
the Company’s Act of 1860 gave power to the
magistrates to make these regulations.
212. Do you know of any previous Act to that,
or any other Act, indeed, which limits the power
of the company in making regulations as to these
things?– Under the Waterworks Clauses Act
they had power, not to make regulations, but to
inspect all the fittings. Under this Act the
company had power to submit reasonable regu-
lations for confirmation by the magistrates.
With regard to any other private Acts I can-
not speak. I believe that in some cases they
may have been inserted; but Sheffield is almost
the only case where they had to be confirmed by
the magistrates by public inquiry.
213. I repeat my question; at all events, as a
matter of fact, do you know that in other cases,
whether the water is supplied by a private com-
pany or by the corporation, regulations affecting
the fittings are made under some authority or
other ?—I know the Board of Trade wrote down
0.84.
to me for the evidence taken before the Sheffield Mr.T.Moore
case, and I sent a copy of the printed evidence to
and Mr.
London. There was an inquiry going on with J. Yeomans.
regard to metropolitan waterworks upon this
question, and some inquiry took place before a
Committee of this House on that very question.
214. I am sorry I do not make myself under-
stood; I think you have in your hands the regu-
lations made by companies or corporations in
other places 2–Indeed I have not.
215. Were not a great number of them pro-
duced before the magistrates ?—Yes.
216. I am speaking of your previous know-
ledge?--I am aware that before the magistrates
at Sheffield you appeared also upon this question
as a witness for the company, and you did pro-
duce some documents of that kind.
217. Do you wish the Committee to under-
stand this, that you were ignorant of the fact, if
it be a fact, that in other places similar kind of
regulations are made by the companies or the
corporations?—I believe this
218. I do not want your belief; I want to know
as a fact –I am aware of this, that regulations
are made by companies, and I believe they are
made by companies without investigation before
a judicial tribunal; many of the regulations are
beyond the power which they have any lawful
right to make, and I believe that Sheffield is
the only borough where a full public inquiry had
taken place on this question.
219. I do not wish there to be any misunder-
standing; you spoke of my having given evidence
for the company ?—Yes, I believe so.
220. On certain of the regulations 2–Yes, I
believe that was so ; it was quite proper.
22]. (To Mr. Moore.) I want to get this
clear; you have stated that these regulations, as
altered by the magistrates, are not retrospective?
—No.
222. Are the Committee to understand by that
that all the fittings were allowed to remain ; that
those regulations were made in precisely the same
state that they were in previously —No ; I ex-
plained to the Committee that when a water-
closet was altered, the owner was obliged to
comply with the regulations, and I also explained
where an underground cistern was proved to be
leaky, it could be stopped with six months’
notice.
223. Can you tell the Committee what the
effect of the regulations being brought into
operation for six or twelve months has been on
the supply of water to Sheffield?—No ; but I
can tell you what the effect of their repairing
the rotten pipes has been.
224. I shall be glad if you will do that ?—
Together with some leakage of their customers'
pipes. It was stated at their annual meeting the
other day, that before they repaired their pipes
and those regulations came into operation, it cost
them 8,000,000 gallons a day to serve. Sheffield.
225. You mean that they consumed 8,000,000
gallons?—Yes; and now they state that 5,000,000
of gallons serve Sheffield. But then, when they
made the experiment, about the time they got
those regulations, they stated that 4,000,000
served them up to 12 o'clock at night; and from
12 o'clock at night to six in the morning there
was a waste of 3,000,000 gallons. Now it was
more from their imperfect pipes than anything
else.
226. Can you tell us where the imperfect pipes
were 2–Yes, in every street in Sheffield; their
B pipes
19 April
1872.
10
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.T. Moore
and Mr.
J Yeomans,
19 April
1872.
pipes now, if taken up, will fall to pieces, some
of them almost like limestone. I have seen some
of their pipes cut with a knife in the court; and
perhaps you did too.
227. No, I did not? — Then you were not
present that day.
228. I do not remember that; you said in
your evidence, in reference to that very point,
that the pipes outside the cistern were in many
cases subject to a pressure of 300 lbs. on the
inch 2–Outside; you know one of the reservoirs
is 600 odd feet above the supply.
229. That would be nearly 300 lbs. ; do you
wish the Committee to understand that the pipes
which were charged with water at 300 lbs. pres-
sure were pipes you could cut with a knife?—
Yes, some of them.
230. That a pipe you could cut with a knife
would bear a pressure of 300 lbs. a square inch P
—I say they have repaired them.
231. Are you able to tell the Committee with
regard to these regulations which you thought so
very oppressive retrospectively, the comparative
stringency of those regulations as compared with
those issued by the corporation of Manchester P
—No, I did not know there was any in Man-
chester. I know nothing about Manchester, I
can assure you.
232. My impression was that a gentleman whose
name you have read of as one of your intended
witnesses, Mr. Barry I was not present
when he was examined. I could not stop there
13 days. (Mr. Yeomans.) Mr. Berrey did not
appear on the regulations, (Mr. Moore.) No, that
was in the Water Bill.
233. (To Mr. Moore.) You stated, I think,
that there was a great loss in wages for want of a
water supply in 1864 and 1865?–I think it was
in 1865. It was a dry season; at least, it was a
dry season after the inundation. Mr. Jackson,
the chief constable, was instructed by the corpo.
ration to make inquiries.
234. (To Mr. Yeomans.) Will you tell the
Committee this ; was the company under any
obligation to supply a single drop of water for
trade purposes?—Yes, compulsorily.
235. Will you give us the clause, because it is
unusual 2–I believe the company themselves
admit that it is so. It is section 81 of the Act of
1853, “That in cases of schools, manufactories,
dyers, printers, bleachers, brewers, innkeepers,
livery stable keepers, alehouse keepers, aud other
persons requiring a supply of water for other
purposes than his or their own families' consump-
tion, or persons requiring a supply of water for
baths, ponds, or pools, or closets, or for washing
carriages, or for cows or horses, or for the pur-
poses of any trade or business whetsoever, such
supply shall be furnished by the said company at
and after the following rates.”
236. Mr. Carter.] Is there any condition that
domestic supply shall be satisfied before water is
granted for other purposes?—No.
237. Mr. Cawley (to Mr. Moore).] As to the
audit, I believe the audit of borough accounts is
simply an audit to see whether the actual figures
as given in the accounts correspond with the
vouchers?—I think it is so, as far as the auditors
are concerned.
238. I am not speaking of the power exercised
by the committee of the council at all ; but as
far as the auditors are concerned, they have no
voice in the matter?—Whether it is an extrava-
gant charge or a just one, no.
239. They merely see that the accounts corre-
spond with the vouchers?—Yes.
240. Mr. Mundella.] That is to say, that it
has been incurred and paid 7–Yes.
241. Mr. F. Stanley.] I understood you to
say that sums of 1,000 l. and 1,500 l. were paid
for these expenses under what appears now to
have been an error?—Yes.
242. You paid them under legal advice 2–
Yes, Mr. Manisty's.
243. From what fund?—The ordinary borough
funds.
244. Are there any other funds which come
under the control of the corporation ?—Unfor-
tunately we are a very poor corporation. We
have to depend upon the rates entirely; we have
no property. It is a new corporation.
245. Therefore the borough fund is the only
fund out of which you are able to pay these ex-
penses?—Yes.
246. Mr. Carter.] Have you any improve-
ment rates?—No. age -
247. When you got an Improvement Bill, did
not you pay the expenses of the Act of Parlia-
ment?—Yes.
248. Mr. F. Stanley.] Are these accounts
which you state to the Committee as those for
which the corporation is still liable, the amounts
as they are given to you, and have they been
subject to any taxation ?– No, they have not
yet. We were never in a position to ask any of
our creditors to tax the Bill, or to remit or to
say this is an exorbitant charge. If we did that,
they certainly would compel us to pay, and we
have nothing to pay with.
249. Do I understand you to say that you
have no power, or that you do not wish to go
into those proceedings at present on account of
the necessity of immediate payment?–Not hav-
ing any money they are very quiet, and we wish
to be quiet too.
250. May I ask whether these sums you have
named include all expenses to which the corpo-
ration is or will be liable on account of the pro-
ceedings which have been taken 2–As far as I
understand, yes.
251. May I ask you whether any steps have
ever been taken to ascertain whether these
liabilities do include all to which the corporation
would be subject?—I do not think any particular
steps, any further than these: our creditors
have been requested to send in their accounts,
nothing more.
252. In point of fact, the account of these
debts is, after all, not a complete one. You are
not able to say, with certainty, that it is a com-
plete one. I think it is the outside. I hope to
get a good per-centage taken off from sympathy.
253. Making every allowance for that estima-
ble feeling, I understand, as a matter of fact, at
present you neither do know whether these in-
clude all amounts, nor do you know to what tax-
ation they will be subject or likely to be subject?
—No, I do not know to what extent the taxation
will go, but I believe these to be the whole of
the accounts. You will understand that there
are two accounts estimated ; two of those items
are estimated.
254. Mr. Carter.] I understood you to say you
had no fund but the borough funds; have you not
an improvement fund?—No.
255. Out of what fund do you pay for your
street improvements; for sewerage and such im-
provements —The district rate.
256. Is
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
| 1
256. Is not that a rate, and is it not a fund
exclusively under the control of the corporation ?
—Yes, just the same as the borough fund.
257. And if it were an opposition in regard to
a town improvement, would not it come out of
an improvement rate, and not out of the borough
rate 2–We have no improvement rate. We
have no improvement Bill that includes anything
of the kind.
258. Did you promote a Bill last Session ?—
We did.
259. For what purpose ?–We called it an
Improvement Bill. It was a kind of codification
of the Local Government Act, and certain things
that we required specially for Sheffield.
260. Did you pay the expenses of that Bill
out of the borough fund?—Yes, I have said so.
There was the usual clause at the end of the Bill
empowering us to do so, and all that has been
paid towards the Bill has come out of the borough
fund. The town clerk wishes to correct me ; he
says that half of it came out of the borough fund,
and the other half out of the district rate.
261. Was the principal reason that induced
you to oppose the regulations before the justices
that these regulations of the water company
would have been an immense cost to the inhabit-
ants?—Yes.
262. You had 13 days’ dispute before the
justices 2—Yes; and we need not have had one
day if the company had not been so determined.
After the first day's hearing, I met with the
managing director, Mr. Waterfall, and said, “I see
nothing in these regulations that you and I and
the borough surveyor, and another gentleman
with you, an engineer, could not settle;” and he
would not entertain the thing a moment.
263. On what basis do you make your esti-
mate of 150,000 l. P—Our witnesses calculated
there were so many cottages, so many houses
rated at such a sum, so many water-closets, so
many cisterns; and they calculated the cost of
the alterations of each, and when it was brought
together it amounted to 150,000 l.
264. Mr. Mundella.] That was the cstimate of
the water engineers ?–Yes; they arrived at it
in that manner.
265. Mr. Carter.] I wanted to come at this,
whether it was an estimate made on the suppo-
sition that all the pipes would have to be replaced,
and that every water-closet in the town would
have to be constructed anew 2–It was on the
regulations proposed. Supposing the regulations
proposed by the company before the magistrates
were carried out in their integrity, it would have
cost the town 150,000 l.
266. Have you more than one gas company ?—
No.
267. Do the Corporation regard that company
as having a monopoly of the supply of gas en-
tirely 2–Yes.
268. Is it on that ground you have been in-
duced to oppose them from time to time, in order
to get clauses for the benefit of the inhabitants?
– I do not think it is on that ground, but because
of the monopoly that we did so. We considered
that we had a right to get reasonable advantages
for the consumer. .
269. You have been questioned by the hon.
baronet in reference to the expenses you have
put the town to in opposing different Bills that
have come before Parliament. Have you ever
made an estimate of the amount of benefit you
have conferred upon the inhabitants at large by
0.84.
opposing these Bills in Parliament?—I think I
can convince you and the Committee of that by
two remarks. We prevented the company from
gaining 25 per cent. in perpetuity; that is about
I5,000 l, a year, at the end of the 25 years, I think
that will compensate a thousand times for all the
money we have spent.
270. Have you made an estimate of what it
would be 2–I will leave you to make that. Their
gross income is now something like 48,000 l., and
it increases at the rate of 1,700 l. a year. You
may easily judge what that would be at the end
of 25 years.
271. When you said an income of 48,000 /.
per annum, did you mean from gas or water?—
Water.
272. Have you made any estimate of what ad-
vantage you got in compelling the company to
supply gas at 15 candles instead of at 92–I
have made no estimate, but I think it is a great
*ge ; it is a great light compared with
the 9.
273. What advantage have you got; have you
got better terms by asking to purchase ?—No,
there is no alteration by asking to purchase.
Our opposition was in 1866, I think.
274. Had you many complaints about the
quality of the gas before you came to Parliament
to ask for this increase of light?—I complained
before, and I complain now.
275. Do the inhabitants complain 2–It is very
dirty gas, indeed.
276. Chairman.] Will you answer the ques-
tion as direct as you can 2–I think I am express-
ing the general opinion when I express my own.
277. Mr. Carter.] Did many people complain
of the quality of the gas prior to 1866 –Yes,
and well they might; they complained of the
want of power and of the quality, too. When I
have paid for the gas in my own private house
I have only half paid; it is so dirty now that it
destroys more than the cost of the gas.
278. Are you well situated in Sheffield for
getting gas coal 2–Yes; no town better, I should
think.
279. I suppose the gas company supply the
public lamps ?—Yes.
280. Have the corporation had reason from
time to time to complain that the gas supply was
not as good as it ought to be 2–It does not
matter whether it is dirty or not, if there is
plenty of light.
281. Have the corporation complained 2–Only
in the way I have stated.
282, You said the corporation was composed of
54 members?—At that time; it is now 64; we
increased the number last year in our Improve-
ment Bill.
283. Do you know how many members of
your corporation were connected with the gas
and water company at the time that these dis-
putes arose; at the time you put the resolution,
when only 14 voted against it?—They were not
shareholders, you must understand.
284. Do you know how many members were
shareholders in the company at the time 2—I
think there were only two or three really share-
holders.
285. Mr. Leeman.] What is the population of
Sheffield 2–240,000 at the last census.
286. What is the date of the first Act of the
water company ?—I think it is 1830.
287. Was that the Act by which they were
first called upon to give a constant supply 2–
B 2 They
Mr. T. Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872,
} 2
MINUTES OF EVIDEN C F. "I AKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.T.Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans,
19 April
1872,
They engaged to give a constant supply in 1863,
at the request of the town council. The town
council did inquire in 1863 whether they were
prepared to do so, and they stated their inability
to do so. *
288. The disaster at the reservoir took place
in 1864, did it not ?–Yes; on the 11th March,
I think.
289. Do you remember the verdict at which
the coroner's jury arrived 2–I think I can read it
to you ; that will be better than giving it to you
from memory. “That there had not been that
engineering skill and that attention to the con-
struction of the works which their magnitude and
importance demanded, and that in the opinion of
the jury the Legislature ought to take such
action as would result in a Government inspec-
tion of all works of a similar character, and that
such inspection should be frequent, sufficient,
and regular.”
290. It was in that year that the water com-
pany came for their amended Bill 2–Yes.
291. Under that amended Bill, if I understand
you, they sought to have additional charges, in
order to recoup them for the loss they must be at
in reference to their own works, and the repair-
ing of the reservoir 2–Yes.
292. Was that the occasion upon which you
got the limitation to 25 years, instead of their
having that charge in perpetuity ?—Yes.
293. Is it by that Act of 1864 that they were
bound to have completed their works, so as to
give a constant supply to the town in July 1869?
—It was.
294. In July 1869 it was that the corporation
sought to have the action of the tribunal which
had been appointed, in order to see that these
regulations were properly considered 2–Yes.
295. You have told the Committee that the
money which was expended by the town then
amounted to 1,500 l. odd?—Yes.
296. Do you know what the water company
expended on that same inquiry —No ; but I
have an idea that it was twice as much ; 3,000l.
instead of 1,500/., perhaps. Mr. Smith will tell
you afterwards whether I am correct or not.
297. What was the class of witnesses which
the company itself called ?—They called Mr.
Hawksley, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Blackburn, and
some others; I cannot remember them all.
298. The same class of witnesses that was
called on your side was called on the other side 2
—Yes; but more expensive I think than ours.
299. At all events, you did not, on the part of
the Corporation, have a more costly set of wit-
nesses than the other side 2–No ; I think we
were much more economical than they were.
300. For instance, had you local counsel ?—
Yes.
301. Did they bring down London counsel ?
—Yes; they brought down Mr. Pollock and Mr.
Pope, two Queen's counsel, with Mr. Macrory
as Junior.
302. Mr. Mundella.] Two Queen's counsel
and a junior 2–Yes.
303. Mr. Leeman.] Were all these gentlemen
there for 13 days?—No ; the counsel were, but
the engineers after their case was over, did not
attend regularly ; they took up about half the
time.
304. You have been asked questions as to the
reasonableness of your opposition to these regula-
tions. I wish to have upon the notes what I am
going to read. Is this the language of the Lord
Chief Justice upon the subject, “ Then we come
to the expense incurred in opposition to these
rules and regulations. It appears that the water
company, under the Act of Parliament by which
they were established, were under an obligation
to furnish what is called a constant supply, the
meaning of which is well understood and need
not be further referred to, as distinguished from
a supply in a different form ; and the company
were bound, upon requisition by the corporation,
to substitute this constant supply for the supply
which had up to that time been furnished. In
order to carry this constant supply into execution,
or the works necessary for it into execution, the
company applied, as they were entitled to do, to
have certain rules and regulations with reference
to the constant supply so to be furnished, approved
as was necessary by two local magistrates, and
the great question in this case is, how far the
corporation, coming forward to oppose the rules
and regulations, as proposed by the company, are
entitled to have the expenditure thereby occasioned
defrayed out of the borough rate. I must say in the
first place, it seems to me, looking to the rules and
regulations as we have got them before us, and
the objection taken on the part of the corpora-
tion, and to the result in the shape of actual dis-
allowance of many of the proposed rules and
regulations, and the important modifications and
qualifications introduced with reference to others,
that it must be taken that the opposition of the
corporation was meritorious and in the real inte-
rests of the borough. It appears that the mode
in which the water company, upon these pro-
posals, rules, and regulations, intended to give
effect to their obligation to furnish constant sup-
ply, would have been attended with a degree of
expense to those who are to have the benefit of
that constant supply which would to a consider-
able extent, at all events, frustrate the very pur-
pose which the obligation to furnish the constant
supply was to ensure to the public.” Does that
substantially represent the state of matters and
the reasons why you did incur this expenditure ?
—It does.
305. Did the Lord Chief Justice go on to say,
“ Therefore it must not be taken that we, in de-
ciding that this rule must be made absolute, on
the ground that this expenditure is not charge-
able on the borough rate, proceed at all on the
supposition that there was anything to blame on
the part of the corporation in their opposition
to the rules and regulations in question ”?—
Yes.
306. Did the Lord Chief Justice, in conclud-
ing his judgment, use these words: “I very
much regret the conclusion at which I am forced
to arrive, and I believe that the corporation were
actuated by the laudable desire to protect the
true interests of the borough, and to prevent the
water company from frustrating a very important
sanitary provision, namely, that they should afford
a constant supply. As I say, I very much wish
I could protect the corporation against the ex-
penses which must now fall upon the individual
members”?—Yes; I was present when that judg-
ment was given.
307. You have been asked about a meeting of
the ratepayers; have the ratepayers in Sheffield,
at their different municipal elections which have
taken place, showed the feeling of the town in the
election of the town councillors?—Yes; there
are nine wards in Sheffield, and there is but one
during the last three or four years which has re-
turned
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL. 13
turned a candidate who did not profess to support
the corporation as to the water. It was no use a
candidate offering himself unless he pledged his
word. -
308. So that this has been a distinct question
in your municipal contests?—For years.
309. Is this measure now opposed, that you
are aware of, by any persons to any extent, other
than the water company ?—No, the water com-
pany and the gas shareholders, and their friends
and relations whom they can influence. I called
a public meeting to petition Parliament in favour
of the Bill we had in this House a few weeks ago.
310. Chairman.] What Bill do you refer to ?
—The Costs Bill. I had a very large meeting
of the inhabitants, and there was not a single
word said against the petition or against the
action of the council, and every hand in the
meeting was held up in favour of it.
311. Mr. Leeman.] That is very recently —
I think on the llth March last.
312. Have you been elected from year to year
upon this very question ?—I believe I have:
313. And you have been so re-elected now
three times 2–Yes, this is my fourth year ;
I have reason to think so, because no candidate
who would not support the mayor and his policy
could obtain a seat in the council.
314. You have been asked about the audit of
these accounts; will you refer to clause 4 of the
Bill that is before this Committee; the words are
these: “ All costs, charges, and expenses in-
curred under the provisions of this Act shall, be-
fore the same become chargeable, be examined
and allowed by some person to be authorised by
one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of
State for that purpose;” you are aware of that
clause ?—Yes.
315. By clause 5 power is given to the Secre-
tary of State, “If he deems such expense has
been reasonably incurred by the governing body
by order under his hand, to order and direct that
the expense so incurred, or any part thereof,
shall be allowed, and thereupon the same shall
be charged upon and paid out of the borough
fund, borough rate, or other public fund or rate
or rates under the control of the governing body,
in the same manner as if the same had been law-
fully incurred by such governing body after the
passing of this Act;” are you prepared to submit
these accounts to the audit which is contemplated
by clause 42—Yes.
316. I suppose you have no desire in Sheffield
to be paying more money to these engineers and
parties who want your money, and to whom the
money is owing, than you can get off for?—Cer-
tainly not.
317. I do think it is due to the gentleman who
was mentioned, to whom you sent a cheque for
200 guineas, and who returned it, that his name
should be mentioned; who was it?—Mr. Vena-
bles. He said he knew our position, and he
would rather not take it until we had proper
means of paying it. I think I can give you a
more meritorious act than that. His clerk was
asked if he would like to have his fees, and he
said “Yes.” A cheque was sent him for his
fees, and he returned it, saying he thought Mr.
Venables would be offended, and he would rather
not take it.
318. You have been asked with regard to the
gas company; you said they have the ordinary
clauses by which they are entitled to 10 per cent.
as their maximum dividend ?–Yes.
0.84.
319. You say you made a proposal to them 2 Mr. T. Moore
—Yes.
and Mr.
320. You have not told the Committee what J. Yeomans.
the proposal was 2—No, I was not asked ; but I
will tell you the proposal: before we came to
Parliament we proposed nine per cent.
321. Mr. Mundella.] To give them nine per
cent. 2–Yes. You must understand all their
shares do not pay 10 per cent. ; there are some
which pay 73, d. per cent, and the corporation bid
them nine per cent. ; but when we came here
before the Committee we instructed our counsel
to bid them 10 per cent., or any sum the Com-
mittee thought was right.
322. Mr. Leeman.] They can only get 10 by
their Act?—Ten upon some part, and 7; upon
other parts.
323. You bid them 10 per cent. all round 2–
Yes.
324. Or an arbitration price 2—Or an arbitra-
tion price, or what the Committee thought right :
whatever the Committee thought a fair price we
would give them.
325. Mr. Cawley.] You actually offered 9 per
cent, but instructed counsel to go to 10 per cent.”
—Yes; or any sum the Committee thought
right.
326. Mr. Leeman.] You have been asked about
the price of gas at Sheffield, and you say it is
3 s. 3 d. 2–I said, at that time; I think it is re-
duced to 3s. 2d., and 3s. to large consumers, or
something like that, I am not certain; I was
asked as to what it was at the time we came.
327. You know very well that the question
of illuminating power bears a great deal upon
whether there is any actual reduction in price 2
–Yes, the good quality of the gas is a reduction
In price.
328. Good quality is most important?—Yes.
329. You got the illuminating power increased
from nine candles to 15 candles?—Yes.
330. You say now the gas is on a graduated
scale, 3 s. 3 d., except to a large consumer ?—I
think it is reduced a little.
331. You are asked whether that was not a
lower price than at any other place?—Yes, I
know it is not.
332. First of all, is it not the fact that you are
better situated than almost any town in England
for making cheap gas 2—We are in the midst of
coal pits.
333. Do you know York 2–Yes.
334. Do you happen to know that at York the
gas is at this moment 2s. 6d. 2–No, I am not
aware of it.
335. That is many a mile from the coal?—
Yes.
336. Supposing you had had the gas for the
town, as far as the shareholders were concerned,
they would not have been losers?—No.
337. You think by management you could
have reduced the price very materially 2–Yes,
there would not have been so much waste in the
hands of the corporation.
338. The gas company cannot have more than
10 per cent. P—No, and they do not care what
becomes of the rest.
339. Is not that the reason why there have
been so many of these Acts passed which have
vested gas companies in the corporations of
towns 2—Just so.
340. Colonel Beresford.] You state that you
have been in office four years 2–Yes, this is my
fourth year.
B 3 341. Did
19 April
1872.
14
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. T. Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872,
341. Did you find any surplus in the borough
funds prior to the commencement of any of these
proceedings; since you took office, has there
been any surplus 2—I think not ; I cannot say
that there was any surplus.
342. You stated that you were perfectly well
aware that you had no power to apply corpora-
tion funds to promote a Bill 2–Just so.
343. With that knowledge, I want to know
whether any arrangement was made amongst you
and your colleagues to subscribe money for the
purposes of the Bill, or whether you engaged in
the promotion of that Bill, trusting to chance to
get the money from any source —No ; when
the injunction was taken out, a number of the
members of the corporation joined in a guarantee,
and they are liable to that guarantee now.
344. You made a general and rather a grave
charge against gas companies, on the ground that
they could not divide more than 10 per cent.,
and that they recklessly expended the surplus in
any way not for the benefit of the public, but to
get rid of the money; you made that charge
against the companies?—Yes.
345. To what companies does that charge
apply?—It will apply generally; but I am confin-
ing myself particularly to the gas company at
Sheffield. I said it on general principles.
346. You applied it to any company in this
Metropolis —To any company that is making
more than a maximum dividend. The reason is
simply this, rather than reduce the price of gas,
they would go on wasting the money. I have
not the slightest doubt that this gas company in
Sheffield could make 15 per cent. any day; then
I ask what becomes of the other ? I have not
the slightest doubt that those extra profits have
been capitalised, and that they have been spent
in plant.
347. In your experience, it is confined to your
own company ?–Yes; but I believe it is the fact
with gas companies generally.
348. Is it not true that a reduction in the price
of gas has taken place from time to time by ya-
rious companies from the fact of their having
surplus profits, and that they get rid of them in
that way ?—It is true; but the reduction is not
so fast as it ought to be.
349. How do you make out that improved
illuminating power is equivalent to a reduction
in the price 2–Because you do with less gas. If
you have 10-candles illuminating power in one
burner, and another burner of 20 candles of illu-
minating power, you will not require to turn the
latter on to such an extent ; but if you do turn
it on to the same extent, it will give you light
for many yards further. That is plain enough.
There is as much difference between gas of one
quality and of another, as there is between the
sun and the moon. -
350. Mr. Gregory..] You stated, as I have
been informed, unfortunately I was not here,
that you received many complaints as to the
supply of water from the inhabitants of the
town 2–Yes.
351. Was that prior to 1866 –I have been in
Sheffield ever since 1845, and I have heard com-
plaints ever since that time.
352. I think you went to the extent of saying
that the supply was so short that there was a
considerable loss in wages 2–Yes, we have been
driven to 12 hours' service a week. I have a
large business depending considerably upon the
supply of water, and I have been confined to 12
hours' supply a week.
353. Under these circumstances, you and the
company were both before Parliament for the
supply of water in 1866 2–No.
354. Did not you (the corporation) prosecute
a Bill 2–No, the corporation never prosecuted a
Bill but the one alluded to in 1870. "
355. That was a Bill for the supply of water ?
—No, to purchase the waterworks.
356. What was the result of that Bill ?—
The company withdrew theirs, and we withdrew
Oll]"S.
357. Why did you withdraw yours?—Because
they withdrew theirs, and ours was more a de-
fensive Bill than anything else. If you look at
the Bill, you will see that they wanted to get rid
of their obligations.
358. The company had a Bill, I suppose, for
the extension of their works?—No, it was not
for extension at all; one part of their Bill was
to carry out the regulations proposed before the
justices, and the other part was to put off the
constant supply ; and another part was to get
rid of some of the works they had engaged to do
by Act of Parliament,
359. You had a Bill for the purpose of pur-
chasing the works?—Yes.
360. And I suppose you contemplated to give
a very efficient *. the town —Yes.
361. Having this object, why did not you con-
tinue the prosecution ?—There was an injunction
taken out, or else we should, no doubt. It made
the members of the corporation individually
liable Some of them were not very rich men,
and they began to be timid and afraid.
362. If you had carried the Bill you would of
course have got your costs?—Yes.
363. Was that injunction obtained during the
progress of the Bill 2–Yes.
364. At what stage of it?—Before it came
into Committee.
365. And then there was an injunction against
the corporation ?–To restrain them from paying
anything.
366. From paying any costs out of the borough
fund?—Yes.
367. At the same time, if the individual mem-
bers had been patriotic enough to subscribe suffi-
cient funds, and to carry the Bill through Com-
mittee, it might have been prosecuted 2–It
might.
368. At that time you had all these complaints
in the town before you?—Yes.
369. Are the corporation the local board of
health ?—Yes; we adopted the Local Govern-
ment Act about six or seven years ago.
370. Why did not you appear before the
magistrates as the local board of health P--I
think the private Act recognised the town
council, not the board of health. When they
got their Act of Parliament, I think we were not
the board of health. r &
371. At the time these resolutions or bye-laws
were proposed, were not you the board of health 2
—Yes. º
372. Did you ever contemplate what the result
would be as regards the expense if you appeared
as a board of health 2–No, we could not appear
as a board of health ; the Act of Parliament com-
pelled the corporation to appear. *
373. Under the Waterworks Act, had the cor-
poration the right to appear?—Yes; we appeared
as consumers of water as well.
374. That
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL.
15
374. That was in your corporate capacity ?—
Yes.
375. As a municipal corporation ?–Yes; and
a board of health too.
376. Did you appear in your character of a
board of health 2–As far as sanitary matters
O.
377. As regards these bye-laws?—I cannot
answer that question; the town clerk perhaps
C3,11. .
378. Did you ever consider this, whether as a
board of health you had not a perfect right to
appear, and charge this against the funds of the
board of health 7–Our town clerk thought
not.
379. Were you ever advised upon that?—
There is this in it, we were advised that we
could pay those expenses as a council.
380. Chairman.] Did you adopt the whole of
the clauses of the Local Government Act 2–
Yes, we adopted it in its entirety.
381. Mr. Gregory.] In that respect you were
the sanitary authority of the town 2–Yes.
382. As such sanitary authority, did you ever
consider whether it was not within your province
and part of your duty to appear upon these
regulations?—I did not ; that was the business
of the town clerk.
383. (To Mr. Yeomans.) Have you considered
that point 2–We appeared as consumers of water
and as the council of the borough of Sheffield,
and also as the local Board; but inasmuch as the
council of the borough of Sheffield is referred to
in the Act of Parliament, the facts were stated
to Mr. Manisty, and Mr. Manisty advised that
they could be paid out of the borough rates.
384. In fact, you were misled by Mr. Manisty's
opinion ?—No ; I believe it is good yet. I am
not aware that it is bad as regards the council
385. I thought the Queen's Bench had decided
against you? —On the point that it could not be
paid out of the borough funds; they did not say
it could not be paid out of the general district
funds.
386. Then you still have that to fall back
upon 2---No; we were not entitled by law to do
that.
387. Who has advised you to that effect?—
Mr. Manisty advised that ; that is so.
388. Will you allow me to ask you whether it
was ever present to your mind, and being so
present to your own mind, whether you were
ever advised upon it by counsel, that as a local
board of health you would have the power of
charging the expenses of your appearing upon
these bye-laws against such funds as were subject
to you as a board of health 2–The question oc-
curred to me. I have not the case here which I
submitted to counsel, but I have a strong im-
pression that it is referred to in that case. I may
state this, that Mr. Manisty, with the statement
before him, did advise that it could be paid out
of the borough funds.
389. Then Mr. Manisty misled you. I want
to know whether Mr. Manisty advised upon this,
namely, whether you could not have paid these
expenses as a board of health 2–Without refer-
ring to the case now, which I have not here, I
am not prepared to state that it was stated dis-
tinctly, or that the question was asked him. I
do not believe it was, but I believe that where
Municipal Corporations are the Local Board the
accounts are audited in the same way, and I do
not believe that the Local Government Acts give
0.84.
any further powers in that respect, because they
could only go to the extent of the power autho-
rised by those Acts, and no further.
390. Chairman.] Since you adopted the Local
Government Acts in collecting your rates have
you made any reduction from the rates which
have been levied upon land and railways?—The
assessment has been made according to the pro-
visions of those Acts.
391. Is that since you adopted the Local
Government Act 2—With regard to the rating
under the Local Government Act we adopted the
Act as to the power of rating, and made a dis-
tinction in this respect; there is a clause under
that if the owners are rated instead of the occu-
piers of small tenements, a per-centage may be
allowed.
392. Since you adopted the Local Government
Act have you made any deduction when you
have collected rates, when you have rated rail-
ways and lands within the borough 2–We have
not, excepting that which is authorised by the
Local Act.
393. Your own Local Act?—The Local Go-
vernment Act. i
394. Then you have made those deductions
authorised under the Local Government Act 2—
Yes. (Mr. Moore.) We only charge 25 per
Cent.
395. Mr. Gregory (to Mr. Yeomans).] I pre-
sume you can let us have the case and opinion of
Mr. Manisty 2–Yes,
396. You say that the audit is the same with
respect to the Municipal Act and the Public
Health Act?—Yes, the same auditor audits both
aCCOunts.
397. But surely the terms of those Acts are
very different as to the application of the funds !
—With regard to the application of the funds
they are ; but as regards the local board, it has
no further power than the words of the Act give.
398. You do not contend that the Municipal
Act and the Local Government Act are identi-
cal in their terms as to the expenditure of the
fund 2–Certainly not.
399. This judgment in the Queen’s Bench
turned upon the express provisions of the Muni-
cipal Act, did it not?—Certainly.
400. The well-known clause limiting the ap-
plication of the borough funds?– Yes.
401. Which is not contained in the Public
Health Act?—No, and the words of the Public
Health Act are not very general. They are
general as regards street improvements, and
many other purposes which are very useful to
the public.
402. Sanitary purposes?—Yes.
403. (To Mr. Moore.) With respect to the
gas, you had great complaints of the gas —Yes,
of the quality.
404. Do those complaints exist now 2–Yes, in
a great measure. It is more satisfactory since
we got the increase of illuminating power.
405. Have you not testing powers under the
* Gas Act 2—Yes.
406. Have you put those powers in execution ?
—Yes.
407. Does not that prevent the foulness of
which you complain 2–It does not prevent it.
408. Do you mean to say that those clauses
are ineffective and inoperative ; the clauses for
testing the gas, which are always inserted now 2
—They are carried out and we have a report
monthly.
B 4 409. Whose
Mr.T.Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
16 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.T. Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
409. Whose duty is it to carry them out?—It
is the duty of the corporation to carry them out.
We have employed an inspector to do it; he tests
it once or twice a week, and that is reported
monthly to the corporation.
410. Does that have the effect of preventing
the foulness of the gas —No, I say not.
411. The clauses you admit being ineffective
for the purpose, it being the duty of the cor-
poration to carry out those clauses as you also
admit, you still say the foulness of the gas is not
prevented ?—There is so much carbon that your
house in a few weeks after you have cleaned it
is as black as it possibly can be. My offices are
in the centre of the town, and once a year the
top is as black as my hat. Do you think that
is pure gas
412. Does not this follow, from what you say ?
You admit the clauses to be ineffective, and you
admit that it is the duty of the corporation to put
those clauses into operation; if the result is not
satisfactory, do the corporation do their duty –
Well, perhaps they do not; but do you think it
is possible for any inspector to report the amount
of carbon ?
413. I asked you whether the clauses were
effective?—You must first say that that kind of
inspection is perfect. I say it is not perfect.
414. When were these testing clauses inserted?
—In 1866. -
415. They are the usual clauses which are in-
serted in every gas Act as a matter of course,
are they not?—I am sure I do not know. The
town clerk says that those clauses were put in
in 1853.
416. They are the only testing clauses, I pre-
sume?—I think so. I cannot say that I ever
read them.
417. It is your duty to carry them out, or to
see them carried out, is it not ?—We have ap-
pointed an inspector.
418. Who sees that the inspector does his
duty 2–The Watch Committee. I am not on
the Watch Committee.
419. But you are the head of the corporation,
and have been so for more than four years ?—
And you make me responsible for every petty
act.
420. You are here as representative of the
corporation ? —Yes, and I say the corporation
have employed a testor, and they test the gas in
the best known way, but I say that is ineffi-
cient.
421. You come here as a representative of the
corporation; you are the principal of the corpo-
ration ; you have been so for four years ?—This
is my fourth year.
422. You come here to complain of the gas,
and you tell us now that you have not read
these clauses, which give you the power of test-
ing the gas?—I do not think I have. I do not
think it is necessary that I should. The town
clerk studies the Acts of Parliament and reports
to us.
423. You say these clauses were put in in
1853 — So I understand.
424. At whose instance were they put in 2—I
do not know. I was not a member of the cor-
poration then, and I took no interest in public
matters at that time.
425. When was the gas company last in Par-
liament?–In 1866, I think.
426. Did the corporation then appear before
Barliament in any way ?—Yes.
427. Did you get any further testing powers?
—No, I think not.
428. Did you apply for any ?—I do not think
º: testing powers were put in operation before
then.
429. Did you apply for any further testing
powers?—I think not. (Mr. Yeomans.) At that
time they were the best. The question has
undergone many discussions before Committees
of this House. They are not so perfect as the
testing apparatus of the City of London.
430. (To Mr. Peomans.) If I recollect right,
in 1866, that testing was pretty well settled 2–
I think Dr. Letheby tests the gas in a very dif-
ferent manner now in London.
431. I thought that was so in 1866 2–I think
it was not perfect then. I very much question
whether it is perfect now. I understand it is a
most difficult thing.
432. (To Mr. Moore.) With respect to the limi-
tation of the dividends; you say that the com-
pany made that limitation —I do not understand
your question at all.
433. I think you say the dividend was limited
by Parliament to 10 per cent. P—Yes.
434. And that they evade that limitation by
extravagance 2–Yes, that is my opinion.
º I suppose they render annual accounts?
—Yes.
436. Have you ever investigated these ac-
counts 2–Some of them.
437. Have you discovered that extravagance
of which you speak 2–I am of opinion that their
revenue is capitalised by laying down new works
and pipes. -
438. You have the means of testing that?—It
is a difficult thing when accounts are made out
for the purpose.
439. Well, but it is so ; surely the accounts
show the income and the application of it 2–You
know as well as I do that in such concerns as
these accounts can be made up.
440. You have the means of investigating the
accounts 2–We have not the means by a
skilled gas engineer. If we were justified in pay-
ing a proper auditor I have no doubt we should
discover a great many discrepancies, but the
auditor we are justified in employing is a mere
auditor. We want a gas auditor. If we had had
a gas auditor we should have had the gas reduced
long since. *.*
441. Have you not the power to appoint an
auditor?—Yes, a mere auditor; an accountant.
We have only 30 l. a year allowed. .
442. By whom?—I think by some Act of
Parliament; by the company.
443. (To Mr. Yeomans.) Is it limited to 30l. 2
—Either 20 l. or 30l.-(Mr. Moore.) If we had
the power to pay such a gentleman as Mr. Cle-
menshaw, no doubt we could reveal some secrets.
444. Mr. Mellor (to Mr. Moore).] If it were
possible to ascertain and analyse those accounts,
so that you could divulge secrets, why do not you
as a public body divulge those secrets?–We
have not the means of paying him.
445. Would it not be worth the while of the in-
habitants of Sheffield to subscribe to a fund in
order to arrive at that information ?—I think it
would.
446. If you think it would, why did you not
take it to be a duty and do it?—It is a difficult
thing to get people to put their hands in their
pockets, and the mayor cannot put his hand into
his pocket for everything.
447. But
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 17
447. But when his interest is concerned there is
less reluctance 2—Mine is only an individual in-
terest, except as a public man.
448. I thought you said that the company
misapplied a portion of their money, or so
arranged it that they increased the expenditure
in order to prevent the possibility of reducing
the price of gas 2—Yes, I think so; I think they
do; I feel fully convinced that they are making
considerably over the maximum dividends.
449. Yet you have the means of ascertaining
whether that is so or not ?—I say we have not
legally the means.
450. Are you aware that the accounts of
public companies are annually forwarded to the
clerk of the peace in each county 2–Yes, in a
balance sheet; their balance sheet is, I believe,
deposited with our town clerk.
451. Are you aware that in that balance sheet
the amount of money expended upon plant or
repairs, and the money spent upon the reserve
fund, and for every purpose, is stated –In a
Jump sum, I daresay. -
452. But are there not details of that expen-
diture ?—Not in the balance sheet,
453. Have you seen one?—I have seen them.
454. And you say that there are no such de-
tails given 2–You do not suppose in a balance
sheet they would put every tradesman's account
in detail P
455. I only ask you for that which you know
as a fact –—Until you had examined their books
you could not tell. - -
456. I think you said that the price of gas in
Sheffield is 3 s. 3 d. per 1,000 feet?--I think it
is a little less now.
457. Is there a discount allowed to large con-
sumers ?—There is, when you have consumed so
many thousand feet. I think there is a reduc-
tion in the price; not a discount.
458. What is the amount the town pays for the
public lamps?—They do not pay by the 1,000
feet; they pay by the hour.
459. The amount is estimated by the con-
sumption of gas per hour?—I suppose it is.
460. If that be so, you know whether or not
you consume 1,000,000 feet or more per annum ?
—I know we pay something like 9,000l. to the
gas companies for the public lamps.
461. You should know whether or not you
burn 1,000,000 or more feet?—It is not burnt
by the foot.
462. But the estimate is so much per hour ;
so many feet?—It is their business to estimate ;
we make a bargain by the hour.
463. Have you no discount on the total sum
paid 2–No; it is not for the lamps.
464. In that case, does your account differ
from other consumers?—In that respect.
465. On that ground you are unfairly treated P
—I think not. It is as easy to make a bargain
without discount as with, and be equitable too.
466. What might you pay net per 1,000 feet
for gas supplied to the town 2–Well I do not
think anybody knows. It has never been cal-
culated in that way.
467. Colonel Beresford.] Did you on any
occasion write to the company complaining of
the quality of the gas; you stated that the
gas, in spite of the law of the matter, is not of
good quality; have you ever remonstrated with
the company by sending them a written notice.
The clauses of the Act of 1869 are very stringent
indeed as to compelling a company to give pro-
0.84,
per illuminating power P--I do not think we Mr. T. Moore
have.
and Mr.
468. How can you expect any remedy if you J. Yeomans.
never have made any complaint 2–I expect when
I pay for a good article I ought to have it, and
the gas company know what they are making.
469. Mr. Mellor.] I think you stated in evi-
dence that the only reason you had for going to
Parliament for power to purchase the gas com-
pany was because other people were doing the
same thing 2–No, that was not the only reason.
I will tell you the reason; we were pressed by
the inhabitants.
470. Mr. Leeman.] What is the date of your
Gas Act 2 — One thousand eight hundred and
fifty-five. I think it is three companies in one.
47 l. It is long before 1869 —Yes.
472. What is the rateable value of Sheffield P
—Between 600,000 l. and 700,000 l.
473. What does a penny in the £, raise ?—
fº. 2,500, in round numbers.
474. So that 14,000 l. that you spoke of would
be 6d. in the pound in the town of Sheffield 2–
Yes; supposing it were all collected.
475. What is the amount which, supposing
Sheffield is brought into this clause, the Sheffield
Water Company will have to pay ?--They spent
more in opposing our bill of costs than their share
of the rate.
476. What is the actual amount P-I do not
know ; perhaps 100 I., or 200 l ; that is only a
supposition. .
477. Mr. Gregory..] What are the total rates
in Sheffield now in the pound 2–There are three
or four townships, and the poor rate varies. I
am not going to evade the answer. -
478. Chairman.] What is the borough rate 2
—The borough rate is taken out of the district
rate. I will tell you the rates. The district
rate is 2s. in the pound; the watch rate is 6 d. ;
and the poor rate varies from 2 s. 6 d. to 3 s. 6d.
479. Mr. Gregory.] That is 6 s. in the pound 2
—Five shillings and sixpence in the pound. In
some districts it is not so much.
480. That does not include gas or water?—
No.
481. Mr. Mundella (to Mr. Moore).] You
were about, in answer to the honourable Mem-
ber's question, to say that in some districts the
rates were much less, as in Piccleshall?—Yes.
There are not so many poor in proportion to the
rating.
482. The honourable and learned Member
said that you came here to complain of the gas
company. You did not come here to complain
of the gas company at all to-day ?–No, it was
not our complaint; it was the pressure that
brought us here.
483. And that so far as the gas company is
concerned, you came to this House to purchase
the gasworks, because, going for the waterworks,
the people of Sheffield were anxious that you
should secure both undertakings, and conduct
them for the benefit of the town 2–Yes, it was
the people that pressed the corporation into the
thing.
484. A great deal has been said about the gas
company’s waste; I presume that the waste of
the gas company in Sheffield is no more than
that of any other company ?— I suppose not,
where they can earn more than the maximum
dividend.
485. What you mean is this: where the divi-
dend is fixed at a certain maximum, having
C attained
19 April
1872.
18
MIN OTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.T. Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
attained that maximum they are not interested
on the public account in other respects?—No.
486. And that they pay fees and salaries and
other things, and lay out money in plant, which
you think, as a corporation, you could save very
materially 2–Certainly.
487. I think you said the population of Shef-
field is 246,000 °–Two hundred and forty thou-
sand when the census were taken.
488. Is there any town in England with so
large a population that is proportionately such a
large consumer of gas as Sheffield?—I cannot
say; but I should think not. Many of our trades
are working night and day, and consequently
they must have gas.
489. All the great works of Sheffield, the iron
and steel trades, are worked day and night?—
Yes, they are.
490. With a very large consumption of gas,
and a constant blaze in open sheds?—Yes.
491. You were asked by another honourable
Member why the people of Sheffield did not
subscribe voluntarily to look after these affairs;
is it not your experience that what is everybody’s
business is nobody’s business, and that the last
thing people like to do is to raise voluntary funds
to discharge a public duty P – The people of
Sheffield are willing to pay any expense in the
ordinary way. They have expressed their desire
to do so.
492. With respect to the water company, you
have been asked about the first expense in 1864;
as the result of that opposition in 1864, did you
not practically reduce the cost of water in Shef-
field very materially; did not the company ask
for an increase of 25 per cent. upon their existing
rates in perpetuity, and you brought it to 25 per
cent. upon the existing rates for 25 years?—Yes.
493. Was not there a great deal of feeling
against the company in consequence of that
verdict which has been read, respecting the want
of skill and engineering, and so on 2–Yes; there
W 3.S.
494. Has not there been, from that time to
this, a great deal of feeling in the town of
Sheffield with respect to the water?—Yes.
495. Your opposition to the Gas Company has
never been a party or political question, in any
shape or form 7–If you term municipal elections
political, it has been.
496. I mean it has never been mixed up with
party politics?—No ; nothing of the kind.
497. From that time to this, has it not been
thus: that the test for the last four years of a
gentleman's merits for entering the corporation is
whether he supported the purchase of the Gas
and Water Company?—It has been the great test.
It has been pretty nearly the only test. There
is no such thing as politics imported into the
municipal elections. -
498. And at the last November elections of
Sheffield, was it not the fact that every candidate
had to support this Bill with a retrospective
clause in it for the payment of the rates, or he
was rejected ?–Yes.
499. It was made the test of a candidate’s
fitness; would he support this retrospective clause
or not?—Yes.
500. With reference to the opposition, which
cost you 1,500 l., to the Water Company’s regula-
tions, was that opposition conducted as econo.
mically as you possibly could 2–Certainly. If
we had not been economical, we should have
brought down barristers from London.
501. Having conducted that opposition as you
believe successfully, the company came to this
House with a Bill to escape their obligations?—
Yes; to get more stringent regulations than they
supposed the justices would allow.
502. And to protract the term for giving a
constant supply?—Yes; and to get rid of the
responsibility of making some other works.
503. When the company did that, you say you
discovered it accidentally at the very last hour?—
At four o'clock on the Friday, and Saturday was
the last day on which notice could be given.
504. You sent a special messenger to London
to put in your opposition to the Bill of the com-
pany 2–Yes; to get the advertisement in the
Gazette.
505. And in order to end these quarrels in
the borough, you propose to buy the water com-
pany at the same time 2—Yes.
506. You went on, I suppose, with your Bill,
and got all the necessary evidence, engineering
and otherwise. for bringing your case before Par-
liament 2–Yes.
507. That went on until March or April –
Yes, until the company withdrew their Bill.
508. The company then served you with an
injunction, of which this is the original, by which
every one of you were liable, the solicitors,
agents, and all the rest, under a penalty of
10,000 l. to be levied upon you, not to appro-
priate any of the funds of the borough, either for
the payment of these expenses before the magis-
trates or for the promotion of the Water Bill ?—
No. I think it does not specify particularly the
regulations before the magistrates. It says,
“expended illegally.” (Mr. Yeomans.) The in-
junction only applied to the promotion of Bills,
and afterwards the company went to the Court
of Queen's Bench.
509. (To Mr. Moore). When the water com-
pany sprung this mine upon you by withdraw-
ing the Bill and you were served with this
notice, the corporation got afraid they might be
in for a very large expense and withdrew their
Bill?—Yes, it was in consequence of the fear of
the responsibility.
510. Having the gas case ready and all the
expenses incurred, you went before the Con-
mittee for the Gas Bill ?—Yes; we had to go
into committee almost immediately the company
withdrew their Bill.
511. When the gas company came before the
Committee you made them an offer of 9 per cent.
to purchase their works?—Yes.
512. You were prepared to go further and
give them 10 per cent. 2–Yes,
513. Although the shares did not pay 10 per
cent. on the average 2–No, the new shares did
not.
514. You say the total expense, so far as you
can ascertain it, has been about 14,000 l. 2–Yes.
515. You hope to reduce that expense when
you submit it to taxation; you expect to reduce
it materially 2–Yes; I think our creditors will
reduce it.
516. The reason why there has been no reduc-
tion up to now, and why you have taken the gross
estimate, has been because you have not been in
funds or in a position to pay !—No ; how could
you ask a man to reduce his bill if you were not
in a position to pay him. We were afraid he
would at once compel us to pay, and we had
nothing to pay with.
517. The water company is now giving a
- Constant
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
F9
524. You think it would be more stringent
than your present audit 2–I wish to have a satis-
factory audit, not only for us, but for the public,
too. I do not care how strict and how stringent
it is.
525. Under your present system, is any item
in your borough accounts ever disallowed by the
auditor?—I do not think he has any power; he
only has the power to see that the vouchers cor-
respond with the books; he is not the same as
the poor law auditor.
526. It is simply a question of going through
the accounts, and not of auditing at all ?—
No.
527. Mr. Mellor.] If during that time the
mills were stopped in Sheffield, and the money
lost to the workpeople in consequence of the
stoppage, were there not hundreds of places simi-
larly circumstanced that year?—I have nothing
to do with other places.
528. Mr. Carter.] I understood you to say
that 9,000l. was expended for lighting the public
lamps?—-Yes, annually.
529. Can you give me any idea of how many
lamps?--I do not think I can ; we can easily
ascertain; the average is nearly 31, a lamp, I
think.
530. Mr. Cawley.] Who lights them and ex-
tinguishes them —The lighting has nothing to
do with the cost; the corporation lights them; I
think it averages about 3 l.
531. How many hours do they burn ?—It
varies according to the season.
532. I presume you do what is usual, viz.,
take an average of the hours throughout the
year !—I do not know how many hours a lamp,
I am sure; I cannot go into every detail.
C
2
constant supply, is it not ?—Yes; because it has
been a favourable season for them.
518. Practically, they have given it. Prior to
that were there not continual complaints and
heart-burnings in almost every household in
Sheffield about water 2–Yes; and the prejudice
still reigns throughout the town.
519. Is there any town in England where from
the mature of its occupation, the immense amount
of dirt and smoke, and dust and heat, the water
is so essential, both for sanitary and domestic
purposes, and for purposes of comfort and clean-
liness, as the town of Sheffield 7–I should think
not. They charge us for sanitary purposes the
extreme price.
520. You have said also that there was a loss
of wages to workpeople from an insufficient sup-
ply of water?—Yes.
521. I do not understand from what source
that arose 2–It stopped machinery. It was not
only a loss to the working classes, but to the
manufacturer, when his machinery was stopped.
522. Sir M. H. Beach..] The honourable Mem-
ber for York asked you a question about the
audit proposed under the fourth clause of this
Bill; you are acquainted with that clause. Do
you consider that that audit would be likely to
be more stringent than the present audit of your
borough accounts —I wish to have a more strin-
gent audit, and a qualified man to audit the books
if we had the means.
523. Do you consider that audit, as proposed
under the fourth clause of this Bill, would be
likely to be more stringent than the present one P
—It would rest with the Secretary of State
whether he appointed a competent man or not.
I should be perfectly satisfied with his appoint-
ment.
0.84.
Mr.T. Moore
and Mr.
J. Yeomans.
19 April
1872.
20
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
Monday, 22nd April 1872,
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Joshua Fielden.
Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Hibbert.
Mr. Leeman.
|
|
|
|
Mr. Mellor.
Mr. M'Laren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Neville Greville.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Mr. Tipping.
MR. HIBBERT, IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. RALPH BLAKELOCK SMITH, called in ; and Examined.
533. Chairman.] YOU are the Secretary of
the Sheffield Water Company ?—I am the Clerk
and Solicitor ; the Clerk is the same as secre-
tary; we have no secretary.
534. You appear here to give evidence against
the fifth clause of the Bill now before the Com-
mittee ?—I do.
535. How long have you been clerk and so-
licitor to the Sheffield Water Company ?—I
have had the formal appointment since 1868;
previous to that time I was in partnership with
my father, and I have acted as solicitor since the
year 1846. .
536. Do you remember the year 1864, when
the corporation opposed the Bill of the water
company ?—I do.
537. What was the object of that Bill?--That
will require a little explanation. The company
was incorporated in the year 1830; in the Act
there was a scale of rates; in 1845 the company
went to Parliament to get further powers to ob-
tain water, and in that Act a slight variation
was made in the rates of bouses under 7 l. a year
in value, but with that exception the rates of
1830 continued in operation. In 1853 it became
necessary to go again to Parliament for a scheme
for further works.
538. What was the object of that Act of 1853?
—To obtain powers to make further works and
very large extensions indeed, not only for the
immediate use of the town, but for future popu-
lation. The corporation threatened to oppose
the Bill on the ground that our old rates fixed
in 1830 were extravagant, and that we were
very prosperous, which we were, paying about
7 per cent., I think ; in order to avoid a contest,
and also because, no doubt, the company were
in a prosperous state, we agreed with the town
council that those rates should be reduced by
about 50 per cent.
539. Did they then withdraw their opposi-
tion —On that they withdrew their opposition.
It was a friendly negociation.
540. Mr. Mundella.] In 1853 you reduced the
rates 50 per cent. 2–Nearly 50 per cent. ; you
may say in round numbers 50 per cent.
541. In consequence of the opposition of the
corporation ?—I beg your pardon, it was not an
opposition, but a threatened opposition.
542. Chairman.] You obtained that Act 2–
We obtained that Act and proceeded with the
works, which were of a very extensive kind.
The works consisted of two schemes in two
separate valleys; one in which we could get
the water with comparative speed, owing to some
arrangement with the millowners, with the par-
ticulars of which I need not trouble you. The
other was in the Loxley Valley, and consisted of
three very large storage reservoirs and a tunnel
three miles long under the hills. The Rivelin
scheme was first undertaken, and was completed
in about three years’ time, and by that we
doubled the quantity of water for the town. We
then proceeded with the Loxley part of the
scheme. Very great engineering difficulties
were found in making the tunnel through the
hills, and also in the puddle trench of the first of
the series, but in 1863 that reservoir, the Dale
Bank Reservoir, was completed. The second
was about one third done, that is the Agden
Reservoir. The town council at the end of
1863 or the beginning of 1864, wrote to inquire
whether we were prepared to give a constant
supply. Under the Act of 1853 we were bound
to give a constant supply in 10 years' time at the
requisition of the town council. The time ex-
pired in the summer of 1863, but no formal re-
quisition was made.
543. What kind of requisition was made 2—It
was a letter which was written to my father, the
then clerk of the company, inquiring whether
the company were in a position to give constant
supply. That was in February 1864.
544. Who wrote that letter ?—I believe it was
written by Mr. John Yeomans, who was then
the town clerk. --
545. Why do you call that not a formal requi-
sition? —Because, if they had insisted upon
having constant supply, they should have
served us with a notice saying that they did.
They merely asked in what position we were.
546. I suppose it was a polite way of ascer-
taining what you were going to do?—Yes, and
we answered in an equally polite way, explain-
Ing
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 21
ing that the Dale Dyke reservoir was finished
and filled, by which a large increase would be
obtained, and the Agden was partly completed.
I think it was a little doubtful whether the Dale
Dyke would have sufficed for the constant sup-
ply. That correspondence was to have been
laid before the directors at their meeting at
March.
547. Was it so laid 2–No, and I will tell you
why. On the 11th of March the Dale Dyke
reservoir gave way.
548. In that year 2–-That very same year,
1864, causing fearful loss of life and property.
Of course all question of a constant supply was
then out of the question. The coroner's jury, the
verdict of which you heard read on Friday, sat
about a fortnight after the accident. We, of
course, were not prepared then to state, with
any precision, what the cause of the accident
was. All we knew was, that Mr. Leather, a
well-known gentleman, had been our engineer
from the first. He was the maker of the Port-
land Breakwater, and is now engaged in the
Spithead works. He had made six large reser-
voirs for us with perfect safety, and of course
we trusted entirely to him.
549. I think we will not go into the cause of
the accident?—If you will oblige me, I will
state it shortly. In the verdict which was read,
we were charged with want of engineering skill.
That is a most serious imputation, and I hope
you will allow me to make the explanation.
550. We cannot try the question of whether
the reservoir was properly formed or not ?—
I heard the verdict of the coroner's jury read,
and I wish to say, without imputing anything
improper to the coroner's jury, at all events
there are people who have much better oppor-
tunities of judging who have arrived at a different
conclusion. t
551. I presume your company brought evi-
dence before the coroner?—No, they did not;
we were not charged. Our engineers were
called by the coroner, but we were not heard, of
COllrSe.
552. Mr. Mundella.] You paid all the damages
consequent on the accident, did not you, as
though it was a verdict of his negligence?—No ;
it is a little hard that, on the notes of the Com-
mittee, we should have the verdict of the
coroner's jury, which has been quoted against
us, and that in a few words (I would not keep
the Committee long), I should not be able to
state the contrary. The Bill in 1864 was for
this object; there were 7,000 claims. It was
quite impossible that the courts of law could
settle them.
553. Seven thousand claims consequent upon
the accident?—Yes. We proposed by the Bill
to appoint a commission, consisting of a Queen's
counsel, and two assistant commissioners, to
assess the damages. All the damage was to be
assessed within nine months, and paid within 13
months. The Act did not at all proceed, as Mr.
Mundella seems to think, on a question of negli-
gence, because there was a specific clause in our
former Act that we should be liable.
554. I did not express any opinion, but merely
asked a question, whether it was so or not ?—It
was not so. We also asked that, as we had
given up 50 per cent., or nearly so, in 1853, on
the ground of our prosperity, we should be re-
couped to the extent of 25 per cent. on the
ground of our adversity.
0.8/ſ.
555. Chairman.] And that 25 per cent. was to
be in perpetuity ?–According to our proposition
it was to be in perpetuity. The claimants who
were chiefly interested settled the Bill with us,
and it was passed without opposition on their
part ; the corporation opposed principally on the
ground that they ought to have power to buy the
undertaking.
556. Did they also object to the 25 per cent. 2
—They objected to the 25 per cent. altogether;
they did not suggest any modification of it. The
great contest was whether or not they should
have power to buy the works. We naturally
objected to sell them when we were in extreme
adversity. In the Commons very little alteration
in the Bill was made ; the conflict was repeated
in the Lords, and their Lordships put in the
limitation for 25 years. Certainly it never came
as a suggestion from the corporation in any way,
and I am at a loss to see what advantage it is,
that it should come in 25 years, to the present
generation of water rate-payers. Twenty-five
years of annuity is almost equal to a perpetuity,
according to the tables.
557. You consider in that case the corporation
were unsuccessful ?–Quite unsuccessful; in fact
in some respects the 25 years was better for the
company than in perpetuity, because we could go
to a person who lends money and say, “Here the
rates are given for a specific term, and Parlia-
ment rarely alters rates which are given for a
specific term when money is borrowed on them.”
We found that a very attractive feature in our
security.
558. Then you obtained your Act 2–-We ob-
tained our Act, and proceeded with the commis-
sion. The corporation paid out of the public
rates the sum of 3,436 l. 6 s. 8d, for the opposi-
tion to that Bill.
559. Mr. Mellor.] Is that besides the 14,000 l.2
—It is.
560. Mr. Mundella.] That was paid out of the
rates at the time?—No doubt; and illegally
paid. It was a subject of great controversy in
the town. I was too busy to look after it.
561. Chairman.] In 1865 what took place?—At
the end of 1864 it appeared very doubtful whether
the Commissioners would get through their work
within the nine months, and the company pro-
moted a Bill to extend the period for, I think,
six months. It was a matter with which, I think,
nobody had anything to do but the claimants and
the company, but the corporation opposed the
Bill in the Commons. They petitioned but
did not appear. The Bill passed, unopposed,
through the Commons. When it came to the
Lords the corporation petitioned against amend-
ments against alterations, but before the Bill
came to the Lords it was unnecessary to proceed
further with it. The commissioners had done
most of their work, and it was withdrawn.
Again, they paid 44 l. 1 s. 6d. out of the public
rates illegally. In 1866 the immediate pressure
of the accident being over, the company were
very desirous of obtaining a rapid increase of
water to the town; of course the large reservoirs
took a deal of making, and under the special cir-
cumstances more than ordinary care was desir-
able in completing the other reservoirs, and we
therefore promoted a Bill for the purchase of
the millowners of compensation water, the posses-
sion of which would have given an immediate
increase of 2,000,000 gallons to the town. The
corporation opposed that Bill in the Commons.
C 3 The
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
22 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith. The scheme of our Bill was, that we should buy
22 April
1872.
the compensation water, and then have an exten-
sion of time to make the work, because, of
course, it was not necessary to do both simul-
taneously; they were again defeated.
562. On what ground did the corporation
oppose the Bill, was it because you wished to
extend the time -—They wished to make us buy
the compensation water, and complete the works
at the same time.
563. Which part of the Bill did the corpora-
tion oppose?—They opposed the whole Bill;
they were defeated entirely. The Bill passed
the Commons without the alteration, I believe, of
a single word. In the Lords the corporation
did not oppose; and they being absent, we were
not quite so successful. The Duke of Norfolk
opposed us there, and the River Don Navigation,
and their Lordships would only give us the right
to buy the compensation water for five years.
The millowners, with whom we had arranged
the Bill, said “ No, we shall not sell you the
water for five years; because that would involve
two changes in our machinery;” and the result
was that those clauses were struck out, and the
Bill remained a Bill to increase our capital, and
to make a small reservoir which gave a little
additional supply of water, which nobody objected
to.
564. Did it extend the time for making those
works 2–No, it did not affect the time.
565. Mr. Mellor.j Were the 2,000,000 gallons
to be supplied daily – Daily. In consequence
of the failure of that Bill we had to go to Par-
liament the following year for power to make
further works. That was in 1867. There was
no opposition that year on the part of the corpo-
ration, and the Bill was obtained. By the In-
undation Act of 1864, the time for the constant
supply had been extended to the 29th July 1869.
We were advised by Mr. Hawksley that it was
impossible to continue the constant supply safely
unless regulations were made respecting pipes
and cocks and cisterns, and so on, similar to those
proposed in the metropolis for the prevention of
waste. A little before July we began to prepare
the regulation which I adopted almost ipsissimis
verb is from those which had been in force with
excellent effect in Norwich, Nottingham, and I
believe Leicester.
565*. What was your object in taking the re-
gulations of those three towns —Because in
those three towns the water supply is known to
be effective, and Mr. Hawksley recommended
that those should be adopted, he being the en-
gineer.
566. Mr. Carter. Is he the engineer for those
three towns?—He is the engineer for Notting-
ham and Leicester, and I think consulting en-
gineer for Norwich. w
567. Chairman.] Were they considered to be
more effective than in Manchester 2–I think
Manchester had no regulations. I think they
had it in a different way. I think they insist
upon approving and stamping all fittings.
568. You are aware that they have a constant
supply 2–Yes, on the very day on which con-
stant supply had to be given, the corporation
made the requisition, and it was commenced.
They did not do it this time in a polite letter.
569. What was the date of that?—The 29th
or 30th of July 1869. I think I omitted to state,
if you will allow me to revert for a moment, that
in 1866 the corporation paid out of the public
rates, 712 l. 13 s. 11 d.
570. What for 2–For their opposition of 1866,
in which they were unsuccessful, and the same
year they opposed the Gas Bill, and also paid
out of the public rates 774 l. 14 s. 3 d. That is
all in addition to the 14,300 l. Well, then the
constant supply was commenced, and we very
soon found that the anticipations of waste were
fulfilled. The consumption sprang up to 40
gallons a head a day. A great part of it was
ascertained to have actually run away in the
night, owing to the leaking of cisterns and other
causes. The season happened to be remarkably
dry in that neighbourhood; only one-half of the
rain having fallen during the preceding summer
which generally fell. The consequence was
we were obliged to reduce the supply to 12
hours a day for about six weeks. The regula-
tions were brought before the magistrates, and
they were brought before the magistrates under
these circumstances.
571. When were they brought before the ma-
gistrates?—In November, I think. We had to
give notice for a month, we had to give notice
in the public papers.
572. Mr. Carter.] What was the waste of the
constant supply 2–The present constant supply
under the regulations is 22 gallons a head, so that
that makes 18 gallons a head waste. We now
supply more houses. The regulations were
published on the 28th September, and the appli-
cation to the magistrates was made on the 4th No-
vember 1869.
573. Chairman.] What were the regulations
intended to effect?—That pipes should be of a
certain weight, that cocks should be screw-down
cocks with leather faces, so as not to turn round
On the seat, that is, not to be likely to turn round
easily. The joints were to be of a kind called
plumbing joints, and not blow-pipe joints. No
cistern in the ground should be used. We found
that a great number of persons had cisterns in
the ground; there were about 1,500. The con-
Sumers ran the water in, and of course it was
very difficult to keep the cisterns from leaking,
or to keep the ball-cocks in order, and they
were one great source of waste. We metered
one cistern of that class, which supplied two
houses, and we found that it was running away
5,000 gallons a day.
574. I suppose the company had been aware
that all this waste was going on for some time,
were they not ?—We knew that there was great
waste, but we had only a supply of 12 hours a
day, and the waste is not so great while the
consumption is going on, because if a cistern is
pumped out it has to refill itself before it begins
to run over. In the night it gets full, and
then away it all goes together.
575. If all these pipes and arrangements were
so defective, you having had a number of years
to provide for giving a constant supply, why did
not you take means to have them remedied be-
fore the time expired 2–I do not say the pipes
were defective.
576. The regulations were intended to alter
the strength of the pipes and to make other
alterations !--As to the pipes, they prescribed a
certain weight, and they prescribed that weight
to all pipes; but of course it was never contem-
plated that we should make all our customers rip
up their pipes unless they leaked. It is not
likely that being shopkeepers for the sale of
Water
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 23
water we should try to offend our customers in
that way.
577. You have not quite answered my ques-
tion, which was, why, if you knew you were
obliged to give a constant supply in 1869, you
had not made preparations to meet that ?—One
reason was that we had been very busy with the
flood and other matters. Our attention had been
a good deal occupied, and as far as I myself am
concerned, I must say I was not aware of the
great waste. And as far as the officials of the
company at Sheffield went, I do not think their
attention had been drawn to the matter, and I
do not think they were aware of it. Mr.
Hawkesley, I have no doubt knew. No doubt
we were perhaps remiss; I do not say that we
were not remiss.
578. Then you went before the magistrates;
what was the result of that?—I may say that the
first regulation, about which a good deal has
been said, was this: “Every person supplied, re-
quiring and entitled to be supplied by the com-
pany of proprietors of the Sheffield Waterworks,
hereinafter called the company, shall, at his own
cost, provide, fix, lay, renew, and maintain the
requisite pipe or pipes (hereinafter called com-
munication pipe or communication pipes) for con-
veying water from the service pipe or pipes of
the company: Provided that no person other than
such as shall from time to time be thereto autho-
rised by the company, shall provide or fix any
ferule whereby any communication pipe may be
attached to any pipe of the company; and every
ferule required for connecting any communica-
tion pipe with any pipe of the company shall be
provided and affixed by the company, and shall
be and continue the property of the company.”
That was a good deal commented upon.
579. The corporation opposed that regulation ?
—Perhaps I had better tell you what they
opposed when we come to it. They opposed
that.
580. Did the justices pass that as you proposed
it?—They did not pass it; they struck it out
under these circumstances. It had been a Nor-
wich rule, and we wished to present the Nor-
wich rules just as they were to the justices; but
we really did not care about that regulation, and
we said we would strike it out. “No,” said
the counsel of the corporation, “you shall not
withdraw anything; now you have brought us
before the magistrates you shall go through to
the end.”
581. Before the magistrates you went through
the regulations seriatim 2–The reason why we
did not care about it was this: under the General
Waterworks Act of 1863, a penalty is imposed of
5 l. on any person who fixes, or causes or permits
to be fixed, any pipe belonging to the under-
takers, without their consent, so that practically
we had that regulation under the ordinary law.
582. It is no use going into them very closely,
but will you state as shortly as you can, whether
any of these regulations which you proposed
were altered by the magistrates on account of
the opposition of the corporation ?—They were
to some extent, but substantially they were the
same as we wanted.
583. Was not some alteration made with
respect to the retrospective effect of those regu-
lations?—There was this alteration made. We pro-
posed that as far as pipes went, all pipes should
be of one weight. No doubt with this regula-
tion we might have, if we had been foolish enough,
0.84.
insisted upon everybody taking their pipes out.
The justices put in this proviso: “Provided
always, the regulation hereinbefore contained
shall not apply to any pipe or joint used, laid or
fixed at the date of the confirmation of these
regulations by the justices, unless and until such
pipe or joint shall cause waste or misuser of
water supplied by the company,” which is just
what we should have done, so we did not care
about that. As to the water-closet clause, that is
this: you will see at once there is no retrospec-
tive exception there: “Every pan water-closet, in
which water supplied by the company shall,
after the expiration of six calendar months
from the confirmation of these regulations by
the justices, be used, shall be provided with a
ball cock, and a service cistern of lead or cast iron.
Every such service cistern shall be fitted with a
boot or division, such boot or division to be as high
as the top of such cistern, and to be capable of con-
taining not more than two gallons of water when
filled up to within three inches of the top thereof.
Every such service cistern shall have two proper
alternating valves so arranged as to let down at
each pull or lift of the said valves a quantity of
water not exceeding the contents of such boot or
division, and in any case not more than two
gallons, and such cistern and valves shall be so
arranged and contrived that water shall not be
able to flow into and out of the cistern at the
same time. Every such water-closet shall have
a pipe of lead from the said cistern thereof to
the basin of the water-closet, of not less than one
and a quarter inch in diameter, and weighing
not less than nine pounds to every lineal yard of
such pipe. Every such water-closet shall be pro-
vided with “a basin, a scatterer, a weighted
lever, a pan, and a trap.”
584. Was that passed ?–It was.
585. In that form *—We proposed it without
the six months. They stuck in the six calendar
months.
586. They gave six months longer than you
proposed to give 2–Yes; we did not want to
annoy people. When we want a water-closet
altered, we wait until the gentleman is altering
his house, or something of that sort.
587. How long were these matters before the
justices 2–I appeared before the justices myself,
without any counsel; I thought we should have
done it in an amicable way, and I was met by
three counsel; two counsel who acted for the
corporation, and the mayor who opposed indi-
vidually. He is a large brewer, and his water
bill at that time was larger than that of the cor-
poration itself; so that he had a large interest
in it.
588. Mr. Carter.] Do you mean larger than
the consumption for the town 2–Larger than the
consumption which they paid for municipal pur-
poses.
589. Chairman.] Did the mayor appear in
person, or employ counsel ?—By counsel. A
consumer appeared by counsel, acting with the
corporation, and one consumer appeared alone :
so that there were two consumers, or three with
the mayor, out of 45,000, who thought it was
necessary to oppose.
590. How many days were they before the
magistrates ?—The first day I was met by every
possible objection; and, much to my surprise,
they contended that no regulations at all ought
to be passed. I should tell you under what
circumstances those regulations came before the
C 4 justices.
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
24
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
justices. In 1860 we promoted an Act to
get more capital, and for power to make
these regulations. In almost all, if not in all
other companies, the companies have the power
to make regulations. The corporation came to
us and threatened to oppose unless we put in
some alterations: we did, and amongst others, at
the request of the corporation, we referred the
matter to two justices; and that I believe is the
only instance in England where this important
matter was referred to two justices, and I should
think it would probably be the last. I found
after, it was quite impossible to keep up with
these three learned gentlemen, and I was obliged
to ask for an adjournment; and I brought down
Mr. Charles Pollock and Mr. Macrory, an eminent
gentleman in mechanics. The contest proceeded :
Mr. Pollock was obliged to leave for part of the
time, and during his absence Mr. Pope repre-
sented him ; we had never more than two; but
every possible objection was taken. The thing
was fought with greater vigour than ever I
saw a Bill fought in the House of Commons or
House of Lords, and not nearly so well fought;
and eventually it lasted for 13 days. Those are
the printed proceedings.
591. Can you say what the cost of these pro-
ceedings was to yourselves?—Yes, I think about
3,000l. I think I mentioned before that the
corporation objected in toto to the regulations,
they did not confine themselves to amendments,
but they said they were all illegal, and ought not
to be passed. It is not worth while reading what
the counsel said. The opposition was so formida-
ble, and there seemed to be such probability that
by some misapprehension of the justices there
might be a miscarriage, or that one of the justices
might be ill (in fact, one has died since ; he was
in very delicate health at that time, and that, I
believe, was his last public act, Mr. Dunn—that
the company were advised that they had better
give notice to Parliament for a Bill next Session
for similar regulations.
592. For regulations such as you had pro-
posed?—Yes. -
593. Did you prepare such a Bill?—That
Bill was prepared; the motice was given on the
last day, and to my extreme astonishment, along-
side of it in the morning, was a notice of a Bill
by the corporation to purchase compulsorily our
undertaking.
594. That would be in November 1869 P-
Yes. No intimation whatever had been given to
the company; no resolution had been taken by
the town council upon it; no debate had ever
been heard about it; and if notice was pre-
pared after mine had been sent, it could not have
been before the council, because mine was only
prepared the day before. How it got to the know-
ledge of the corporation I never could ascertain;
the information was refused me when I asked.
595. Before that notice for the Bill by the cor-
poration, had you said anything which showed
that you were not prepared to give a constant
supply of water?—No ; I believe at that parti-
cular moment (I will not charge myself as to
whether we had then increased the hours; I
explained that in consequence of the waste, we
had to decrease them to 12 hours); as far as I
recollect at that time, we were giving a constant
supply. -
596. In November ?—In November ; I will
not be quite certain; it was either then or very
soon after ; I think it was only about six weeks
we had to reduce it to 12 hours.
597, Mr. Mundella.] When did you reduce it
to 12 hours?—About the end of August 1869.
We commenced the constant supply in July
1869; then came the waste of 18 gallons a head
a day, and the drought of the previous summer.
598. Chairman. May I ask whether this Bill
of yours proposed to do away with the obliga-
tions to give a constant supply?—It proposed to
do this: A great deal had been said during the
hearing of the inconvenience the regulations
would cause if rapidly brought into operation;
it was quite obvious we could not continue the
constant supply with that waste, and we there-
fore proposed this modification in the Bill, that
during 1871 the supply should be 14 hours; in
1872 and 1873, 16 hours; in 1874–75, 18 hours;
and from the end of 1875, a constant supply if
the town council so required.
599. Are you sure that it was 1875 when the
constant supply was to come into operation ?—
“From and after the end of the year 1875 the
water supplied by the company need not be con-
stantly laid on under pressure, except during 18
hours, unless the council of the borough of
Sheffield require that the same be constantly
laid on under pressure.”
600. The reply given by the mayor was that
it was 1880?–Yes, I caught the reply, but here
is the Bill.
601. Did you receive a letter on the 20th
November 1869 from the town clerk of Sheffield,
a letter which has been published in the Parlia-
mentary Paper, and was this the last paragraph
of the letter: “Nothing short of a constant
supply, the giving of which has so long been
evaded, will satisfy the town " ?—I remember
that expression.
602. Did you, against that, give notice for a
Bill postponing the constant supply P – That
letter would be received on the 20th November;
I should think my notice would be given before
it, but I do not recollect. ..'
603. When is the last day in November upon
which notice can be given 2–It depends on how
the weeks fall; you must give notice for three
successive weeks ; if the 30th, the last day, is
Monday, you can get it all in in about eight
days, -
604. You cannot say whether you received
that letter before your notice was given 2–It
would be about the same time, but it certainly
was not in consequence of the letter; in fact the
Bill recites this: “That it is expedient that better
provision be made for securing as far as possible
that the pipes, cocks, and other apparatus of the
consumers be of proper strength, mature, size,
and position, and in a proper state, and that until
such provision can take effect, the time in each
day during which water supplied by the com-
pany shall be laid on under pressure be limited.”
605. Did you receive, in February, a requisi-
tion from the corporation, requesting you to call
together a meeting of shareholders ?—I remem-
ber receiving one; I do not know whether it
was in February.
606. They asked you to convene a meeting of
the shareholders, to ascertain whether, under
section 53 of the Local Government Act of 1858,
three-fifths of the shareholders were willing to
sell, convey, and transfer to the council the
rights, powers, and privileges of the company?—
Yes, I believe that was the effect. -
607. Did
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
25
607. Did the company refuse to call a meet-
ing of the shareholders?—I forget whether we
answered the letter, or refused. Of course we
did one or the other. We were not very likely
to call a meeting. The corporation knew that
very well.
608. Did you, in your letter of the 8th
February, in reply to the town clerk, refer him
to a letter of the 12th October 1868, written by
the managing director of the company, in refer-
ence to the same subject 2—Very likely. I do
not recollect the letter.
609. And in that letter it is stated, “ The
directors, after full deliberation, have resolved
that it is incumbent on them, in the charge of
the important trust confided to them, to decline
to convene a meeting of the shareholders”?—I
recollect that expression.
610. You, in your letter, state, “That the
directors see no reason to alter their opinions * *
—Yes. In the Bill which was deposited in due
time by the corporation, they proposed to trans-
fer all the powers bodily to themselves, and that
they should pay us, and that then we should be
wound up, which appeared to us rather a strong
measure, without asking our consent at all.
611. I thought they had asked your share-
holders to consider the proposal –Which the
shareholders, acting through the directors, re-
fused to do. The Bill seemed to have been
framed on a misapprehension of the true con-
stitution of the company, and only provided for
the payment of one class of shareholders. It did
not give the directors any powers to divide pro
rata, according to the value of the shares; in
fact the Bill would have been simply unwork-
able. The next step was, that I filed an in-
formation in Chancery against the town council.
612. The Company did 2–The directors, who
were not only directors of the company, but also
men of large property in the town. It was
avowedly on the part of the company, but there
was a technical reason why a corporation should
not become a relator.
613. What was the result 2–I prayed there
that they might be restrained from expending the
public money, not only in promoting the Bill
against ourselves, but also in promoting two Bills
against the gas company, one for the compulsory
purchase of the gas company, which would cost
about a million I suppose, and the other for rival
gas works. Our interest in that was, that if the
corporation committed the town to the large ex-
penditure for the gas works, we whose rates were
11,000l. or 12,000 l. a year would be very great
sufferers; and, besides, the corporation had up
to that time, in a little more than three
years, expended in opposing public companies
4,967 l. 16s. 4d, which was becoming a very
serious consideration for the ratepayers.
614. What was the result of your application ?
—The injunction came on to be heard on the 17th
February, before any of the three Bills had been
read a first time. The corporation had no answer
to make to it; they admitted that the law was
as we contended, and submitted to the injunction
and to pay the costs, which they did. It was be-
fore Vice Chancellor Stuart. Then it appears
that certain gentlemen entered into a personal
guarantee with the town clerk for the expenses
of promoting the three Bills, of which I am told
that this is a copy (handing a document to the
Committee).
615. These
0.84.
gentlemen entered into this
guarantee as ratepayers, I suppose 2–As indi-
viduals; it was a personal guarantee.
616. Is not it as ratepayers ?—They are rate-
payers, I dare say. They are now liable, no
doubt, on that guarantee personally and not as
ratepayers.
617. Mr. Mundella.] This is a guarantee for
limited sums to each name 2–It appears to be so.
618. Mr. Leeman.] Where did you get this?
—From a copy which was lent me by one of the
town councillors.
619. Who lent it to you ?—I am not obliged
to tell you. I will ask the Chairman. The 5th
clause will relieve them from this liability.
620. Chairman.] Do you know what the
guarantee announted to?—I have not the slightest
idea. Upon that guarantee the three Bills pro-
ceeded. But it was not until the 6th April 1870,
that is very nearly two months after the injunction,
that the Gas Bills came before the Committee of
which Mr. Goldney was Chairman. The Com-
mittee heard the promoters' case, and turned the
Bills out without hearing the case of the com-
pany. They declared the preamble not proved.
621. Did you appear for the gas company ?—
No ; I was present in the room. I do not give
evidence on behalf of the gas company.
... 622. Do you know anything with respect to
the Gas Bill; the reasons upon which that Bill
was thrown out 2–No, the Committee gave no
reasons. I was present and heard it. Then on
the 19th February, to go back a few days, the
magistrates certified the regulations. We were
advised by Mr. Hawksley that there was suffi-
cient for our purpose. On the 16th March we
withdrew our Bill, it being no longer necessary.
623. Had you in the meantime any communi-
cation with the corporation ?–No ; on the 26th
of April, after the defeat of the Gas Bills, the
corporation withdrew their Water Bill.
624. Did they make any communication with
you before that time 2—No. Neither of the
Water Bills ever came before a Committee at
all.
625. Before a Committee of what kind 2–Of
the House of Commons or Lords.
626. Can you state what your expenses were 2
—About 1:250 l. or rather under for promoting
my own Bill and opposing theirs. Theirs, ac-
cording to official documents, appeared to be
4,113 1. 9s. 1d. The Gas Bill was 6,025 l. 2 s. 3d.
627. The opposition ?--The opposition and
promotion.
628. You are speaking of the corporation ?—
Yes. I believe the Gas Bill was about 2,000 l.,
their own expenses.
629. I suppose you are aware that a public
meeting of ratepayers was held to support the
corporation in what they did 2–Yes, they were
always called late at night; half-past seven or
eight, when everybody in Sheffield of much
weight is out of town.
630. Is not that the time when the greater
proportion of ratepayers would be able to attend?
—The greater proportion perhaps in number, but
certainly not the greater proportion in property,
who would have had to pay for this scheme.
631. Is it not usual to call meetings of rate-
payers in the evening on a great public question ?
—I should say not. It is many years since I
attended one, but that was in the middle of the
day. -
632. Supposing it was held in the middle of the
day, would it give the ratepayers a chance of
appearing 2
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
26
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
appearing 2—I think they would have a better
chance.
633. How would the large class of ratepayers
be able to leave their work to appear 2–If held
at 12 or one o'clock, they would be able to attend
in their dinner hour.
634. Is there a composition for the borough
rate 2–No. The borough rate is paid with the
poor rate. Under the Poor Law Collection Act
you know the incidents of the poor rate in effect
are made to fall on the landlord.
635. Is that in operation in Sheffield now 2–
In operation all over England.
636. It was only passed in 1869?–In the Ses-
sion of 1869; then it would be in operation.
637. It could not be in operation at that time?
Yes, if passed in the Session of 1869. This is
the autumn of 1869.
638. Of course it is just possible it might be 2
—I think you will find that it is. Of course a
sudden rise in the borough rate cannot be met
with a sudden rise in the small rents. It would
fall on the landlords. If the borough rate were
permanently enlarged, the rents might follow,
and in that way the working classes might be
made to bear part of the taxation. To refer for
a moment to the eight o'clock meeting, very few
people live in Sheffield itself. -
639. You mean the large ratepayers?—Yes,
they live two or three or four uniles out ; the
further the better, so they will not come down.
640. I presume that the corporation themselves
were almost unanimous in favour of promoting
their own Bill and opposing yours ?—I believe
out of, I think, 56 there, there were 16 who were
called the dissenters, who did not agree. They
protested. I think that was it.
641. Do you know whether any election had
taken place when this subject was before the
town : whether an election took place upon it in
any way to the corporation ; whether they were
elected on the grounds of opposing the water
company; I really cannot say; I did not take
much interest in the municipal election : I have
no doubt it was popular amongst the lower
classes. There is no question about that; H
think they did not quite know what the corpora-
tion Bill was ; in addition to charging the rates
in the Committee, it contained this clause ; this
is the Bill of the corporation, proposing to take
the waterworks; they first took all the rights of
the company, which of course would involve the
right to charge the present rates, and also this
further right for the purpose of making good any
deficiency in the water rents and charges and other
receipts from the waterworks to pay the interest
upon mortgage, and defray the expenses of carrying
this Act into execution, and for other the pur-
poses of this Act, the corporation may from time
to time, when and as often as occasion requires,
make and levy a special wate rater upon all pro-
perty within the borough rateable to the borough
rate in like manner, and with the same powers
as they are entitled to make and levy the borough
rate, and such rate shall be called a special water
rate.”
642. Mr. Carter.] Is not that a usual clause
put into water Bills when obtained by corpora-
tions?—I believe it is ; but at the same time I
fancy it is considered in the water rate; our
water rates were passed without reference to such
a clause.
643. Chairman.] We have heard it stated by
the mayor that there were great complaints made
in Sheffield of the scarcity of water for the manu-
facturers; have those complaints come to your
knowledge 7–I cannot say that we have had
many complaints. No doubt in the great drought
of 1870, which was the greatest drought since
1826, the manufacturers were to some extent
inconvenienced; but we have never had any
violent complaints; they have always been very
good friends with us. There is no denying that
after the rupture of the dam, until we could get
the Agden dam into operation, there was a
scarcity of water. It would not have arisen if
the Dale dyke had not given way; nor would it
have arisen if we obtained our Act of 1866.
644. You admit that there was a great scarcity
of water for manufacturing purposes —No, I do
not say great ; I say that there was a scarcity;
I did not say a great scarcity. The loss of that
reservoir, of course, upset all our calculations ;
and in addition to that, in consequence of the
doubts which were thrown on the construction
of the dam, until we had consulted five of the
most eminent engineers we could get, we did not
proceed with the Agden reservoir.
645. Did you ever hear of machinery being
stopped for want of water?—No ; I cannot say
I ever did.
646. Do the mills principally take their supply
of water from your company ?—There was a
little confusion, I think in that answer; the mills
are worked by motive power on the streams, and
we give them compensation water; that com-
pensation water is the first charge upon the
works, we cannot reduce that. The manufac-
turers in the town, for steam-engine purposes
and various manufacturing purposes, take the
water from the distribution.
647. They take it from the company ?—Yes;
we generally distinguish them, in waterworks
phraseology, as mills and manufactories. The
mills being dependent on the compensation water,
with which we have nothing to do, and the
manufacturers being customers, and paying for
the water.
648. Was it within your knowledge, that the
manufacturers who took water from your com-
pany ever complained of the scarcity of water?—
None came to my knowledge ; and I do not
think, practically, there was any difficulty, be-
cause manufacturers generally have cisterns, and
store at all events a day’s supply. In the autumn
of 1869, the corporation gave notice for what
was called an Improvement Bill. That is the
one I hold in my hand, consisting of 319 clauses,
the last two of which are similar to the 5th
clause in the present Bill, giving the corporation
power to pay all costs, charges, and expenses
incurred in and with respect to the promotion of
the three Bills introduced into Parliament in the
last Session, upon the petition of the corporation,
for the purchase by the corporation of the under-
takings of the gas and water companies. Then
there was another clause, which was the same
as the other part of the Bill.
649. Did that Bill go before the Committee ?
—That was petitioned against by 14 different
petitioners.
650. Of what class?—The Duke of Norfolk,
Lord Fitzwilliam, the gas company, the water
company, almost all the great limited companies
in Sheffield, Truswell & Co., Camel & Co., John
Brown & Co., Martin, Hall & Co., Sanderson,
Bros. & Co. (Limited), and 3,000 ratepayers of
Sheffield.
651. Did
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL.
27
651. Did they all petition against it on the
same ground 2–They all petitioned against these
clauses, and generally against the Bill. The
ratepayers' petition contained this statement,
“That your petitioners submit that the said Bill
has been prepared and brought forward in a
hasty and ill-considered manner, and that the
time has not been given to the public which
ought to have been given to them for the con-
sideration of a Bill which proposes so materially
to affect them, and your petitioners verily believe
that upon the plea of obtaining further improve-
ment and sanitary powers, the real object of the
corporation in applying for the Bill is to charge
the borough fund with the Parliamentary ex-
penses so injudiciously incurred by them in the
last Session to have a similar power with respect
to any future Parliamentary proceedings of the
corporation.”
652. Mr. Mundella.] Who drew up that peti-
tion ?—Messrs. Burdekin & Smith.
653. Mr. Leeman.] Who paid the expenses of
it? — The ratepayers themselves subscribed
about 2,000 l. and paid it.
654. Chairman.] Do you know whether those
ratepayers were the large ratepayers of the
town 2–Some of the largest ratepayers in the
town. The day but one before the Bill came
into the Committee the opponents were informed
by the agents for the Bill that they had struck
out every clause against which a petition had
been directed, and proposed to pass the Bill in
that shape.
655. Was the Bill passed in that shape?—An
attempt was made to get a locus standi against
the Bill, but the Chairman decided that there was
no locus standi. As there was nothing against
which the petition had been specifically directed,
we could not go on, and the Bill was passed.
That is the mountain and that is the mouse
(producing the Bill as proposed and as finally
passed).
656. What does the Bill, as finally passed, in-
clude 2–It includes some alterations in the wards
of the town, and the number of the councillors;
it extends some of the town police clauses; it
inflicts a penalty for riotous and indecent be-
haviour in a police office.
657. Is there any clause for paying the ex-
penses of obtaining that Bill ?—That was the
important clause; there is the usual clause, that
all the costs, charges, and expenses, preliminary
and incidental, to preparing, applying for, and
passing this Act, shall be borne by the corpora-
tion.
658. You have nothing to say about the ex-
penses of obtaining it 2–Unfortunately, we had
not petitioned against it.
659. There is nothing now you have to say
about it 2–I have to say that the current report
(it has never been published yet) is, that the
expenses of this little Act were 4,000 l.
660. That is not a matter before the Com-
mittee -They are entitled to pay it, no doubt,
under the clause of this Act. Then there is the
mad-dog clause, a clause about a collar to a dog,
diseased cattle, street musicians to depart, and
a penalty for injuring the churches. In 1870, it
Seems 1,000 l. was paid on account of the ex-
penses of the opposition to the Water Bill.
661. The Water Bill of 1869 P_-_Yes.
662. How does that appear?--It appeared in
the Sheffield newspapers, that a sum of that
sort had been paid. About the beginning of
0.84.
June, there was a resolution published in the
minutes of the council, “Resolved, that a cheque
be signed for 1,526 l. 3 s., for payment of ex-
penses incurred in passing the regulations pro-
posed by the Sheffield Waterworks Company; ”
about the same time, there was also published a
report of the finance committee, to be presented
to the town council of the borough on the 8th of
June, in which report was contained an estimate
by the committee of the probable expenses of
the borough up to, and including the 1st of De-
cember 1870, in order to the same being raised
by a borough rate ; this estimate contained the
following items: “To pay expenses of opposing
the Bill of the Sheffield Waterworks Company
in Parliament, 3,500 l. ; to pay expenses of op-
posing the regulations proposed by the Sheffield
Waterworks Company, 1,500 l. ;” and then, after-
wards, we find in the borough accounts for the
year ending the 31st August 1870, there ap-
peared the following payments: “Expenses in
opposing the proposed regulations by the Water-
works Company, 1,526 l. 0 s. 3 d., and on ac-
count of the expenses incurred in opposing the
Waterworks Company’s Bill in Parliament,
1,000 l.” That is the authority for my statement.
On the 7th June I wrote the following to the
town clerk: “I am instructed to say that the
attention of some of the relators in this informa-
tion has been drawn to the report contained in
yesterday's ‘Independent’ of the minutes of the
town council, by which it appears that it is con-
templated to pay out of the borough rate 3,500 l.,
the cost of opposing the Bill of the Waterworks
Company in Parliament, and 1,526 l. 0 s. 3 d.,
the cost of the opposition to the company’s appli-
cation for the confirmation of regulations by the
justices. I am desired to call your notice to the
fact that the writ of injunction granted on the
above information prohibits not only any pay-
ment out of the rates of the expenses of pro-
moting the Water and the Gas Bills, but also all
payments for any other illegal purpose. My
clients think it right, under the circumstances in
which they are placed, to inform you that they
do not consider that the cost of the opposition to
the company’s Bill, or of the opposition to the
application for the confirmation of the regulations,
are legal payments to be made out of any of the
rates collected by the corporation, and on this
point I beg leave to refer you to Regina v.
Marris and others, decided by the Court of
Queen's Bench 20th January 1857, and reported
in the 21st volume of the “Justice of the Peace,’
p. 581; 3,500 l appears so large a sum for what
was, in fact, only the preparation for an opposi-
tion that, under any circumstances, the mode in
which that amount has been arrived at ought to
appear. I have to request that this letter may
be brought before the council, and remain yours
faithfully, R. Blakelock Smith. John Yeomans,
Esq., Town Clerk, Sheffield.” On the 5th or
6th of the following month of July I received
the following answer to my letter : “Attorney
General and Corporation of Sheffield: I laid
your letter of the 7th ult, before the town council
at its meeting held on the 8th ult, and it was
referred to the water committee of the council.
The committee have since met and considered
the points in your letter, and referred to the
case therein cited. They do not consider, how-
ever, that it at all governs the case of the Shef-
field corporation. The committee will no doubt
be anxious to avoid all illegal payments, but they
D 2 do
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
28 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
do not concur with you in putting under that head
the two referred to in your letter. I am, dear
sir, yours truly, John Yeomans, Town Clerk.
R. Blakelock Smith, Esq., Law Clerk to the
Sheffield Waterworks Company, Sheffield.” The
last letter of mine was written before the 1,526 l.
was paid. The time having arrived for the audit
of the borough account. On the 3rd September I
wrote to each of the borough auditors: “ Gen-
tlemen, I have to call your attention as auditors
of the borough of Sheffield to the fact, that on the
13th day of March last an injunction was granted
by the Court of Chanery against the corporation
of the borough of Sheffield, restraining them from
applying any of the rates mentioned in the in-
formation on which the injunction was granted
towards the expenses of the Water Bill and Gas
Bills, which the corporation promoted during the
first Session of Parliament, or for any other
illegal purpose. I enclose a copy of the Writ of
Injunction, which was duly served on the town
clerk on the 22nd April 1870. I have to give
you notice that my clients, the surviving relators
in the information, object to any of the ex-
penses of promoting the said Bills, or either of
them being charged directly, or indirectly, as
disbursements in the accounts which will this
month be submitted to you as auditors. I have
also to inform you that my clients consider that
the expenses of the opposition by the Corpora-
tion of Sheffield to the Bill promoted in the first
Session of Parliament, by the Sheffield Water
Company, and of the opposition by the corpora-
tion, whether alone or in conjunction with any
other person, to the confirmation by justices of
the Water Company’s Regulations, made under
the Sheffield Waterworks Act, 1860, will, if
paid out of the money raised by any rate under
the control of the corporation, be illegal payment
within the meaning of the injunction. My clients
consequently consider that if any such payments,
direct or indirect, is allowed in the accounts, I
have mentioned, those accounts will not be cor-
rect, as they are required to be by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c.
76, s. 93, before receiving your signature. After
this statement you will of course understand that
my clients reserve to themselves the right, if
necessary, to contest the validity of the audit of
the account referred to, in case any of the dis-
bursements I have mentioned should appear in
them, upon their publication. I have the honour
to remain, gentlemen, your most obedient ser–
vant, R. Blakelock Smith. Francis Day, Esq.,
12 St. James-street; Charles Colgrave, Esq.,
St. James-row ; John Fairburn, Esq., Broomhall
Park, auditors for the borough of Sheffield.”
The only reply I got was from Mr. Day; “ 12th
September : Dear Sir: Absence from home has
prevented my acknowledging receipt of your
favour of 3Ed instant, enclosing copy of Writ of
Injunction against the Corporation of Sheffield,
in re the Water and Gas Bills. My own aim
will be to do only what is right in auditing the
borough accounts, so far as I am able to judge.
I am, dear sir, yours faithfully, Francis Day,
borough auditor.”
663. Have those accounts been audited 2–
Those were audited and the amounts remained
in. On the 7th January I wrote to the town
clerk as follows: “I am instructed by Messrs.
Samuel Roberts, William Waterfall, Francis
Colley, Charles Hoole, John William Hawksley,
Henry Unwin, and William Sissons, ratepayers
in the borough of Sheffield, and consequently
contributors to the borough rates, acting both
for themselves and in the interest of the com-
pany of proprietors of the Sheffield Waterworks,
of which they are directors, to apply to the
Court of Queen's Bench for a certiorari under
7 Will. 4, and 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 44, to ascertain
the right of the Corporation of Sheffield to
charge against the borough fund of Sheffield, the
amounts incurred by them as opposing the Water-
works Company’s Regulations, under the Act of
1860, and the Water Company’s Bill of last
Session. It appears from the abstract of the
accounts of the borough treasurer, for the year
ending 31st August 1870, that the amount then
paid in respect of the opposition to the com-
pany’s regulations by the corporation, was
1,526 l. 0 s. 3 d., and that at that date 1,000 l.
had been paid on account of the opposition to
the Company’s Bill in Parliament. It also ap-
pears from a report in the “Sheffield Indepen-
dent’ newspaper of the proceedings at the town
council meeting, held on the 4th December 1870,
that a further payment was intended to be made
on account of the opposition to the Company’s
Bill, of 1,429 (. 19 s. 3 d., and that there was
still more than 1,600 l. to pay. It therefore seems
that, in addition to the sum of 1,526 l. 0 s. 3d.
incurred by the corporation in opposing the re-
gulations, 4,029 (. 19 s. 3 d. was spent on ac-
count of the opposition to the Company's Bill.
I am instructed to ask whether such sum of
1,429 l. 19 s. 3 d., or any and what other sum,
in addition to the 1,000 l. mentioned in the
treasurer's account, has been or is intended to
be paid on account of the opposition in Parlia-
ment to the Company’s Bill of last Session; and
whether it is intended to pay the further sum of
1,600 l., or any and what other sum, on the same
account? I am also instructed to ask if you will
furnish a statement of the items of which the
1,526 l. 0s. 3 d., 1,000 l., 1,429 i. 19 s. 3 d., and
1,600 l. are made up, the reasonable expenses
for which I shall be glad to pay, or should you
decline to do that, will you allow a competent
person on the part of the ratepayers, whom I
represent, to inspect the books and accounts of
the corporation, to ascertain how the amounts are
constituted, and to take extracts or copies from
such books and accounts P Mr. Moore, as an
individual, joined the corporation in opposing the
company’s regulations, employing the same soli-
citor and counsel. I am directed to ask whether
Mr. Moore contributed any, and what sum, to
the costs of the joint opposition, or whether the
sum of 1,526 l. 0s. 3 d. included all the expenses
jointly incurred 2 My clients are desirous of
bringing the question at issue fairly and properly
before the court, and I hope that you will see no
objection to giving the information I ask for, to
be used with that object. As Hilary Term will
shortly commence, I shall be obliged by an early
answer to this letter. I remain, dear sir, yours
faithfully, R. Blakelock Smith. John Yeoman,
Esq., Town Clerk, Sheffield.”
664, Did you receive an answer to that ?—I
received an answer merely acknowledging the
receipt on the 7th, and then a further answer on
the 11th. “Dear Sir, In answer to your letter
of the 7th instant, I beg to inform you that you
are in error in supposing that in addition to the
sum of 1,526 l. 0s. 3d. incurred by the corporation
in opposing the Water Company's Regulations
4,029 l. 19's. 3 d. was spent in opposing the Com-
pany’s Bill in Parliament. The cost of that op-
position
ON MUNICIPAX, CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
29
position was 1,429 l. 19 s. 3 d. only, of which
1,000 l. has been paid, leaving 429 l. 19 s. 3 d.
still due, and which the corporation intend to
pay: Mr. Moore did not contribute anything to-
wards the costs incurred by the corporation in
opposing the Water Company's Regulations. If
you require any further information, you must
obtain it in the ordinary and prescribed manner.
I remain, dear sir, yours truly, John Yeomans,
Town Clerk. R. Blakelock Smith, Esq., Law
Clerk to the Sheffield Water Works Company.”
I replied on the 14th January, “In your letter
to me of the 11th instant, you say that the cost
of the opposition to the Water Company’s Bill in
|Parliament was 1,429 /. 19 s. 3 d., only of which
1,000 l. has been paid, leaving 429 l. 19 s. 3 d.
still due, but in the published abstract of the
borough treasurer's accounts, up to the 31st
August last, I find the following item, ‘ On ac-
count of expenses incurred in opposing the Water-
works Company’s Bill in Parliament, 1,000 l.” On
inspecting the books in the borough accountant's
office, it appears that this payment was made on
or about the 9th March 1870. It also appears
from the printed minutes of the water com-
mittee of the town council, which was this morn-
ing given to my clerk at your office, that on the
13th December 1870, that committee recom-
mended the payment of 1,429 /. 19 s. 3 d., being
the expenses of opposing the Bill promoted by
the Sheffield Water Works Company in Parlia-
ment. As the resolution of the water committee
was made several months after the payment in
March, it certainly appears that this 1,429 l.
19 s. 3 d. is in addition to the 1,000 /. As I told
you in my letter of the 7th instant, I am in-
structed to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench
for a certiorari to test the right of the corporation
to charge against the borough fund of Sheffield
the amounts incurred by them in opposing the
Water Company’s Bill of last Session. My clients
are desirous of placing the facts fairly before the
court, and I assume that the town council wish
the same thing; may I therefore ask you to ex-
plain how it is that the total expenses being
1,429 l. 19's. 3 d., 1,000 l. was paid in March,
and 1,429 / 19 s. 3 d. recommended to be paid
in December 2 As my clients wish to move
during the present term, will you kindly favour
me with a reply during Monday? Yours faithfully,
R. Blakelock Smith. John Yeoman, Esq.” I
got a reply on the 16th January, “In answer
to your letter of the 14th instant, asking
me to explain how it is that the total ex-
penses of opposing the Bill promoted by the
Sheffield Water Works Company during last
Session being 1,429 l. 19 s. 3 d., 1,000 l. was
paid in March, and 1,429 l. 19 s. 3 d. was re-
commended to be paid in December, I beg to
refer you to my former letter of the 11th inst.,
wherein I stated that the cost of the opposition
was 1,429 l. 19 s. 3 d., of which 1,000 l. had been
paid, leaving 429 l. 19 s. 3 d. still due, and to
inform you that no money is paid hy the treasurer
of the borough except on the order of the council
in writing, signed by three members, and coun-
tersigned by me. Your clerk informed me that
the borough treasurer had produced to him the
order made by the council for the payment of
the said sum of 1,000 l. on account of the opposi-
tion to the said Bill, as well as the order made
by the council for payment of 1,526 1. 0 s. 3 d.,
the expenses of opposing certain proposed regu-
lations of the said company. I am, dear sir,
0.84.
yours faithfully, John Yeoman, Town Clerk.
R. Blakelock Smith, Esq., Law Clerk to the
Sheffield Water Works Company, Sheffield.” I
replied, “I am obliged by your letter, just re-
ceived, but it does not explain the inconsistency,
whether it be real or only apparent, of there
being an order in March for the payment of
1,000 l., which was actually paid either in March
or April, and in December a recommendation to
pay 1,429 l. 19 s. 3 d. for the same opposition,
whilst you state the total expenses of that oppo-
sition were only 1,429 l. 19's. 3 d. I assume,
however, that you have said all you wish to say
on this point, so I do not ask you for any further
information, unless you desire to give it. May
I, however, ask you whether any money on
account of the opposition to the Water Works
Bill has been paid over and above the 1,000 l.
paid in March or April, and which appeared in
the borough accounts of the year ending 31st
August 1870. Perhaps you will be good enough
to let me have a reply to the question in the
course of the afternoon. Yours faithfully, R.
Blakelock Smith. John Yeomans, esq., Town
Clerk.” Then, “In reply to your letter of to-
day, I have again to state that 1,000 l. only has
been paid on account of the opposition of the Bill
of the Sheffield Water Works Company in
Parliament.” That is the end of it. I applied
for a certiorari, and that was heard in June. On
that hearing, Mr. Manisty, the counsel for the
corporation, stated that 1,429 l, was the whole of
the sum, and said, “the rest we have paid out of
our own pocket;” so that there are three separate
statements all in an official form. The first on
the town council minutes of June 1870; the
opposition is stated in a formal estimate for the
borough rate to be 3,500 l. ; that document is
here. The town clerk in his letter states the sum
to be 1,429 l 19 s. 3 d. only. It is now stated
in the account presented by the town council a
few days ago, that the amount is 4,113 l. 9s. 1d.,
including the cost of the promotion of their
Bill, but no explanation has ever been given
why the opposition is estimated for a
borough rate at 3,500 l., while the town clerk
and Mr. Manisty say it is only 1,400 l. On
the hearing of the certiorari, the practice is for
the defendant to begin, therefore they began,
and of course, being defendants, they stated
their case very fully. They had four counsel.
The judgment is there, but the reason for the
judgment is not there. Mr. Pollock confined
himself entirely to the law of the question. It
was so decidedly with us, that before we came to
the merits at all, we were stopped by the court,
as appears by the authorised reports, 6 Law
Reports. The judges, therefore, have never
had the merits of our case before them at all,
although, as I think, somewhat hastily, they
sympathise with the town council.
665. They sympathise but decided against
them 2 — Yes; and on these grounds. The
Chief Justice said, “it is abundantly clear ;
there is no doubt or question that the
opposition was a matter which looking to
the words of the section of the Act of Par-
liament to which I have just referred, was
altogether beyond the scope of the corporation
powers;” and Mr. Justice Blackburn said it was
quite obvious the water company was particu-
larly averse to paying a rate which was to be
applied for the purpose of defeating themselves.
We never were heard on the merits.
D 3 666. You
Mr. Smith,
22 April
1872.
30
SELECT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
666. You are aware, of course, there are other
Darts of the judgment where it says, that the oppo-
sition of the corporation was meritorious?—Then
he had not heard our statement.
667. Is that the reason you wish the Com-
mittee to understand that your case was never
properly before the court”—I do, most decidedly.
It is in the formal report; in 6 Law Reports.
Mr. Pollock was stopped by the court. Mr.
Quain, the present justice, was coming on. They
had arranged between themselves that Mr.
Pollock was to take the law, and Mr. Quain was
to go on the merits. Mr. Quain was never
heard at all; we were too successful, in fact;
the law was too clearly with us.
668. Have any other proceedings been taken
by the corporation since the judgment was given P
—To go back again, in November 1870, a
notice was inserted, the mayor first wrote to me
a letter, inquiring whether the company intended
to go to Parliament next Session. I wrote to
him to say, that a moment's reflection would
show that it was not proper for a professional
man to state what his clients were going to do ;
in fact, we had no intention to go to Parliament
in November. Without any further communica-
tion of any sort, a notice again appeared for a
|Bill for the compulsory purchase of our com-
pany.
669. Mr. Mundella.] That was a mere news-
paper notice ; a preparation against any Bill you
might bring in 2–I do not know what it was for ;
the effect was very much to disturb our com-
pany.
670. Chairman.] Did they deposit a Bill?—
There was the regular Parliamentary notice
three times in the newspapers and in the
“Gazette.”
671. Was any further proceeding taken to
deposit a Bill 2–None whatever. In 1871, the
same notice was repeated in the newspapers and
in the “Gazette.”
672, Was anything further done 7–Nothing
further was done; no communication at all was
made to us, either before or after ; the mayor,
I believe, stated to the town council that it was
in order to be in readiness for any Bill which we
might promote ; hardly a fair use of Parlia-
mentary proceedings, I think.
673. Has there been anything further since
then P-They are now trying to get a voluntary
rate, which is in process of collection at Sheffield;
if the voluntary rate succeeds, of course there is
no need for this retrospective action of the Bill,
so far as Sheffield is concerned.
674. Who are the promoters of the voluntary
rate 2—The corporation ; it is a rate of 6 d. in
the £. ; I may state that when these notices of
1870 and 1871 were issued, no previous resolu-
tion of the council had been taken to insert them;
I refer to the Parliamentary notice for power to
purchase our company,
675. You do not say that that was not done
by the water committee of the corporation ?—
No ; the mayor, I believe, explained it to the
town council, that he had instructed their inser-
tion to be ready for any Bill which we might put
in ; the result is constant disturbance of our un-
dertaking; the total amount expended in Par-
liamentary proceedings and litigation during the
last eight years is 23,272 l. 7s. 11 d., including an
estimated cost of 4,000 l. for the Improvement
Bill; and in the Finance Committee's Report the
other day, the estimated cost of the Bill of the
present Session, that is, the Costs Bill, is 1,500 l. ;
the estimated cost of the proceeding in the Court
of Queen's Bench is 1,100 l. ; I can give you the
history of the Costs Bill ; it was promoted this
Session by the corporation, to enable them to pay
these costs; in effect, it is precisely the same as
this clause.
676. Did that come before a committee ?—It
did, and was turned out on the opposition of the
water company alone.
677. Sir M. H. Beach.j Are you aware that
we were told on Friday that those two items, one
of them at any rate, amounted to 1,000 l. instead
of 1,500 l. 2–I have no information except what
appears in the printed report of the Finance
Committee.
678. Referring to the proceedings before the
magistrates, how was it that your company spent
3,000 l. as against an expenditure of 1,500 l. on
the part of the corporation ?–Our counsel were
alſ of a superior class to theirs; we had to em-
ploy first one Queen's counsel and then another
to lead; our witnesses were a higher paid class
of men; we had Mr. Hawksley, Mr. Cawley,
and Mr. Blackburne, all well-known engineers,
and we printed the report of the proceedings,
which cost several hundred pounds.
679. Were your witnesses frequently recalled?
—The magistrates recalled them on each clause.
They adopted the plan of going through the
evidence on each regulation wholly. Not one of
our witnesses could leave until the whole was
completed.
680. The skilled witnesses had to be paid for
attendance during the whole time?—Yes; the
course the magistrates adopted was, for instance,
on regulation 1, as to the pipes; they first called
Mr. Hawksley, Mr. Cawley, and Mr. Black-
burne, and then the others. A great many wit-
nesses, on the other side, were plumbers.
681. Was there any expensive engineering
evidence called by the other side – There was
Mr. Barham Foster, of Manchester, and a Mr.
Bullock Jackson, those were the principal
hydraulic engineering witnesses, and I think a
Mir. Booth, from Huddersfield, whom I do not
know.
682. Were they also in attendance through-
out the whole inquiry 2–Yes, for the same rea-
son. The matter to us was one of life and death.
We could not go on wasting 18 gallons of water
per head per day. We expended eight and a-half
millions a day during that time, and that has de-
creased, under the regulations, until the whole
supply of the town is kept on constantly for five
and a-half millions.
683. Your expenditure in the Parliamentary
fight of 1870 compares differently with that of
the corporation?—There was no fight; it never
came before a Committee.
684. In the preparation for the Parliamentary
fight of 1870, you spent 1,250 l. as against more
than 4,000 l. *—Yes.
685. What was the reason for that difference 2
—I have not the least idea.
686. Did you prepare any witnesses 2–My
witnesses on the regulations were prepared. I
had no expense about that ; I had their evidence
printed in the book which I have shown you.
The corporation had theirs too. I do not under-
stand why there should be so much expense
about that.
687. Were any local witnesses from Sheffield
brought
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
3.I
brought up to London for that inquiry 2 — I
should say not. I withdrew my Bill on the 15th
March ; not even my briefs were drawn.
688. I speak of either side 2–I do not know
what they did; they went on to the 26th April.
I was so certain that they would have to with-
draw, that I never prepared briefs in opposi-
tion.
689. Mr. M'Laren.] You stated the entire
amount that the corporation had paid in those
fights. Will you state in one sum how much
your company paid in all those fights put to-
gether?—Do you mean in the promotion of the
Bills from the first P
690. Yes?—I daresay we have paid about
the same sum, but our bills have been promoted,
and theirs has been in opposition.
691. You said 23,000 l., and then 4,000 l., and
then 1,500 l.2 — No ; the 23,000 l. includes the
whole.
692. Mr. Leeman.] From what time 2—1864.
There is 4,967 l. 16 s. 4 d., and 44 l. 1 s. 6 d.,
and then 14,304 l. l l s. 7 d. ; that includes the
regulations, the opposition to the Water Bill, and
the promotion of the Water Bill in 1870; the
cost of promotion and opposition of the Gas Bills
in the same year, 6,065 l. 2 s. 3 d., and the esti-
mated cost of proceeding in the Court of Queen's
Bench, 1,100 l.
693. Mr. M'Ilaren.] How was that money
paid ; was part applied to capital and part taken
out of the water rates for the year 2—The pro-
motion of the Bill of course is always paid for
out of capital, and those portions which are ap-
plicable to capital are placed to capital, and those
which are applicable to revenue are placed to re-
We Ille,
694. About how much was placed to revenue?
—A comparatively small sum ; I should think
under 1,000 l.
695. Substantially the whole thing was paid
to capital P—No doubt. *
696. Are the ratepayers of Sheffield bound to
pay you interest for ever on that sum placed to
capital 2–No, they are bound to pay us water
rents.
697. The capital is so increased that your
maximum will include payment on that ?—No
doubt; so much the worse for the town and the
shareholders. Our dividend has gone down now
to under 3 per cent. We have declared 3 per
cent., but the revenue of the year does not make
quite so much. We have a small sum of savings
in happier years, which we call a surplus fund,
and we continue dividing that to keep it up to
3 per cent. I think it is actually 2% per cent.
698. Mr. Cawley.] Can you tell the Com-
mitte what costs of this nature have been decided
by any decisions of a court of law not to be
lawful. There have been a number of decisions
already, I believe 2–Yes. That the promotion
of Bills is always unlawful.
699. What are the cases? — The Attorney
General v. The West Hartlepool Railway, de-
cided by Lord Justice James lately, 10, Equity
Law Reports, 152. He said, “If there were
unlimited powers for bodies of this kind to apply,
whenever they thought fit, to Parliament at the
expense of constituents, there would be a good
deal of that kind of professional business got up
which would be at the expense of the ratepayers;
and it is much better that persons who do seek
to obtain Parliamentary powers should do it at
the risk of satisfying Parliament it is right, and
0.84.
when they satisfy Parliament it is right, Parlia-
ment always takes care to provide them with the
funds for having done that which is right.”
700. What date is that ?—Within the last two
years.
701. Are there any earlier decisions; I want
to get the points which were decided before
1869 —There is the Attorney General v. Nor-
wich, which was decided many years ago. The
Attorney General v. Southampton, which was
decided many years ago. And there is the
famous case of the Attorney General v. Wigan,
23, Law Journal, Chancery, 429, in which the
whole subject is reviewed. In that case it was
held that the corporation had the right to oppose,
because it was within the limits of their powers.
The law is this: I believe Mr. Gregory will be
able to contradict me if it is not so ; that corpo-
rations cannot promote a Bill, for the reason
which Lord Justice James gives, but if a Bill is
promoted which affects any property of theirs,
any duty or any interest confided to them, they
have a right to oppose it. The corporation for
instance could oppose a railway which crossed or
diverted streets; a corporation could oppose a
gas company as to public price of gas, as to the
hour of supply, and so on. A corporation could
oppose a water company as to taking up the
streets, and as to the price of water for sanitary
and public purposes, and those cases show how
far a corporation may go, and were all decided
before 1869.
702. Mr. Gregory.] Have you got the case of
The Queen v. The Commissioners of the Sewers
of Norfolk, 15, Queen’s Bench 2–That is the
case I quoted as the Norwich case.
703. Mr. Stanley.] Do I understand you to
say that in March, 1864, there was to have been,
or was held, a meeting of the shareholders of the
company –The ordinary monthly meeting.
704. Is it customary at such meetings to
circulate any paper containing the agenda
of the meeting –No. The clerk attends
and he has a memorandum as to what is to be
done, and we have now also a managing director.
705. Have you any evidence to prove that at that
meeting there was any intention on the part of the
company to take immediate steps for giving that
constant supply for which the town council had
applied in the previous year?—The meeting
never took place. The flood happened before
the meeting; the next meeting was on the night
of the flood. I will explain this to you, that a
large reservoir, the Dale Dyke reservoir, had
just been finished; the other reservoir, the Agden
reservoir, was a third done. I think 112,000,000
gallons were the contents of the Dale Dyke
reservoir; it was 90 feet deep, and about three-
quarters of a mile long. We were advised by
our engineer that that was sufficient for a con-
stant supply. Since I have got better acquainted
with the subject of constant supply I have some
doubt of that.
706. As a matter of fact no meeting took
place —No. -
707. Mr. Carter.] I think I understood you
to say that you reduced your charges in an appli-
cation you were making to Parliament 50 per
cent. in consequence of a threatened opposition ?
—Nearly 50 per cent.
708. If you had been able to make that extra
charge what difference would that have made to
the water consumers of Sheffield –The original
scale in 1830 began in this way
D 4
709. Tell
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
32 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
709. Tell me first what was your income at
that time?—That unfortunately I cannot tell you.
710. Will you tell me what your scale was 3–
It began for a house not exceeding 20 l. per
annum. At a rate per cent, and per annum, not
exceeding 7 l. 10 s., where such rent shall be
above 20 l., and not exceeding 40 l., at a rate per
annum not exceeding 7 l. and so on. Our scale
of 1853 was from 7 l. to 8 l. 8s.
711. About 8 per cent. on the rental, was it
not?—No, 5 per cent. Before, it was 73 per
cent., which is just what I said, 50 per cent. off.
712. Excepting for that threatened opposition
you would probably have got the power to levy
those extra charges on the water consumers?—I
cannot tell you ; practically, we never charged
those rates. -
713. You were making an application to Par-
liament for the power to do so?—No, our appli-
cation to Parliament was for new works. These
rates were fixed in 1830.
714. Did you not say you were making an
application to alter your rates ?—No ; we were not
going to alter the rates at all, Our application
was for leave to make new works, and we did not
say anything about the rates.
715. Did not I understand you to say that,
without that threatened opposition, you would
have asked for an increase of rates?—Certainly
not. There was nothing in the Bill about rates.
716. Was there not when you first promoted
it?—Certainly not. -
717. I thought I understood you to say that
there had been considerable opposition to the pay-
ment of these sums on the part of the corporation;
from what quarter did that opposition come
principally 2 – From 3,000 ratepayers who
petitioned against the Improvement Bill contain-
ing retrospective clauses like this; from Lord
Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Norfolk, and the gas
and water companies of Sheffield.
718. Did Lord Fitzwilliam oppose as a rate-
payer ?—Yes.
719. Was he a large ratepayer of Sheffield 7–
A large landowner; and he suggested in his
petition that if the costs were to be charged on
the rates he did not see why his costs should not
be charged on the rates.
720. He opposed the payment of these sums
out of the rates?–Yes.
721. Did I understand you to say that the
principal opposition arose from Lord Fitzwilliam,
the gas company, the water company, and the
large limited companies that existed in Sheffield?
—No; in addition to them there were 3,000 rate-
payers.
722. Out of how many ?—I do not know how
many; they represented 120,000l. rateable value,
and the whole rateable value is about 640,000l.,
723. In the 3,000 ratepayers and in the rate-
able value you have given, do you include these
large works?--Yes, they have a very important
stake.
724. You promoted a Bill, I think you said, in
1865, when you were opposed by the corporation
in the Commons 2—Yes. - -
725. And you were successful ?—No ; that is
in 1866. In 1865 we had a Bill enlarging the
time of the commission; the corporation opposed
us by petition, but did not appear, and they paid
44/. odd. - -
726. You were successful in the Commons?—
We were.
727. I think you said you were not so success-
ful in the Lords; why was that ?—I really do
not know. Their Lordships took a different
VI e W.
728. Were you opposed in the Lords by the
millowners ?—No, the millowners were with us,
except one millowner.
729. Who opposed you in the Lords 2—The
Duke of Norfolk, who was a millowner in re-
version, one millowner named Armitage, with
whom we had not agreed, and the River Don
Navigation, through Mr. Baxter. It was through
the opposition of the Duke of Norfolk and the
River Don Navigation that we did not succeed in
getting the clauses for the purchase of the com-
pensation water.
730. Your principal contention with the cor-
poration has, I suppose, been in regard to these
regulations of which we have heard so much, and
the constant supply P-Our principal contest with
the corporation has been to prevent them forcing
us to the sale of our works and undertaking when
we were in a state of depression. The whole of
the opposition has been directed to that. -
731. Had they asked to purchase your works
before you laid your regulations before the jus-
tices?—They applied in 1864, and fought us in
both Houses of Parliament.
732. With the view of purchasing your works?,
—They said in their petition to the House of
Lords that they were prepared to give us two-
fifths of all our capital, that is, 40 l. a share; the
shares are now worth 80 l. -
733. When did you first give a constant
supply 2—On the 29th July 1869, the day on
which the constant supply was prescribed.
734. How many million gallons per day were
you supplying to Sheffield just before you gave
your constant supply 2–I think it was between
4,000,000 and 5,000,000.
735. Was it nearer 5,000,000 than 4,000,000 2
—I daresay it was. -
736. You have given us some figures, which
would lead us to suppose that you must know?
—I do not know ; I have given you the figures
which I do know. -
737. You said that it rose from 18 gallons per
head per day to 40 gallons; these figures are
easily worked out; how many million gallons
per day is 18 on the whole of the population ?—
I do not know ; we did not supply the whole
population. - -
738. When you say 18 gallons per head per
day, what population do you take —I said 40
gallons. -
739. You said it rose from 18 to 40 °–I never
used the word 18 ; I said about 25. . .
740. Then was 25 gallons per head the quan-
tity supplied at the time you were giving an in-
termittent supply 3–Yes.
741. On what population?—We supplied about
45,000 houses, and, as a general rule, five heads
to a house. -
742. You said you got up from 25 gallons per
head per day to 40 gallons per head per day ?—
I did. - - - -
743. What would the 40 gallons per head per
day come to ? – Eight million five hundred
thousand, nearly ; those are the figures given
me by the engineer.
744. Do you know whether there is any differ-
ence between the pressure on the pipes for a
constant and for an intermittent supply 2—I
fancy that during the night there is a great in-
crease of pressure, because in the daytime there
- are
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 33
are many taps and closets running, which re-
duces the pressure ; at night most of them are
still.
745. Do you know what the pressure is at
Sheffield 2–I think 350 feet in the lower part of
the town; Sheffield is a very undulating town ;
there the pressure is from nothing to 350 feet.
746. Your reason for refusing to give a con-
stant supply, I suppose, was that you feared a
very large quantity would be taken in proportion
to what you would have to give if it were an in-
termittent supply?—There is a misapprehension
about the refusal; we never refused at all.
747, You never did it?--We were not bound
to do it.
748. You did not do it?—No. The original
Act of Parliament said, that if the town council
required it, we should give a constant supply in
1863. The town council did not require it, but,
in February 1864, they wrote a letter inquiring
whether we were prepared to give it. A letter
was sent to them, stating how we were fixed;
that the Dale Dyke reservoir had been com-
pleted, and that the Agden reservoir was in the
course of completion. As far as I recollect, it
went on to say that the supply of the town
would be greatly increased. We did not say
that we should not give a constant supply, nor
did they say that we should. That matter was
to have been considered at the directors’ meeting
the very day after the flood; the meeting would
have been on the Monday, and the flood hap-
pened on the Saturday.
749. Do you give a constant supply now 2–
Yes.
750. What is your consumption per head 2–
Twenty-two gallons.
751. Then how is it that it has been reduced
from 40 to 22 — By the effect of the regula-
tions.
752, When did you get these regulations?—
In February 1870. We have been getting them
into gradual operation ever since.
753. Are you aware that several of the large
towns have found it to be more economical to
give a constant supply than an intermittent
supply ; are you aware that this is the case at
Manchester, Leeds, and several other places?—
I daresay, with proper regulations, that is so.
I am coming to that conclusion, but it must be
taken with that proviso, which is all-important.
754. Mr. Leeman.] By one of your early Acts
you are required to give a constant supply 2–
No, we are not.
755. A constant supply, if called upon by the
corporation ?—Yes, in June or July 1863.
756. You were required to give a constant
supply in June or July 1863, if called upon by
the corporation?—Yes.
757. You say you were not formally called
upon by the corporation in 1863?—No, we were
not called upon at all.
758. You had a letter written to you, asking
when you would be in a position to give a con-
stant supply 7–I think that letter was about
February 1864.
759. You do not read that at all as an appli-
cation under the Act of Parliament 2—It was
not.
760. It was not formally so 7–No.
761. Did you consider it, to use the terms of
the Chairman, as a polite application ?—Yes.
762. Virtually you were asked ?—We were
asked in that way. Let me explain. No doubt
0.84.
the course would have been, as we were then on
fair terms with the corporation, and they did not
want to take our property from us, that we
should have met them and talked the matter
OWel’.
763. Did you hear the evidence given by the
mayor, on Friday ?—Partly.
764. Did you hear the evidence of the mayor,
who stated that they were not anxious to press
you unduly, and that that was the reason they
gave you no formal notice 2–Very likely.
765. Do you dispute that ?—Not at all.
766. Referring to the Bill you brought before
Parliament in 1864, does not the preamble recite
this clause of the Act of 1853, “ That the com-
pany (meaning the proprietors) of the Sheffield
Waterworks shall, and are hereby, from time to
time and at all times for ever hereafter, to pay
and make good to the owners, lessees, and occu-
piers of all mills, manufactories, buildings, lands,
and grounds, and to every person whomsoever,
all loss, costs, charges, sum, and sums of money,
damages, and expenses whatsoever, and for all
injury of what nature or kind soever, as well im-
mediate as consequential, which such owners,
lessees, or occupiers, or other person may suffer,
incur, pay, expend, or be put unto, by reason or
in consequence of the failure or giving way of
the reservoirs, embankments, watercourses, or
other works of the company ”?—That is correct.
767. The failure of your reservoir took place
in February 1864?–No.
768. When 2–In March.
769. Then it is that you went for what is before
you now as an Act 2—Yes.
770. I understood you, in the early part of
your evidence, to complain of the course that
the corporation pursued with reference to that
Bill ?—I do; that has been the origin of the
whole contest.
771. And the origin, in truth, of the difficulties
which have since sprung up as between you and
the corporation was the acts of the corporation
in that opposition?—In attempting to buy the
works.
772. But was that all the corporation did 2–
That was all that they tried to do; they lost
sight of everything else.
773. You at that time, according to the evidence
that was given by practical engineers, fulfilled
the obligations of your original Act 2—Why not ?
774. Pray answer my question; I am not
here for you to examine me?—I must ask you to
explain.
775. Did not the practical engineers who were
called in by the Government report that the
water company had never fulfilled its original
obligations to complete the works 2–No; to
whom do you refer ? The Government report is
here.
776. Will you take in your hands the corre-
spondence which took place between the mayor
and yourself mainly upon this subject in 1870;
you saw a letter written by the mayor, as early
as the 21st of January 1869, to the President of
the Board of Trade 2—I did not see it until long
after it was written.
777. You did see it 2—Eventually.
778. You know that such a letter was written
to the Board of Trade 7–I do.
779. Complaining virtually of the failure on
the part of your company to fulfil its statutory
obligations?—Will you read the words of the
letter to which you refer?
780. This
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
34 ºr MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
780. This is a letter written by the mayor of
Sheffield to the Right Honourable John Bright,
JPresident of the Board of Trade, dated 21st of
January 1869; that is before you had given the
notice to go before the magistrates as to your
regulations?—Yes; that letter was never made
public; the mayor did not inform the company
that he was going to write that letter, nor did we
know of it until months afterwards.
781. Was it likely that he would have in-
formed the company that he was going to write
that letter? —I think in common fairness, as he
was making a charge of a grave nature against a
company to the Board of Trade, we ought to
have known of it before the charge was made.
782. That is rather a collateral issue 2–No, it
is not; you will hear; it is a point I am most
anxious to clear up. I am most anxious to tell
the story. I should not have imagined it would
have come out in this Committee-room, but I am
most anxious to clear it up.
783. Did the mayor say this, “I deem it my
duty, as mayor of this borough, respectfully to
call your attention to certain matters connected
with the proceedings of the Sheffield Water-
works Company, which I submit are of such im-
portance as to render it incumbent on me, in the
interest of the burgesses of Sheffield, to lay a
brief statement or recapitulation of them before
Her Majesty’s Government. In the month of
March 1864, a reservoir, known as the ‘Dale
Dyke or Bradford Reservoir,’ the property of
the Sheffield Waterworks Company, burst,
causing the loss of upwards of 250 lives, much
bodily injury, and the destruction of property of
an ascertained value of 262,000 l., besides a further
loss in consequential damages, the amount of
which never can be estimated with any degree
of certainty. An inquiry into the cause of the
deaths of the persons was held before the coroner,
which resulted in the expression of an opinion on
the part of the jury to the following effect, ‘that
there had not been that engineering skill, and
that attention to the construction of the works
which their magnitude and importance de-
manded ; and that in the opinion of the jury
the Legislature ought to take such action as
would result in a Government inspection of all
works of a similar character, and that such in-
spection should be frequent, sufficient, and
regular.’ This verdict was given after the ex-
amination of five engineers, including two en-
gineers then employed by the Waterworks Com-
pany, and two engineers of reputation specially
deputed by Her Majesty’s Government to in-
quire into the matter, and the cause of the failure
was attributed by the latter gentleman to various
removable and preventible causes. In a Parlia-
mentary Paper, bearing date the 11th May 1864,
the views entertained by those gentlemen, Messrs.
Robert Rawlinson and Nathaniel Beardmore,
are recorded in full, as well as the whole of the
evidence given before the coroner.” Now, my
question is, did not Government engineers give
evidence before the coroner that engineering
skill and attention to the construction of the
works which their magnitude and importance
demanded, had not been given on the part of
the water company ?—No, nor anything of the
sort. That was the verdict of a coroner's jury,
a very respectable coroner's jury, composed of
the usual materials, held 12 days after the event
happened, before any investigation had taken
place by us; and with great deference to the
coroner's jury, I do not think they were a class
of men to judge of what was necessary in en-
gineering matters.
784. Were there not two engineers of reputa-
tion specially deputed by Her Majesty’s Govern-
ment, Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Beardmore ; do
you make the same remark as to them 2–1 have
this report before me. It says, “Pipes so
arranged, so jointed, and so laid could not possibly
retain the position in which they were first
placed, but must inevitably go down; and in
such case would fracture the puddle above the
pipes, leaving a cavity in proportion to the depth
of the subsidence. Water, under the pressure
of a reservoir nearly full, would at first carry
away small portions of the puddle and of the
bank, and as a cavity was formed subsidence would
commence, cracks would show, and the whole
would rapidly wash and sink to ruin.” I never
said that the conduct of the corporation respect-
ing the bursting of the reservoir was what we
complained of; what we complained of then and
what we complain of now is, that the corporation
at a time of depression insisted upon buying our
works, and have pertinaciously insisted ever
since, and have attacked us in every way before
the magistrates and Parliament, in order to drive
us to a sale of our works before they recovered
the accident.
785. You see the Bill that was gone for in
1864 was opposed by the corporation only with
reference to the purchase of your waterworks 2–
The main object of the corporation was to pur-
chase the works. Of couse they opposed any in-
crease in the rates.
786. We have heard from that report that there
were as many as 258 people killed, and that the
damage was very large to, I believe, many thou-
sands of people?–Seven thousand and eighty-
two claims were made.
787. Will you tell me whether clause 41, as it
appears in your Act, was in the Bill as you put
it before Parliament —No.
788. Now I will ask you to read the clause 2
—“It shall not be necessary for the claimant in
any case to show negligence on the part of the
company in order to establish his title to damages
in consequence of such inundation.”
789. You did not put that in your Bill ?––No.
790. Was it not at the instance of the corpo-
ration that that clause was inserted in the Act 2–
Certainly not.
791. At whose instance was it?—Lord Har-
rowby's.
792. Do you mean that Lord Harrowby was
the member of the Committee who introduced
the clause 2–Yes; it was in this way : Lord
Harrowby asked me whether the clause 68,
which you have read in the former Act, obliged
the company to pay damages for loss of life with-
out proving negligence. I told him that that
clause only related to loss of property; he then
said it would be a hard thing for poor people
claiming for the loss of their friends to have to
prove negligence.
793. Now you see the town clerk speaking to
me, do you mean to say in his presence that that
was not at the instance of the corporation ?—No,
certainly it was not ; we never heard of it till it
was suggested by Lord Harrowby, and Lord Har-
rowby said it would be a hard thing for poor people
to have to prove negligence against a powerful
company. Upon that he proposed to confine the
clause to the loss of life, and I said, as we were
not
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 35
not going to raise the question of negligence at
all, it might come in generally.
794. Did not you know when you drew your
Bill that without such a clause it was open to
you to make the objection of the want of negli-
gence 2–It was not open on the loss of property.
795. You knew it was open to you to take
that objection as to property or life 3–No, it was
not.
796. Neither as to property nor life 2—As to
life it was.
797. If it were so as to life, did you know it 2
—No, I did not at the time; I did not think of
it; we were advised by Sir Roundell Palmer
that we had no answer to that clause, negligence
or no negligence.
798. When did you take the opinion of Sir
Roundell Palmer ?—About a fortnight after the
flood.
799. Then you did know it 2—I did not ask
him about life; it never occurred to me, in fact.
800. Do you still mean that the corporation
did not seek, as a part of their opposition, to
place all the claims for damages in respect of
property, or loss of life, on the same footing 2–
No, I do not recollect it.
801. Look at that report (handing a paper fo
the Witness)?—I never saw this report before.
802. You never heard of the corporation
seeking to have them all put on the same footing,
until I asked you the question just now 2–Cer-
tainly not. I am quite sure that the clause came
from Lord Harrowby, and from nobody else.
803. It is Lord Harrowby's hand and drafting,
perhaps?–No, he proposed it in consequence of
a question put to me.
804. However, you do admit that you knew, a
fortnight after the flood, that without such a
clause you had the defence of want of negligence?
—No, I said just the reverse; I said the question
of loss of life was not put to Sir Roundell
Palmer ; it never occurred to me; in fact, I
thought we were liable.
805. I understand you to say, that the Court
of Queen's Bench had not before them the facts
which you have been recounting to the Com-
mittee, when the Lord Chief Justice, and the
other judges following him, expressed their
opinion that the conduct of the corporation was
meritorious 2–No, not so fully as you have ; the
general outline of the case of course was stated.
806. You know, that in a case before the
Queen's Bench, the matter is argued upon affi-
davits?—Yes, which the judges do not read.
807. Will you read to the Committee the
paragraph at the top of that page, as part of the
report of the committee of the corporation after
the passing of that Bll! ?—“The committee, on
the suggestion of your committee, regret that it
should be necessary for these claimants to prove
negligence, and the following clauses were in-
serted in the Bill. It shall not be necessary for
the claimant in any case, to show negligence on
the part of the company, in order to establish his
title to damages in consequence of the said inun-
dation.” I can only give you the same answer,
that the clause was proposed by Lord Harrowby.
808. Whose name is at the foot of that paper ?
—Francis Hoole; he is dead; I had a great re-
spect for him. -
809, Was he a man likely to put his name to
a document like that, if it were not true 2–Not
if he knew it, certainly. ,-"
810. Was Mr. Hoole a man likely to put his
0.84.
name to any document, the contents of which he Mr. Smith
did not know?—Yes, all men are.
811. You said just now, that the judges do
nº read these affidavits, do not the counsel ?
— IN O.
812. Just look at those, and tell me whether
these are not copies of the affidavits that were
filed and used before the Court of Queen's
Bench 2–Yes, but not read; counsel, as you
know perfectly well, read the parts which are
most convenient for their own case.
813. How long did the documents take 2–
Part of two days.
814. Do you mean seriously to tell the Com-
mittee that the circumstances under which this
rule came before the Court were not stated to
the judges?—I mean to say precisely what I
said before. As you are aware, the defendants
began first, it was on showing cause; they stated
their case very fully, as they would do, being
defendants. Mr. Pollock, and the present Mr.
Justice Quain, had arranged between themselves,
that Mr. Pollock should take the law, and Mr.
Quain should go into the merits if the judges
required it. Mr. Pollock finished his argument
on the law, but the judges never gave any idea
that they had any feeling on the merits, and if
you will look at the published reports, you will
find that Mr. Pollock was stopped by the Court,
and Mr. Quain sat down. -
815. Do you mean to impute to the Lord
Chief Justice of England, that he gave utterance
to the words contained in the passage which I
read on Friday, without knowing the circum-
stances 2–He certainly did not know the cir-
CumstancCŞ.
816. Then you do impute that he and all the
other judges did so 2–No, not all.
817. All the judges followed him 2–Not Mr.
Justice Blackburn.
818. Chairman.] I suppose you are Hot aware
that the judges were not cognisant of the merits
of the case ?—I am quite sure that they could
not be, because they were not stated; I appeal to
the authorised reports. I have consulted counsel
whether we could not be heard upon the return
of the rules now pending upon the question, and
also upon the question of costs for the very pur-
pose of getting the judges put in possession of
the facts, and I am told that the practice of the
court will not allow me to do so.
819. Mr. Leeman.] You gave a notice for your
|Bill in Parliament, consequent upon these regu-
lations which were the subject-matter before the
court on the 20th November 1869 –Yes, Idare-
say that was the date.
820. Have you got a copy of your notice there?
—I think not.
821. Did you give notice of a Bill to get rid
of your statutory obligations to give constant
supply 2–We gave notice of a Bill which was
afterwards deposited, which I have read.
822. On the 20th of November you gave a
notice which I will read, “That the company in-
tend to apply to Parliament for the following,
among other purposes: 1. To relieve the com:
pany absolutely, or on conditions to be specified
in the Bill from the obligations to which they are
now subject, of having the water supplied by
them constantly under pressure, and to repeal
the 106th section of the Act of 1864, and all
other consequential provisions in that Act, or in
any other Act of the company”?—I have no
doubt you are reading correctly.
E 2 823. “ To
22 April
1872.
36
BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
823. “To extend the present powers of the
company, and particularly those conferred upon
them by the 6th section of the Act of 1860, with
a view to the efficient prevention of the waste,
misuse, or contamination of the water of, or Sup-
plied by the company, and the Bill will provide
for the company making from time to time rules,
bye-laws, and regulations, for the before-men-
tioned purposes, or the Bill will itself contain all
such rules, restrictions, and regulations, as may
be necessary or expedient in these purposes, and
will repeal sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Act of
1860.” Were not those the clauses under which
the magistrates had been proceeding to make
those regulations, and had made them 2–No,
they had not made them.
824. They were proceeding to make them 2–
If they had made them, and we were certain they
would make them, we should not have gone for
the Bill.
825. You know that the magistrates were pro-
ceeding to make them 2–We did not know.
826. You say you knew it, or you would not
have gone to Parliament?—What we know was
that the magistrates were engaged in a conflict
which seemed to have no end ; one of the magis-
trates was in delicaté health, and is since dead.
827. You went to Parliament with this notice?
—And with this Bill.
828. One of the objects of that notice was to
repeal clauses 7, 8, and 9 of the Act of 1860?—
No doubt they are the regulation clauses.
829. They were the clauses which had given
power to the magistrates to make these regula-
tions 2–Yes, we considered, and I think justly,
that if there was a failure on that hearing before
the magistrates, it was advisable that Parliament
should settle the regulations, and not the ma-
gistrates.
830. In truth, you saw that the magistrates
were about to make regulations which you did
not like, and therefore you made up your mind
to go to Parliament for an Act to repeal the
clauses under which the magistrates had the
power to make them —We could not say what
they would do; the fact is they did make regu-
lations which we liked, which we have acted
under, and under which we have saved 3,000,000
gallons a day, but we could not foresee what
they were going to do.
831. You complain that the town council
having become aware of what your notice was to
be, in order to checkmate you, on the same day
gave a notice that they would apply for an Act 2
—Yes; I say it was a most improper exercise of
corporation power.
832. And no improper exercise of power on
the part of the water company for the protection
of its rates?—If the Company’s Bill had pro-
ceeded, the corporation could have opposed any-
thing within its own jurisdiction, and Parliament
would have heard them, but that was no reason
for attempting to wrest our undertaking from us.
833, You say that there was no advantage
gained by the town, as I understand you. Did
you hear the mayor state on Friday that he cal-
culated the advantage to the town at 150,000 l.,
from the course of conduct pursued by the cor-
poration ?–On what conflict?
834. On the conflict before the magistrates,
and in the following year?—I do not know how
he calculates it.
835. Did you hear him say so 2–I did.
836. I will ask you whether, upon the face of
the affidavits before the court, it was not dis.
tinctly stated by Mr. Jackson, one of the engi-
neers examined on the part of the corporation ?—
I do not recollect.
837. Look at the affidavit?—Will you point
out the place 2
838. He was the engineer employed by the
corporation, was he not ?—Yes; I think I can
shorten it. The calculation of 150,000 l. was, I
believe, made upon the assumption that the com-
pany would insist upon everybody taking up his
pipes forthwith, if they were not of the prescribed
weight. Nobody would suppose that we should
be such lunatics.
839. Did the 150,000 l. saving proceed upon
what the corporation had been enabled to get in
the way of regulation before the justices?—They
certainly did not prevent us doing it.
840. How many Acts of Parliament since
1853 has the water company come for 2–One
in 1860, one in 1864, one (which was withdrawn)
in 1865, one in 1866, and two in 1867.
841. You have given us what the corporation
spent, will you be good enough to tell us what
the water company has spent in Parliamentary
proceedings since 1853 –That I do not know,
but I should think about 25,000 l.
842. Have any individual proprietors of the
water company paid any of that?—No; of course
not. We are spending our own money, and the
corporation is spending mine ; that is just the
distinction.
843. There was a majority, you say, in the
town council of 54 out of 68?–I think, speaking
off the books, it was 56, and there were 14 or 16
who dissented; that is speaking from memory.
844. You say you are spending your own
money 2–Yes.
845. Have any of those gentlemen any perso-
nal interest in this question, beyond being rate-
payers?—Which gentlemen P
846. The majority of the corporation ?—It is
rather invidious of me to say what the motives of
the corporation would be ; there are reasons
why they should get a large concern into their
hands which present themselves to anybody’s
mind.
847. Do you mean to indicate to the Com-
mittee that that is your opinion ?—That is my
opinion, undoubtedly, of corporate bodies.
848. You have given us a variety of cases
which have settled this question, you say, before
1869 7–Yes.
849. You heard a variety of cases quoted be-
fore the Queen’s Bench of the opposite character P
—Which the judges did not listen to.
850. But they were quoted ?–I think they all
came within the rule which I explained to Mr.
Cawley. A corporation may oppose when its
rights, duties, or privileges are interfered with.
Precisely the same law as applies to trustees.
851. You heard on Friday from the town
clerk that he was advised differently to what
was ultimately decided on, that by eminent
Queen's counsel ? – Yes; and the eminent
Queen's counsel were wrong.
852. You say this was a thing which was clear?
—I am told, though perhaps you will object to
this evidence, that the reason of that opinion
was this, that by some means or other the case
stated, that in Sheffield there was a surplus of
the borough fund; now, if there is a surplus of
the borough fund, as you are aware, under the
Municipal Corporations Act, the council have
large
oN MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONs (Borough FUNDs) BILL. 37
large powers of spending it for any purpose for
the benefit of the inhabitants; that is, when the
corporation property is more than equal to the
expenses, but where there is a rate then there is
no such provision.
853. You are a new corporation ?—Yes, and
very poor.
854. The fact is, is it not, that if this corpora-
tion had been in the position of Liverpool, or
some of the other corporations where they have a
surplus, there would have been no question raised
whether they could have paid it out of that
surplus?—There might be a question, but pro-
bably it would not have been raised. There they
would have been spending their own money; in
the present case, they are spending the money of
the taxpayers.
855. Surely the surplus fund of a corporation
belongs as much to a taxpayer as to anybody
else, and the extent to which you dip into that
must affect the taxpayer in an equal ratio 2–Not
at all ; there is no taxation if there is a surplus
borough fund.
856. Mr. Delahunty.] You say that Lord
Fitzwilliam and the Duke of Norfolk opposed the
Improvement Bill?—They did.
857. Did they continue to oppose it to the
end ?—No ; on the clauses to which they objected
being struck out, they withdrew.
858. What were the clauses to which they
objected 2–Amongst others, the payment of
Parliamentary costs.
859. Were there any other costs included in
the Improvement Bill ?—One of the clauses was
to do precisely what the clause now before you is
to do, to enable the corporation of Sheffield to
pay the money which they had illegally ex-
pended.
860. I suppose that these noblemen have a
very large income from property in Sheffield 2–
The Duke of Norfolk has a very large income.
861. How much should you say?—£. 50,000
a year, I should think.
862. What has Lord Fitzwilliam P — Lord
Eitzwilliam’s land has not yet come into the
market to any great extent; it is beginning to
be built upon; his lordship has about 1,500 or
2,000 acres, I think.
863. Has not the industry of the ratepayers of
Sheffield increased the value of this property of
the Duke of Norfolk immensely 2—No doubt.
864. This Bill was promoted by the ratepayers,
through their representatives, for the improve-
ment of Sheffield?—It was promoted by the cor-
poration, against the wishes of , 3,000 of the
ratepayers who petitioned against it.
865. Out of how many ?--In rateable value
they represented about 120,000/. out of 640,000 l.
866. How many ratepayers are there in
Sheffield 2–That I do not know.
877. You were here the other day when the
mayor of Sheffield was examined 2–4 was.
868. You heard him state that the opposition
to your Bill, and the promotion of the Bill for
the purchase of the water, was approved of by
the committee of the council 2–Yes.
869. And that report was ratified by the cor-
poration themselves?—I believe that was so.
870. You also heard him state that there was
a meeting of ratepayers?—Yes.
871. At which there were 3,000 people assem-
bled ?—I do not know how many.
872. And that there were only two hands held
up against the condemnation of your Bill, and
0.84.
the approval of theirs?—I did not hear him say
so, but I daresay if he said so, it was true.
873. If it is so, that the council of the cor-
poration, and the corporation themselves, and the
ratepayers in meeting assembled, have pro-
nounced in favour of opposing your Bill, and
promoting one of theirs, is it not fair and right
that in a matter of that sort they should have
the power of using their own money for the
purpose of opposing you, and promoting their
own interests?—If it were their own money I
should say yes, but it does not happen to be their
own money.
874. Where does it come from ?--From my
pocket.
875. Is it not from the ratepayers?—Yes, and
I am one, and the company is another,
876. You are one out of thousands 2—Yes;
the company is the second largest ratepayer in
Sheffield, and the gas company is the first.
877. You are one out of thousands?—Yes.
878. The funds come from the rates?—But in
a much less proportion.
879. Do they, or do they not?—They do; I
will explain. |
880. I do not want a speech ; I merely ask
you the question, do they, or do they not come
from the rates?—No doubt they do, and I am
entitled to explain. They come in a larger pro-
portion from the large ratepayers who opposed
the Bill.
881. You mean that a person who pays a large
amount of rates pays more than a man who pays
a smaller amount of rates ?—Yes; and the oppo-
ments of the Bill are immeasurably larger than
the others.
882. Mr. Mundella.] You are speaking of the
Improvement Bill?—Yes.
883. Mr. Delahunty.] I am talking now of the
opposition to the Water Bill; the ratepayers, re-
presented by their representatives, have resolved
to oppose your Water Bill, and to support their
own 2–You can always get up a cry in a large
town.
884. These gentlemen who form the corpora-
tion are appointed by the ratepayers ?-- No
doubt.
885. And although there may be a difference
of opinion, still the majority must prevail; the
majority must have sent these men into the cor-
poration, and the corporation, sanctioned and
supported by a public meeting, determined to
oppose your Bill, and to promote one of their
own 2–The corporation were never elected for
any such purpose.
886. Were they elected in the public interests
or not ?—They were elected to carry out the
Municipal Reform Act, and for nothing else.
887. Were they elected for the public interests
or not ?—They were elected for the public in-
terests as defined by the Municipal Reform Act.
888. Surely you do not consider that if there
is a defect in that Act, they are not justified in the
public interests in amending it?–No doubt; but
the Act has worked very well for 36 years.
889. If they think it might work better, are
they not entitled to seek to do so?—No, not at
other people's expense.
890. You stated just now that the corporation
wanted to purchase the works at 40 l. a share,
whilst they were worth 80 l. 2–No, I did not.
891. You said something of that kind?—I said
that they petitioned the House of Lords, stating
E 3 that
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
38
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. Smith.
1872.
that they would give two-fifths of the capital;
that was 40 l. a share.
892. What were they worth 2–Now they are
worth 80 l.
893. Then they were worth only 40 l. 2–No,
we considered them worth more ; therefore we
opposed the attempt to take us, and we were
right; they have turned out worth more.
894. Did they, or did they not, propose to take
it by arbitration ?—Yes, the proposal, I think,
was arbitration, or that price.
895. They gave you your option ?—They did
not give us any option about taking our property.
896. That is not fair, you have not answered
my question; you have said already that they
offered to take it by arbitration ?—I think they
did.
897. Therefore having that option of taking it
by arbitration, and getting paid at a fair price,
surely that was not confined to 40 l. 2–No, but we
did not want to sell at all.
898. I know that, but surely you wanted to
leave this impression on the Committee, that you
were offered 40 l., and no more ?—And no more,
or an arbitration price.
899. That is a different thing altogether; if
you had said that it would not have left the same
impression on my mind, that they were doing an
injustice, but now I see that they were not ?—If
you insist on taking a man’s property against his
will, I do not think the exact mode of payment
matters at all.
900. According to your view of the case, you
would never have a public improvement at all,
because you would have some man who was
against improvement barring the way ?—Well, I
could not give an opinion upon that.
901. Mr. Mellor.] Are the rates in Sheffield
compounded for 2–They are not ; the district
rate, I believe under 7 l. annual rateable value,
is collected from the owners, and there they allow
25 per cent.
902. In reality, every cottager is liable for the
rates which are levied upon the cottage 2–No,
he is not ; under the Poor Law Collection Act,
he is now able to set off his rates against his
Fent.
903. Still he is the ratepayer ?—He is the
ratepayer.
904. There is no compounding for the rates?—
No.
905. Do you compound for the water supply
with the owners of cottages 2–No; we charge
the rates in all cases.
906. What might you charge for a cottage
under 8 l. 2–f. 7, and up to 8 l., 8 s., and 25 per
cent., will be 2 s. more, that is 10 s. a year.
907. That is the present rate?--Yes.
908. Do you know how that compares with
other towns?—I believe very much the same.
In Manchester, perhaps, it is a little more. In
Manchester, they have, in addition to the water-
rate, a general rate, which brings it up to not
perhaps the same thing, but something there-
abouts.
909. What is the amount of your paid-up
shares?—All the ordinary capital is paid up;
that is 450,000 l.
910. What is it per share 7–There are three
classes, 100 ſ. shares, 50 l. shares, and 25 l. shares,
all paid up.
911. Have any of those shares been offered by
public auction ?—Yes, frequently. *
912. What might be the upshot price for
100l., shares?—They fluctuate; at present they
are about 80 l.
913. The maximum dividend to be paid is 10 l.
per cent. P—Yes.
914. Have you reached that maximum ?—We
are now paying 3 l. per cent. on the ordinary
shares, and that is only done by the aid of apply-
ing to what we call the surplus fund; that is a
little saving we made in happier times, which we
distribute now for the purpose of keeping up the
dividends; it is really about 23, I think.
915. Mr. Tipping.] T)id the corporation make
any proposal to purchase you before the acci-
dent?—I believe in 1853 there was some sug-
gestion that in our Act of Parliament there
should be a clause put in enabling them to pur-
chase, but it was never acted upon; the clause
was not put in. I do not recollect the cir-
cumstance to which you refer.
916. You referred to what I may call the long
fight before the justices, with regard to the re-
gulations; you said that each article was fought
in such a way that the whole of your witnesses
were kept waiting until the end, and of course to
a great increase of expense ; is that usual within
your experience 2—I believe this is the only case
of the sort that ever was fought; it is the only
Act in which the thing is so referred to jus-
tices.
917. So that in reality you consider it is a
Solitary case of exhaustive expense 2–I hope
SO.
918. You referred to the mayor, who wrote to
Mr. Bright, who was then at the Board of
Trade, and you also referred to a mayor, who in
this regulation fight petitioned, and was repre-
sented by counsel on his own account who you
said was a large brewer 2—That is the present
mayor. It appeared by the town clerk’s letter
that he did not contribute towards the joint ex-
pense.
919. Mr. Gregory..] You have been asked,
with reference to the clause which was
introduced into your Bill, preventing your
throwing upon the plaintiff the proof of negli-
gence in case of a claim against you for loss, and
you told us that that was inserted by Lord
Harrowby 2 —The suggestion came from Lord
Harrowby in the way I have mentioned.
920. Lord Harrowby was a Member of the
Committee to which the Bill was referred ?—
Yes; the proposal was made by him for the pro-
tection of the poor people whose friends had
been drowned. I said, in drawing the clause,
which I drew myself, that as we had not set up
want of negligence as to property, it might as
well cover the whole thing if there was any
doubt about it.
921. The corporation were petitioners before
that Committee’—They were.
922. Was that point raised upon their petition?
—I say, in my recollection, not.
923. Was it taken by their counsel, to your
recollection?—I believe when Lord Harrowby
proposed it their counsel supported it.
924. That is another thing? — I have been
looking through the petition, and I do not see
that it is mentioned at all.
925. Nor do you recollect their counsel or
witnesses raising it?—I am sure when it was
raised in the Committee it was raised by Lord
Harrowby, and then the counsel for the corpo-
ration supported it.
926. You have been asked as to the mayor's
estimate
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
39
estimate of 150,000 l. as a saving resulting to the
town from their appearance before the magis-
trates; I am not going to ask you as to the basis
of that calculation, but I would ask you whether
you agree with it 2–Certainly not.
927. Have you made any calculations on your
own behalf as to the result to the town of that?
—The result to the town is simply nothing;
there is no saving whatever from the alteration
in the regulations; the regulations are substan-
tially what we wanted, and have been most
beneficial to the town.
928. The result of your calculations is, that
the town gained nothing?—Gained nothing by
the alterations; but it gained everything as far
as water supply is concerned by the enforcement
of the regulations; we have a large reservoir we
have just completed, and we are now 30 per
cent. ahead of the requirements of the town,
ahead of a constant supply.
929. How many gallons per head do you
calculate you supply 3–We are now using 22;
we were, before the regulations came into force,
using for some time 40.
930. Mr. Mundella.] I think you said that in
1853 the rates were reduced nearly 50 per cent. 2
—Yes.
931. And that was in
threatened opposition on the part of the corpora-
tion ?—Yes.
932. The threat of opposition was very meri-
torious in that case ?—it was done in a different
way to the opposition subsequently; they did
not want to force our property from us, and we
were always ready to meet the corporation.
933. I only ask you did that threatened oppo-
sition result in a reduction of the rates of nearly
50 per cent. 2–Only if you take my answer, you
must please take my explanation.
934. Will you answer that; did that threatened
opposition result in a reduction of the rates of
nearly 50 per cent. P – The opposition was
threatened; the then town clerk met my father
in an amicable way, and the negotiation resulted
in a settlement of the question without difficulty
or without expense.
935. By that means ?—By that means.
936. By a reduction of the rates nearly 50 per
cent. P-How far the managers of the com-
pany were frightened by it I cannot say.
937. I do not ask that?—But it is an answer
to your question.
938. In 1864, after that frightful accident, you
came to Parliament 2–Yes.
939. And I think you said, in effect, to the
Committee, that the coroner's jury did not under-
stand the questions before them, and were not
competent to give an opinion ?--They certainly
could not ; nobody did understand it then.
940. When you came to Parliament you
asked for an increase of your water-rate of 25
years in perpetuity ?—We did.
941. As the result of the opposition, a reduc-
tion was effected of 25 per cent. for 25 years?—
No, not in consequence of the opposition.
942. Should you have reduced it without the
opposition ?-The corporation never suggested
the reduction.
943. They opposed it altogether ?—They op-
posed it altogether.
944. And then in Committee got it limited to
25 years ?–No, they did not get it limited; the
Commons passed the Bill as we wanted it.
Their Lordships, on consideration, said that they
0.84.
consequence of
thought that the company had made out a case
for an increase, but not for one in perpetuity;
and they gave us one which was quite as good.
945. The corporation, on the second stage of
their opposition, by their persistent opposition,
reduced the rate to 25 years?—The corporation
did not do it at all ; they never proposed it.
946. Did the corporation oppose before the
Lords?—They did.
947. Then the 7,000 claimants were admitted
to prove their claims, without proving negli-
gence 2–Yes, which they would have been
without.
948. I find here that Mr. Francis Hoole, a
gentleman very much respected in Sheffield, of
whom you expressed your own opinion as a man
of honour, and integrity, and position, said in his
report, as chairman of that committee conducting
the opposition, “It is with heartfelt satisfaction
that your committee point to their success in
making it unnecessary for claimants for com-
pensation, in respect of loss of life, to prove
negligence ’’; do you think Mr. Hoole was
justified in inserting that statement, or not ?–H
do not blame Mr. Hoole at all, but I say that I
was there, and I say that was not put in by the
corporation.
949. Of your own knowledge, that is all you
can say ?–And that Mr. Hoole is mistaken.
950. Then you say that you were at a loss to
see what advantage it was to the corporation to
limit this increase for 25 years ? — I do not
indeed.
951. You think the corporation, as the guar-
dians of the public rates, ought not, after a
calamity which affected the lives and property of
7,000 persons, to have come to this House to ex-
pend money at all in opposing, or in suggesting
any new clauses for your Bill 2–They ought to
have restrained themselves within legal limits.
952. You said this : you were at a loss to see
what advantage they gained ; that they spent
3,400 l. odd illegally, and have spent it illegally
because you were too busy to look after them P
—Yes, I said that, and they know it too.
953. In your opinion, notwithstanding this
dreadful calamity, almost unprecedented in our
history, this corporation, in your opinion, ought
not to have come to this House to suggest any
modification of your clauses to diminish your
demands, or to have looked after the lives and
properties of 7,000 persons who were damaged ?
—I do not make myself understood.
954, You said every farthing was illegally paid,
and it was because you were too busy 2–1 said
the people who suffered were represented by
separate counsel. The corporation had nothing
to do but to look after them. I say that the cor-
poration expended that money for the purpose of
wresting our works from us, and it was desirable
for a corporation, as well as for everybody else,
to obey the law.
955. I take your opinion to be that they ought
not to come to the House at all 2–I never said
so; I said they ought to have kept within the
limits of their jurisdiction.
956. And the limits of their jurisdiction were
in your estimate that they ought not to have
spent one farthing of that money, and that it was
illegally paid 2–I do not say so. '.
957. These are your words, “illegally paid” ”
—Because it was paid for an opposition beyond
...their jurisdiction ; they had no right to buy the
works.
E 4 958. Just
Mr. Smith,
22 April
1872.
40
BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
Mr. Smith.
22 April
1872.
958. Just coming down to 1869, in this case of
the 1,500 l. spent before the justices, you admit
that the company spent 3,000l. before the justices?
—And I also say this; that if it had been pro-
perly done it ought not to have cost 20 !.
959. You admit you spent 3,000l. 2–Yes, I
was forced to do it. I beg to remind you that I
appeared without counsel in the first instance.
960. While the thing was under the considera-
tion of the justices did not you come to this
House for powers to take away all jurisdiction on
the part of the justices?––Yes, for this reason;
that if the application to the justices had been a
failure, I think, in the opinion of this House they
would not have been a proper tribunal to decide
a question of that sort.
961. Who were the two justices 2–Mr. Dunn
and Mr. Smith.
962. Are there two gentlemen in Yorkshire,
or in England probably, better able to give a
judicial opinion upon a question of that kind than
those two gentlemen. Are there two Members
of the House of Commons better qualified ?—
They certainly were fully able, because they
decided as I wanted it.
963. You admit this, that the very first clause
they struck out 2—Yes, but that was of no im-
portance. They struck it out after we had
offered to take it out ourselves.
964. You filed a bill in Chancery against the
payment of that 1,500 l. 2–No.
965. You got a writ of certiorari against them P
—-Yes,
966. On the 15th March you withdrew your
Water Bill which was then before the House of
Lords 2—I did.
967. You complain that the corporation spent
4,000 l, while you spent only 1,250 l. P—I do not
complain, but I do not like to have to pay my
share of it.
968. You stated that as being the two sums in
contrast 2–Yes.
969. You came to the House simply for a Bill
to get rid of the jurisdiction and the justices, and
to get rid of your liability for a constant supply P
—No, that is not a fair description of our Act.
The object of our Act was to get regulations
similar to those before the justices from this
House if the justices had failed to give us them.
970. And also to get rid of the jurisdiction of
the justices?—Yes, because the jurisdiction of
this House and of the justices could not go on con-
currently.
971. And also to get rid of your liability for
an immediate constant supply 7–No, to make the
supply for 1871 so many hours and for 1872 so
many hours.
972. You said your expenses upon that Bill
were 1,250 l., whereas theirs, you said, were
4,000 l. ; had not they also to get engineering evi-
dence with a view of purchasing your works 2–
I do not know what they did.
973. Had they not also not only to oppose your
Bill but to promote their own out of that 4,000l. 2
No doubt. They never got before a Committee;
neither Bill ever came before a Committee. I
was doing just the same thing, promoting my Bill
and opposing theirs, and they were promoting
their Bill and opposing mine.
974. I think you admitted that there have been
several public meetings on this question?—I only
recollect one; there were some about the gas as
well.
975. Do not you recollect that there have been
several public meetings of the ratepayers in
Sheffield with reference to the purchase of the
gas and water companies?—Yes, I think there
have been three.
976. And in all cases they have been unani-
mous?—Yes.
977. You say that the reason for that is that
the large ratepayers cannot attend evening meet-
ings 7–Yes.
978. Cannot the large ratepayers vote?—Do
you mean at the municipal elections 2
979. Yes?—It is not much use voting ; there
is a constituency of 27,000 l.
980. Cannot the large ratepayers vote at the
municipal elections 2 — They could, but they
would be out-voted; the same in Parliamentary
elections.
981. Do you mean to say that during this
past year, at the last November elections, when
the question before the constituencies was
whether they would promote this Bill of Mr.
Leeman or not, the large ratepayers voted
against that ?—I do not think the large rate-
payers, as a rule, vote at all at a municipal elec-
tion in Sheffield.
982. Do you mean to say that many of the
members of the town council, who are strongly
in favour of this Bill, are not amongst the
largest ratepayers in Sheffield 7–Certainly, I
do. There are two or three large ones.
983. Do you know any members of the council
that are opposed to this retrospective clause 2–I
do not know; I think it is very likely they will
want it, because it will get some of them out of a
scrape.
984. It is not “some of them " I am speaking
about; I am speaking of the 56 members; do
you know any of them opposed to this retrospec-
tive clause ?—I have not asked them, and I do
not know.
985. Were there not petitions last year, and is
there not one this year from the council in favour
of this Bill?—I do not know, I daresay it is so.
986. I suppose these gentlemen voted unani-
mously for this petition ?–No doubt, for the
reason I tell you, they are anxious to get the
Bill.
987. These gentlemen happen not to be
guarantors; is Sir John Brown a guarantor?—
There is some legal question as to whether every-
body who voted is not liable. That has not been
decided yet.
988. In that case you think the whole corpo-
ration of Sheffield may be liable 2–I do not give
any opinion. I am told that that question is
raised.
989. In the corporation of Sheffield are there
not the largest employers of labour, and the men
of the greatest influence in Sheffield? — There
are two or three. All the rest are very small
OIlêS.
990. Is Sir John Brown one of the largest ?—
Yes.
991. He is one of the largest ratepayers, and
until recently one of the largest employers?—
Sir John Brown has always disapproved of this
proceeding.
992. Is Mr. Bragg one of the largest ?—No,
only through a limited company, who petitioned
against this clause in the Improvement Bill.
993. Do you mean to say that the object of
those ratepayers who petitioned against this Bill
was to prevent the corporation from acquiring
the gas company or the water company ?–I say
that
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 41
that the petition was against that retrospective
clause, and I think it is signed by Sir John
Brown & Co.
994. Is it a fact that during the last two years
the question that has been before the ratepayers
of Sheffield at their municipal elections has been
whether the candidates supported the purchase
of the gas or water company, and have not all
the men who opposed the purchase of the gas or
water company been rejected by the ratepayers?
—Yes; and when they speak at public meetings
they are all howled down.
995. Is it a fact that every candidate has been
rejected who has not supported what has been
called the mayor's policy about the gas and
water 2–I daresay what you say is true, but you
can get up a cry about anything, especially when
people have not to pay for that cry.
996. Do not the ratepayers have to pay for
it?—The smaller ratepayers pay very little.
997. What do you say the ratepayer under
8 l. paid for his water in Sheffield?—Ten shillings
a year.
998. You said you believed Manchester was
as dear?—I think about; we were rather under
Manchester before the 25 per cent., that is
taking the water rate and the general rate.
999. Is it the fact that in Manchester the rate
for water is either 5s., or under 5s. per year?—
It is 5 per cent., I think, and the additional rate ;
Sir Joseph Heron could tell us; before our 25
per cent., we used to compare ourselves with
Manchester, and ours were a little lower.
1000. That was in 1864?—Yes.
1001. Are you aware that now your rate for
cottage property is something like from 50 to 75
per cent. dearer than Manchester ?—I should say
not; my belief is that the water rate at Man-
chester is 5 per cent. on the rental, with the ad-
dition of the general rate. I only speak from
recollection; I could have given you all the
rates in England, if I had known you wanted
them.
1002. Chairman.] Will you tell me where
you obtained that copy of the guarantee ?—I
took it from a copy which was lent me by Mr.
Wake, who had it from one of the town council.
Mr. Wake is the solicitor of the gas company; I
will mention the name of the gentleman on the
town council if you wish it, but it would get him
rather into hot water. Mr. Wake lent me this
book, which contains a good deal of the council's
minutes; I took it from that. He said it had
been lent him by a member of the town council.
0.84.
Mr. Smith,
22 April
1872.
42 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKIEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872.
Wednesday, 24th April 1872.
IMEMIBIERS
Sir Michael Hicks Beach.
Mr. Carter.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Delahunty.
Mr. Hibbert.
Mr. Leeman.
PRESENT :
Mr. Mellor.
Mr. McLaren.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Neville Grenville.
Sir John Ramsden.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
MR. HIBBERT IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. JAMES DAVID MARWICK, called in ; and Examined.
1003. Chairman.] ARE you the Town Clerk
of Edinburgh 2–I am.
1004. How long have you been town clerk 2–
Since December 1860. * ,
1005. Have you seen a copy of the Municipal
Corporations Borough Funds Bill which is now
before the Committee 7–I have.
1006. Have you taken particular notice of the
5th clause which has retrospective action ?—
Yes.
1007. You appear here to give evidence in
favour of that clause 7—I do.
1008. As the Bill now stands it is not appli-
cable to Scotland, I think, at least, as it is brought
into the House?—No ; but the old Edinburgh
and district water trustees are here to ask the
Bill to be extended to Scotland, and to be so
modified as to give them protection from the costs
of the measure which they promoted in Parlia-
ment in 1871.
1009. What public body is now charged with
the duty of providing and supplying water to
Edinburgh –The Edinburgh and district Water
Trustees are charged with the duty of supplying
water to the City of Edinburgh and to the towns
of Leith and Portobello.
1010. Will you state what that body is; how
they are composed ?—The Trustees consist of 25
individuals, of whom three are the Lord Provost
of Edinburgh, the Provost of Leith, and the
Provost of Portobello for the time being. The
Town Council of Edinburgh elect 17, the Town
Council of Leith elect four, and the Town Council
of Portobello elect one.
1011. In what year was the water supply
vested in that body ?—The undertaking of the
Edinburgh Water Company was transferred to
these trustees in May 1870.
1012. Mr. McLaren.] By an Act of the pre-
vious year 2—By an Act passed in 1869.
1013. Chairman.] Did the water trustees
take any proceedings to promote a Bill in Par-
liament in the year 1871 –They did.
1014. For what purpose 2–Eor the purpose
of obtaining an additional supply of water for
the district, to be drawn from St. Mary’s Loch,
known as the St. Mary’s Loch scheme.
1015. The water supply was transferred, you
say, to the water trustees in 1870 ?—It was, by
the Bill of 1869.
1016. Were the company, before this transfer
took place, under any particular obligations with
respect to the supply of water ?—They were
under obligations to give constant service, under
such pressure as to send the water to the top story
of the highest houses in the district.
1017. Before the transfer took place, did the
company ever give constant service P – They
never did so.
1018. Did they give the required pressure ?—
No.
1019. Do you know what the distribution of
water was per day for all purposes before the
transfer ?—Upon an average of the whole year,
they were able to give, I think, somewhere
about 7% millions of gallons per day.
1020. To what population ?–A population of
upwards of 250,000.
1021. Can you say how much per head that
is ?—Somewhere about 28 gallons per head.
1022. Was great inconvenience suffered in
Edinburgh owing to the want of constant service
and this pressure ? – There was. For many
years previous to any action being taken to
transfer the undertaking of the Water Company
to these trustees, the greatest possible inconveni-
ence was suffered periodically from want of water,
and constant complaints were made to the town
councils of Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello, of
the inadequacy of the supply and the great incon-
venience and hardship which it entailed.
1023. In consequence of those complaints, did
the corporation of Edinburgh take any action ?—
It was in consequence of these repeated com-
plaints that the corporation of Edinburgh took
action and invited the co-operation of the corpo-
rations of Leith and Portobello.
1024. In consequence of that action what did
the three corporations decide to do?—The cor-
poration of Edinburgh appointed a special com-
mittee to co-operate with the committees of
Leith and Portobello, and that joint committee
representing the three corporations employed an
engineer of considerable experience, one who was
thoroughly well acquainted with the works of
the Water Company and had devoted a large
amount of his time to the consideration of water
questions, to make an investigation in regard to
two matters; the first was as to the supply which
the Water Company was giving at the time and
to
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 43
to its adequacy for the wants of the community,
and the other was to look out for a suitable
source from which such additional supplies as
might be required might be drawn.
1025. In consequence of that recommendation
the corporations, I presume, applied to Parlia-
ment to introduce the Bill which you have
mentioned, which was passed in 1869 –They
did so. -
1026. What did that Bill contain when it was
first brought in 2 — It contained a proposal to
transfer the undertaking of the then existing
Water Company to public trustees, and it pro-
posed also to go to St. Mary’s Loch for an addi-
tional supply. It had thus two objects.
1027. One of the purposes, the going to St.
Mary’s Loch for water, was taken out of the
Bill, was it not, during its passage through Par-
liament?—It was. A multitude of objections was
taken by the Water Company to the Parlia-
mentary plans when the Bill came before the
Examiner on Standing Orders, and one of these
objections was sustained. The Examiner re-
ported against the Bill in consequence. The
Standing Order Committee of the House of Com-
mons allowed the Bill to proceed, but the Chair-
man’s Committee of the House of Lords refused
to allow it to proceed, in so far as regarded the St.
Mary’s Loch scheme; that resolution of the
Lords was come to, as stated by Lord Redesdale
himself to Lord Provost Chambers, in conse-
quence of its being then supposed that St. Mary’s
Loch was the exclusive property of Lord Napier,
and that his Lordship was in India on public ser-
vice. The supposition was afterwards found to
be a mistake ; the Loch was declared by a judg-
ment of the House of Lords, reversing a decision
of the Court of Session in Scotland, to belong to
other parties besides Lord Napier.
1028. That portion of the Bill was not thrown
out, owing to evidence given to show that there
was no deficiency of supply P--No inquiry had
been made into that at all at the time it was
thrown out. It was a purely technical objection
on Standing Orders.
1029. Mr. McLaren.] Was it a defect in the
plan 2–It was a technical defect in the plans.
1030. Chairman.] Did the Water Company
themselves, when this proposal was made, also
propound a scheme for bringing additional sup-
plies of water 7—After the three corporations had
resolved to go to Parliament to effect the transfer,
and to get additional supplies, the Water Com-
pany for the first time publicly announced their
readiness to go to the Moorfoot, or South Esk,
district, and bring in a supply from that source,
which would, as they said, double the then ex-
isting supply to Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello,
at a cost of, I think, 200,000 l.
1031. In the Bill of 1869 was the proposal
made that the trustees should not be bound to
have the water constantly laid on under pressure
so long as that supply remained as it was at that
time?—It was; after the works clauses relating
to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme were struck out,
the promoters of the Bill, seeing that they had not
the means of giving constant service, found it ne-
cessary to ask for a suspension of the penalties
which the Water Works Clauses Act imposes for
failure to give constant service until additional
supplies were got in. The necessity for such
suspension may be explained in a sentence. By
their Bill the corporations proposed to transfer
the undertaking of the Water Company to public
0.84.
trustees, subject to the obligations which lay upon
the Company, and if the obligation to give con-
stant service under penalties had been imposed on
these trustees previous to their obtaining the
means of meeting that obligation, it was perfectly
clear that the trust funds would have been sub-
jected to a very large expenditure in the shape of
penalties for the trustees not giving what they
had not the means of supplying.
1032. Was that suspension allowed by the
Committee of the Lords to be made for five
years?—It is rather important that you should
allow me to state that the suspensory clause pro-
posed to the Committee of the House of Com-
mons, and which it adopted, was to the effect
that there should be a suspension from penalties
so long as the supply remains as at present. That
of course suspended penalties until the trustees
were enabled to give constant service; but when
the clause came to the Lords, the Committee
said they wished the suspension to be limited
to a fixed period. A question then arose as to
the time for which the suspension should take
effect. The ratepayers who opposed the Bill
wished to make the suspension take effect for
only three years, and an opportunity was allowed
to the promoters to consult their engineers as to
what time they thought necessary. The pro-
moters did consult their engineers, and they were
advised that it would not be safe to have a less
time than five years; that the execution of new
works would very likely take three or four years,
and that unless they had five years, the trustees
might find themselves in the unfortunate position
of being pledged to give constant service, and not
have the means of giving it.
1033. Five years was put in the Bill?—By
the Lords.
1034. I suppose in consequence of that clause
limiting the suspension to five years, the trus-
tees considered they were under an obligation to
provide a constant supply before the expiration
of that time?—They did.
1035. When would the five years have ex-
pired?—On the 15th May 1875.
1036. Having that obligation in view, what
course did the trustees take. You stated that in
1871 they prepared a Bill ?--Immediately after
the Bill of 1869 passed the trust was con-
stituted ; but the trustees did not wait until
the transfer took effect on 15th May 1870; they
immediately employed engineers to examine
the existing supply, and to look out for ad-
ditional sources, and they obtained reports from
Mr. Stewart and from various other engineers
and scientific men, both as to the engineering
capabilities of the several districts and the
chemical and medical qualities of the water
obtainable from these districts; all these re-
ports were submitted from time to time to the
trustees in a printed form and published, and
appeared in the newspapers, and the public were
thoroughly well aware of all that was going on
from month to month in the course of that inves-
tigation.
1037. Upon the receipt of those reports the
trustees agreed to recommend a certain course,
did they not ?—They agreed unanimously upon
a resolution to go to St. Mary’s Loch as a source
of supply. Only one member dissented from
the resolution to adopt the plans of 1868–69
as the plans which were to be prosecuted in
1871.
1038. I suppose notice of that intention was
F 2 given
Mr.J. D.
Marovick.
24 April
1872.
44
SELECT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872.
given in the newspapers, was it not?—The report
appeared in the newspapers, and the resolution
to go to Parliament appeared in the newspapers.
The Parliamentary notices also appeared in the
newspapers.
1039. Was there any action taken at that time
by the ratepayers?—The action of the ratepayers
commenced after that time.
1040. When was the decision come to ? — It
was come to on the 27th October 1870.
1041. Did any election of trustees take place
after that decision was arrived at?—Yes, an elec-
tion took place on 15th November 1870.
1042. Had that any influence on the election
of trustees?—No substantial change was made.
A motion was submitted by one member of the
corporation of Edinburgh to substitute another
set of trustees for those who were proposed by
the Lord Provost, and who were understood to
be favourable to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme,
but that gentleman’s proposal received no sub-
stantial support, and the Lord Provost's list was
carried, consisting of trustees who had been in
the trust before, and were known to be favour-
able to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme.
1043. After the Bill was introduced into
Parliament, was there an opposition organised ?
—Yes.
1044. By whom 3–On the part of the rate-
payers of Edinburgh, the corporation, and mill-
owners of Selkirk, and various landowners.
1045. Did the Bill come before a Committee
of the House of Commons —It did.
1046. Did the ratepayers appear in opposition
against the Bill ?—They did.
1047. In the meantime had the trustees had
any meeting of ratepayers to support their Bill;
had any public meeting of ratepayers ever taken
place to give the support of the ratepayers to the
application to Parliament 7–No, not as regarded
the Bill of 1871; but at some of the ward meet-
ings in Edinburgh preparatory to the Municipal
elections in 1870, the whole question of water
supply was discussed, and the scheme was ex-
plained, especially by two members of the water
trust; fully in St. Leonard's ward by Bailie
Lewis, who was the convener of the works com-
mittee ; and at St. Luke's ward meeting by
Councillor Wilson, who was also a member of
the trust, and both of whom explained what
were the general features of the scheme, what
were the divergencies between the estimates of
the engineers, and what were the probable rates
which would require to be levied in order to
carry out the scheme. There was no expression
at these ward meetings of anything like serious
opposition to the scheme.
1048. You say that the ratepayers opposed the
Bill before both the Commons and the Lords?—
They did.
1049. Were the ratepayers delegated by a
public meeting of ratepayers, or acting in their
own capacity?--There was no public meeting to
consider the Bill. ... Two meetings were held in
Queen-street Hall, but both were called for
the express purpose of opposing the Bill. The
second meeting was called by parties who were
opposed to the Bill to continue the opposition in
the Lords, which had been given in the Com-
II] OIlS.
1050. Was the Bill passed by the Commons 2
—It was.
1051. And again opposed before the Select
Committee in the Lords?—And again opposed
in the Lords.
1052. What was the result?--It was rejected
in the Lords. -
1053. Were any grounds stated for its rejec-
tion?—There was a written expression of the
views of the Lords.
1054. Have you got that?—You have it in
the statement of the ratepayers, paragraph 15 :
“The Committee are of opinion that it is not
expedient to proceed further with the Bill. They
hold that with better care and regulation as re-
gards waste, and with increased storage for the
utilisation of water drawn from the present
sources of supply, Edinburgh can obtain all that
is requisite for her needs; and they hold further
that they cannot sanction so large an expenditure
of money, which appears not to be required at
present.”
1055. Do you know whether that was unani-
mously adopted by the Lords?—I do not know.
1056. Had the trustees any doubt as to their
right to promote this Bill at the expense of the
trust?—Not the slightest. *
1057. Was evidence given before the Lords’
Committee that water had been obtained better
from other sources than from this source?—There
was a great deal of engineering evidence, and
evidence of all kinds. The trustees brought as
evidence Mr. Stewart, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Hawk-
shaw, Mr. Gale, the engineer of the Glasgow
Waterworks, and a variety of others, to prove
that St. Mary's Loch was the best source of
supply that could be obtained. The opponents
of the Bill brought Mr. Forman, Mr. Hawksley,
and others to prove that other sources, and
specially the Pentlands, were better.
1058. After this Bill was thrown out, were
certain proceedings instituted against the trustees
against the payment of these costs 2–Yes; pro-
ceedings called in Scotland suspension and inter-
dict, known better here, I suppose, as an injunc-
tion, or equivalent at least to an injunction,
were applied for.
1059. What was the judgment of the Court of
Session upon the case?—There was a judgment
given first by the Lord Ordinary, Lord Gifford
holding that the trustees were, upon a sound
construction of the Waterworks Clauses Act,
under no obligation to give constant service
beyond distributing the water that they actually
had, and that, therefore, they were not com-
pelled to go to Parliament to obtain additional
supplies. There was no obligation upon them
beyond that to provide constant supply, and
he could not find in the suspensory proviso
to clause 4 of the Edinburgh and District
Waterworks Act 1869 anything to support the
idea that their going to Parliament was an ex-
ercise of their duty as indicated by the Statute.
He arrived, however, at that decision, as his
Lordship states himself, with very great doubt
and difficulty. He says, “ The Lord Ordinary
thinks, on a consideration of the whole Statutes,
held by the respondents, that the respondents’
trust was not constituted or created for the
purposes of obtaining new or additional supplies
of water; that is, new sources of supply, but
solely for the purpose of administrating the
existing supply; that is, the supplies and sources
of supply which by the Statutes are now vested
in the respondents.” He then goes into a con-
sideration of the various clauses in the Water-
works Act, and says the Lord Ordinary feels
that
ON MUNICIPAL coRPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 45
that this is a case of great difficulty and em-
barrassment, and he says again that he has come
to the conclusion indicated “ not without great
hesitation and difficulty, and, he is free to add, not
without regret and reluctance; and he has felt
himself bound to apply a strict rule which,
though it may often be productive of hardship,
and may be so in the present case, is still, he
thinks, upon the whole, salutary and beneficial.”
1060. Was that judgment agreed in by all ?
—No; the case was appealed to the First Division
of the court, and the court, by a majority of
three to one, affirmed the judgment. Lord
Deas, who was the dissentient judge, went into
a careful analysis of the whole case, and the Acts
of Parliament which had been founded upon ;
and he expressed a very clear and decided
opinion, which the trustees think is the sound
one, that they were under a statutory obligation
to give constant service, and that they were fully
and fairly entitled, and indeed bound, to go to
Parliament as they did.
1061. What were the costs of this application
to Parliament?—The costs have not been fully
ascertained ; a number of the accounts have not
been got in.
1062. We do not want the details of them,
but what you suppose it to be about?—I think
you may take them at about 19,000 /.
1063. Do you suppose they will exceed that
sum ?—I do not think so.
1064. How long were they before the Com-
mittee in each House ?–Fifteen days in the
Commons, and ten days or a fortnight, I think, in
the Lords. It was a very long fight.
1065. Sir M. H. Beach..] Do those costs in-
clude the preliminary survey 2– Everything;
the preliminary survey and the ſees of the
engineers, as well as the whole expenses of the
Bill.
l666. Are any of them paid 2––Yes.
1067. How much 2–2,908 l. 12 s. 3 d. was paid
out of the funds of the trust, but that snm is in-
cluded in the 19,000 l. I mentioned.
1068. Who are liable for the remainder, and
for that, supposing this Bill not to become law "
—If you are to accept the decision of the Court
of Session, the trustees individually would be.
1069. I see the 4th clause of the petition of
the Water Trustees prays “ that the expense of
prospecting for supplies, and of obtaining or
applying for the requisite Parliamentary autho-
rity to introduce such supplies, should be made a
charge upon and be paid out of the rates leviable
from the inhabitants within the district for which
such supplies may be obtained or sought.” If you
look at the Bill before us, you will see that the
2nd section of that Bill provides, “When in the
judgment of a governing body in any district it is
expedient for such governing body to promote,
further, or oppose any local and personal Bill or
Dills in Parliament, or to prosecute or defend
any legal proceedings necessary for the promo-
tion or protection of the interests of the inhabi-
tants of the district, or to carry out any other
proceeding which may be necessary in order to
give effect to their functions or powers under
any existing Act of Parliament, it shall be lawful
for such governing body to apply the borough
fund, borough rate, or other the public funds
or rates under the control of such govern-
ing body to the payment of the costs and ex-
penses attending the same.” That clause is
rather wider, and has a wider scope than the ob-
0.84.
ject sought for in your petition ?—I suppose it
might mean that water trustees might go and
interfere with gas companies or vice versâ. I
should understand that whatever legislation may
take place in regard to it, each public body
should be required to conform to the proper
objects for which it was constituted ; that is to
say, that water trustees should confine themselves
to water supply, and not interfere with gas; that
Police Commissioners should interfere with sew-
erage and drainage, and cleaning and lighting, and
should not interfere with things beyond their
proper province. If I understand your question
aright, that is my view of it.
1070. Your wishes, as representing the water
trustees, are limited by the suggestions in the
4th section of the Petition ?—As I have ex-
plained,
1071. Can you state to the Committee the
terms of the remit from the Water Trustees to the
Works Committee in September 1869; it is in the
ratepayers' Petition ?–It is stated shortly here.
I will read the actual remit if you wish it.
1072. Yes, I should like to have the actual
remit?-- “That as it has now been proved, by
incontestible evidence, that the present water
supply is utterly inadequate to meet the wants
of the communities of Edinburgh, Leith, and
Portobello, it be remitted to the Works Committee
first to adopt measures to ascertain, as far as
possible, to what extent there is unnecessary and
preventible waste of water, and how far the
present supply can be largely and equitably dis-
tributed; and, second, to take steps to ascertain
where an additional supply to meet the increasing
wants of the community may best be obtained,
with power to obtain such professional assistance
as may be necessary for the above purpose, it
being understood that no Bill shall be lodged in
Parliament until the full report of the results
of the foregoing inquiries shall have been sub-
mitted, and further, that no engineering or Par-
liamentary expenses in connection with any
scheme, shall be incurred until those already
contracted shall have been ascertained.”
1073. The first part of that remit refers to
the waste of water?—It does.
1074. What was the supply provided by the
water company previous to May 1870 ?—I have
stated that it was equal to about 7% millions of
gallons per day taken over the whole year.
1075. What was the available supply for
Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello in October 1870,
after the works had come into the possession of
the Water Trustees?—“ In October 1870 the
whole available supply for Edinburgh, Leith, and
Portobello fell to three and a half millions of
gallons, amounting, inclusive of the quantity
consumed by manufacturers and for all other
purposes, to an average of 14 gallons per day to
each head of a population of 250,000.”
1076. Therefore there was a considerable in-
crease of waste, or deficiency in the available
supply, since the works came into the possession
of the trustees?—No ; the cause of that state of
matters was this: Before the works came into the
possession of the trustees on 17th May 1870, the
supply had been in the hands of the Water
Company, who sent out a much larger quantity
of water during the time that it was in their
hands than should have been done. The result
was, that when the supply came into the hands
of the trustees, it was very much below what
it should have been, had a due regard been
F 3 shown
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24. April
1872.
46
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Marmick.
24 April
1872.
shown throughout the year to the requirements of
the community, and had the supply in the reser-
voirs been properly distributed. That explains
what is stated in the petition here, “But, assum-
ing that by a better husbanding of the water
than the Water Company exercised previous to
the transferrence of the undertaking to the
trustees, the average supply to Edinburgh,
Leith, and Portobello could be taken at seven
millions of gallons per day; that would only
yield, for all purposes, manufactories, &c., in-
cluded, 28 gallons per head of the population.”
1077. Do you know what is the consumption
of water at Glasgow per head of the population ?
—It was stated to be 50 gallons per head per
day. I should state that it was given in evidence
by the engineers, that, although in Glasgow
the water trustees had done everything they
possibly could to limit the consumption of water,
they found it impossible to reduce it below
50 gallons per head; and the Edinburgh and
District Water Trustees, looking to the charac-
ter of the population of Edinburgh, and the
large number of self-contained houses and baths
and water closets, did not feel themselves justi-
fied in looking forward to a smaller supply for
Edinburgh than was found to be necessary in
Glasgow.
1078. The last sentences of that remit state
that it was understood that no Bill should be
lodged in Parliament until a full report of the
results of the foregoing inquiry shall have been
submitted; was that full report submitted before
the Bill was lodged 2–Yes; a series of reports
dealing with the whole subject in the most
minute way were submitted to the trustees, and
printed and appeared in the newspapers, and
everybody had access to them. +
1079. Was a full report, with regard to the
waste of water and a distribution of the present
supply, submitted 2–As far as it could be. But
in a report which was made to the trustees by
the Works Committee, on the 20th of October
1869, occurs this paragraph : “The foregoing
report, it will have been observed, has been con-
fined exclusively to the second branch of the
remit. The committee have not been able, as
yet, to deal with the first branch. Since the
trust was constituted, Edinburgh, Leith, and
Portobello have not possessed constant service.
The supply has been intermittent, and many of
the houses have been without water for days.
In such circumstances, therefore, it would have
been impossible to ascertain, even approximately,
how much water leaks from defective house
apparatus, or is otherwise wasted. The com-
mittee are therefore compelled, in the meantime,
to delay dealing with the first branch of the
remit.”
1080. Did the committee ever deal with the
first branch 2–As far as they had the power, by
appointing inspectors to visit the houses and
check waste in every possible way that they
could.
1081. Were any measures taken with a view
to check waste?—The Water Trustees had only
the same powers to check waste that the Water
Company had. They used these powers, and
they employed additional inspectors in order to
make the clauses more operative, and see that
they were carried out.
1082. How many additional inspectors did they
employ 2—I think there were four or five in
addition to those the Water Company had.
1083. How many had the Water Company ?—
I think only one, in addition to seven water
officers, who had also other duties to perform, but
whose services in checking waste were con-
tinued by the trustees. I really am not very well
prepared, however, to speak as to these details.
I came here rather to explain the general action
taken by the trustees.
1084. Let me refer you to the Resolution
which you read as passed by the Committee of
the Lords upon the Bill. You will observe that
that Committee stated, that “with better care
and regulation as regards waste, and with in-
creased storage for the utilisation of water drawn
from the present sources of supply, Edinburgh
can obtain all that is requisite for her needs.”
Why did not the Water Trustees take steps to
secure those benefits to Edinburgh before they
applied for a Bill proposing such aii expensive
scheme?—Because they were advised that to go
to the Pentlands would be a very injudicious step.
When the control of the water supply was in the
hands of the Water Company they drew their
sources of supply from the Pentlands, and must be
supposed to have known it thoroughly. They must
be supposed to have known very well what were
the additional capabilities of the district; but the
manager, engineer, and directors were all of
opinion that the supply of water from that district
was practically exhausted, and that they must go
to some other source to get an adequate supply.
Moreover, when the trustees heard the Pentlands
spoken of afterwards as a source of suitable supply,
they found that any attempt to abstract more
water from that district would be met by such
determined opposition on the part of the mill-
owners in the district, that it would be a very
serious thing indeed to interfere with them or
with it. The millowners said, through their
secretary, to the trustees that it was not a mere
question of water compensation with them ; that
if any more water were taken for town supply
from that district it would destroy their power to
go on with their business, and the compensation
which would require to be made would be com-
pensation for the business, and not a mere water
compensation. {-
1085. That is hardly an answer to my ques-
tion; I did not refer to going to any fresh source,
whether to the Pentlands or St. Mary’s Loch, for
any further supply; but I referred to utilising
and better storage and better regulations with
regard to the supply already in the hands of the
Water Company, and given over by them to the
trustees; I want to know why the trustees did
not, in accordance with the first paragraph of that
remit and in accordance with the opinion after-
wards expressed by the House of Lords Com-
mittee, take some pains or more pains to utilise
what they had already got before they applied
for a fresh supply 7 – They did utilise all the
water they had power to take without going to
Parliament for additional powers. There was,
indeed, some little escape from one of the reser-
voirs but that was so small that it could have had
very little effect on the general supply of the
town.
1086. That statement is contrary to the opinion
expressed by the Lords Committee : you will
observe 2–I do not so read it, “with increased
storage.” The trustees had no power to get in-
creased storage without additional Parliamentary
authority.
1087. You applied not for increased storage
but
on MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL. 47
but for an additional supply from fresh sources?
—Undoubtedly, and in so doing the trustees
acted upon the advice of the most competent en-
gineers. The Lords say, “They hold that with
better care and regulation as regards waste and
with increased storage.” Now, as I have stated, the
trustees did all they could to check waste under
the circumstances in which they were placed,
and they could not get increased storage without
Parliamentary authority. They must go to Par.
liament for that.
1088. Need they have gone to Parliament for
the St. Mary's Loch scheme, in order to get the
increased storage, or to check waste 2–Not to
check the waste, except in so far as their existing
powers are defective. As regards storage, it was
purely a question, as I understand it, as to which
was the best source of supply. It was admitted
on all hands that additional supply and in large
quantity was needed; and it was matter of dis-
cretion for the trustees acting under the best
advice they could get to determine whether it
was better to go to the St. Mary's Loch, or to
any other district. After consulting the very
best engineers they could procure, Mr. Bateman,
a man of acknowledged eminence in his pro-
fession, Mr. Stuart, Mr. Gale, and others, they
were advised, that in the whole circumstances
the St. Mary’s Loch was the best source they
could go to.
1089. They jumped at once to the question of
a fresh source, without dealing with the first
paragraph of that remit?—Pardon me, they did
not do so; if you had before you the reports which
have been issued from time to time, you would find
that the attention of the engineers was directed
very specially to the present source of supply, and
to its capability to supply the district; and that all
of them were of opinion that the present water
supply could not be made available for that pur-
pose to the required extent.
1090. That remit which I have read concludes
with the proviso, “ That no engineering or Par-
liamentary expenses in connection with any
scheme, shall be incurred until those already con-
tracted shall have been ascertained.” Was that
done before you applied to Parliament 2–Most
carefully ; immediately after the remit was made
the accounts were got in and were submitted to
the trustees. The trustees remitted them to their
finance committee for examination ; that finance
committee consulted the members of the joint
committee of the three corporations under whose
authority the expenses had been incurred, and
got the benefit of their report; and the reports
both of the joint committee and the finance com-
mittee were brought before the trustees; all these
reports, all that information was before the trus-
tees when they authorised the payment of the
accounts, and an abstract showing not only the
cost of the Bill of 1869, but the amount of each
account to every person employed, was published
in the newspapers at the time. I know quite well
that long afterwards it was stated as one of the
counts in the indictment against the trustees,
that they had purposely abstained from making
the public aware of what the expenses were,
knowing well that if the information had been
given, they would not have been allowed to pro-
ceed with their Bill of 1871; but nothing could
be more inaccurate. The accounts were ex-
amined and published, and anybody, who wanted
to know the amount had only to look to the file
0.84.
of the “ Scotsman” newspaper in order to get the
whole information.
1091. Why did the trustees promote, in 1870,
the St. Mary’s Loch scheme which had been
rejected in the previous year by the House of
Lords 2—That is a mistake ; the clauses of the
Bill of 1869, which contemplated taking in a
supply of water from St. Mary’s Loch, were never
considered either by the Lords or by the Com-
mons; that part of the Bill, as I have explained,
was struck out on the Report of the Examiner
upon Standing Orders upon a mere technical
difficulty as regarded the Parliamentary plans.
1092. It was never considered on the merits of
the case ?—Never.
1093. Why was the town of Edinburgh so
much opposed to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme
in 1870 ?—I cannot answer the question more
simply or more forcibly than by reading a pas-
sage from the judgment of Lord Deas; he
says, “As regarded the matter of good faith,
Mr. Macdonald for the complainers had conceded
that point in the present case in favour of the
trustees, not very heartily, certainly, but still it
was conceded ; and whether it had been conceded
or not, he (Lord Deas) saw no reason for any
doubt about it. Whatever the quality of the
water of St. Mary’s Loch had been, however
undoubted its quality and abundant its quantity,
the ratepayers would not have been all agreed as
to the propriety of bringing it in. There would
always have been two classes of the community;
one looking mainly to their own pockets in the
present generation, and thinking that the next
generation should provide for itself; the other
class taking a more liberal and patriotic view,
that we should do something for our descendants
as well as for ourselves, as our forefathers did,
or ought to have done, for us. According to the
difference of minds in this respect, although there
had been no uneasy feeling (as undoubtedly
there was) about the quality of the water, al-
though St. Mary’s Loch had been full to the
brim of water equal to the best water of the
Pentland Hills, there would, he had no doubt,
still have been a formidable division among the
ratepayers for and against the scheme.” That
accounts for the opposition to a certain extent;
but then I have also to state to you that after the
trustees had gone to Parliament, a series of letters
appeared under the name of “A Physician,” and
those letters gave the most alarming account of
the water of St. Mary’s Loch. They spoke of
its being swarming with fleas and water insects;
they spoke of lead poisoning, of diarrhoea, of
softening of the bones, and of all sorts of fearful
calamities that would fall on the city of Edin-
burgh if this water were introduced; and there
can be no doubt whatever that those and other
similar letters created a not unnatural alarm in a
very large number of theinhabitants of Edinburgh.
Then, again, it was stated by those parties who
took charge of the conduct of the opposition,
that the cost of this scheme would be very much
greater than the trustees had satisfied themselves
there was the slightest chance of its being. It
was said that the water rates would be doubled
and trebled, and people were alarmed both for
their pockets and for their bodies.
1094. Mr. Weville-Grenville.] Do I under-
stand it was water in a loch that had this bad
character ?—Yes, the water of St. Mary's Loch;
a natural loch like Loch Katrine. It was just a
repetition, in the case of Edinburgh, of what had
F 4 taken
Mr. J. D.
AMarwick.
24, April
1872.
48
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872,
taken place in the case of Glasgow. . When
the Loch Katrine water was proposed to be
brought in there, the most formidable objections
were raised to it, on the ground of its being soft
water, on the ground that its action upon lead
would make it poisonous, and upon a variety
of other grounds; and that opposition was so
great that the Glasgow Water Bill was thrown
out once and again, and it was only after a third
application that the Glasgow people succeeded
in getting their Bill. , And what has been the
result? Not one of the disastrous results prog-
nosticated took place; the Glasgow people came
forward and told us that the introduction of the
Loch Katrine water had been one of the greatest
boons that could have been conferred on Glasgow.
We have just had to go through the same thing.
The same thing again took place in regard to the
water supply of Dumfries.
1095. Sir M. H. Beach..] At any rate, the
feeling in Edinburgh seems to have been very
strong in the matter. I see it is stated at sepa-
rate ward meetings, held in 13 wards, that nine
of them agreed, either unanimously or by very
decisive majorities, to oppose the Bill in the
House of Lords; that a resolution against the
Bill was passed at a large public meeting held
in the Music Hall; and at the municipal elec-
tions in November, out of 13 members of the
corporation who retired, 10 being supporters of
the St. Mary’s Loch scheme and three being
opponents, of the 10 supporters only two suc-
ceeded in obtaining re-election, the other eight
having been replaced by opponents of the scheme.
All that shows a very strong feeling against this
scheme in the city ?—I am not here to deny that
there a very strong opposition was got up against
the St. Mary's Loch scheme; but what I do say
is, the statements you have read are not to be
accepted as they are represented. I do not, as
I have said, detract from the amount of opposition,
but I do say these ward meetings have not, in
my judgment, much value as indications of public
opinion. There has been sent to me an estimate
of the attendance at those ward meetings, and I
will tell you what it represents. Take first St.
Bernard's Ward, No. 3, in which there are 1,315
registered electors; in that ward a meeting was
held, which, according to the newspaper reports,
was attended by 156 people, of whom it was
said 46 voted for and 110 against the St. Mary’s
Iloch scheme. This, be it understood, was after
the Bill was in Parliament, and after a large
amount of expense had been incurred, and after
the trustees were thoroughly committed to the
scheme. Then in St. George's Ward, No. 4,
there are 1,471 registered electors. Assume the
place in which that ward meeting was held to
have been filled, it could only have held, ac-
cording to my information, 300 people ; take
them all to have gone against the St. Mary’s
Loch scheme. St. Stephen's ward, No. 5, con-
tains 956 registered electors; 115 attended the
meeting of that ward, and 29 voted for and 86
against the Bill. In St. Luke's ward, No. 6,
there are 1,059 registered electors, and of the
500 who attended the meeting of the ward, 55
voted for and 445 against the Bill. Then St.
Andrew's ward, No. 7, has 1,036 registered
electors, and it was reported that the 400 people
who attended the meeting there voted against it.
St. Giles's, the 9th ward, has 2,705 registered
electors; 184 people attended, and 55 voted for,
129 against the Bill. St. Cuthbert's Ward, No.
10, has 2,243 registered electors; the meeting
in that ward was held in the Corn Exchange, and
was stated in the report of the “Scotsman *
newspaper to be nearly half filled. Now, the
Corn Exchange holds about 4,500 persons, so
that should represent about 2,000 people; and
that meeting approved of the action of their
representatives, who were all supporters of the
St. Mary’s Loch scheme. George's-square ward,
No. 11, has 2,934 registered electors, and of the
135 people who attended that meeting, 46 voted
for, and 89 against the Bill. Newington ward,
No. 13, has 2,436 registered electors, and of the
350 people who attended, 54 voted for, and 30
against the Bill. If, then, you add all those up,
it just comes to this, that in a place with a popu-
lation of 196,500 and with a Parliamentary and
municipal constituency of 23,735, 4,140 people
took part in these ward meetings, of whom 2,281
were for the Bill, and 1,859 against it; but then
it is perfectly well known that these meetings
are open to everybody, any person can go in, and
there is nothing to prevent an individual who
has attended one ward from going to others, and
so swelling the numbers of either one side or the
other. I attach very little importance to such
an expression of opinion as that. Then as regards
the meeting in the Queen-street Hall, that was
not a public meeting called to consider whether
the trustees should go on with the scheme or
not ; it was a meeting called for the purpose of
opposing the Bill, and making arrangements for
opposing it; and the best proof that it was not
an open meeting for discussing the measure is
this, that one of the trustees who was unfor-
tunate enough to attend, and who volunteered
an explanation or correction of a statement made
by one of the speakers, was called up to the
platform, and handed over to the police.
1096. We all know what the character of
meetings may be ; but is not this a fact, that the
whole complexion of the corporation of Edin-
burgh at the first election that followed after this
agitation commenced, was changed with regard
to their view of the St. Mary’s Loch scheme?
—There is no doubt of that ; but that was
after the Bill of 1871 had been rejected by the
Lords.
1097. And that in consequence the water
trustees being elected by the corporation, at the
subsequent election of water trustees the whole
of those who were promoters of that scheme were
turned out except the Lord Provost, and 17
opponents of the scheme were elected 2–That is
true, because a majority of one in the corporation
of Edinburgh could change the whole complexion
of the trust. I do not at all dispute that after
the Bill had passed the Commons, and during its
passage through the Lords, there was a strong
opposition to the measure, such an opposition as,
if it had been stated at an earlier stage would, I
believe, have induced the trustees to have de-
layed operations. I quite admit that ; what I
regret to say is this: that the citizens of Edin-
burgh, who had the scheme explained to them in
1868, and had approved of it then at ward meetings
and district meetings regularly called; who had it
before them during all 1869 and 1870, and all
through till the Bill was introduced into Parlia-
ment, and the trustees were committed to the
measure, should not, at an earlier perid, have taken
some means of making known their opposition as
they did afterwards. If they had done so, I
believe all this trouble would have been saved.
The
on MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 49
The citizens must really blame themselves en-
tirely for the position of matters. . e
1098. Did not this opposition mainly begin as
you have told us, after the Bill had passed
through the House of Commons, and after the
very large proportion of this expenditure had
been incurred?—It had begun before to a ger-
tain extent, but it assumed its largest proportions
afterwards.
1099. Does not that fact rather show that
sufficient publicity was hardly given to the
scheme before the Bill was brought into Parlia-
ment?–No, it does not. I think it would have
been impossible to give greater publicity than
was given to all the information which the public
required to enable them to make up their minds
as to the scheme. It just shows this, that in the
first place, the citizens did not bestir themselves
or express themselves on the subject at a prope.
time; and it shows in the second place, and I
believe chiefly, that they were alarmed by the
statements which were made with regard to the
quality of the water and the expense, which state.
ments were industriously circulated after the Bill
was brought into Parliament, and not before.
1100. Does not it show that the citizens, at
any rate the largest proportion of them, did not
know what the water trustees were doing?—
No ; and even if it did, whose fault was it. They
had the means of knowing it; and they have no
right now to blame the trustees, who were acting
in good faith, getting and communicating the
best information obtainable.
1101. Were the trustees ever requested to
take the opinion of the ratepayers regarding
their Bill?—Yes, at a later stage ; at the time
when the opposition had assumed its large pro-
portions. They were asked after they had carried
it through the Commons,
1102. Not within a day or two after the Bill
was lodged in Parliament?—Certainly not within
a day or two, nor for some time afterwards.
1103. What was the reply of the trustees to
that request ?—I am sorry. I have not got a copy
of the resolution. I will get it if it is con-
sidered of any importance.
1104. State it generally 2–The meeting was
attended by 22 trustees, of whom 16 resolved to
proceed, and 6 voted not to proceed. Three trus-
tees were absent who were supporters of the
scheme; if they had been present the majority
would have been 19 to 6. The reason for their
coming to that resolution was declared to be this:
that they had taken the best possible means of
ascertaining what was the best source of supply,
and that, acting upon competent advice, con-
firmed by their own observation and judgment,
they had gone in for St. Mary's Loch. They
had succeeded in proving the preamble of their
Bill to the satisfaction of the Committee of the
House of Commons; and looking to the prospect
after the five years during which penalties were
suspended should have expired, they would not
be justified in withdrawing the ultimate decision
of the Bill from the constitutional tribunal, the
House of Lords.
1105. What was the date of that meeting 2—
It was a short time before coming before the
Committee of the House of Lords.
1106. Mr. McLaren.] I understand, in refer-
ring to public opinion, you exclude Leith and
Portobello altogether from your observations ---
I have spoken wholly of Edinburgh. As to the
case of Leith the Provost will speak.
0.84.
1107. The trust being composed of members
elected by the three towns, could the Edinburgh
trustees have stopped if they had desired without
the concurrence of the other parties 2—The Edin-
burgh trustees felt they could not in honour or
common fairness withdraw without the consent of
the representatives of Leith and Portobello.
1108. Were they of opinion that the Leith and
Portobello constituency were all but unanimous
in favour of the Bill?—Undoubtedly.
1109. The plan of going to St. Mary’s Loch
includes a distance of about 36 miles, does it not?
—Yes, a very long distance.
1 110. It was devised in 1868 under a former
chief magistrate, Mr. Chambers?—Mr. Chambers,
the eminent publisher, was the Lord Provost at
that time, and it was devised under him.
1111. From 1868 to 1871, when the Bill was
thrown out, the subject was a matter of public
discussion in Edinburgh P-It was.
1112. Was the main object in buying up the
Water Company to get more water brought into
these towns —Unquestionably it was.
1113. And the Bill for buying up the Water
Company contained the necessary clauses for
getting the additional supply from St. Mary's
Loch —That was so. And the promoters were
fortified when they went to the House of Lords in
1869, by the report of the Royal Commission on
the water supply of towns, presided over by the
Duke of Richmond, which strongly recommended
that in all cases the water supply of towns should
be taken out of the hands of private companies,
and vested in public trustees, as the most effective
means of securing that a plentiful supply of
water should be got, not only for the domestic
use of all the inhabitants, but for police and
sanitary purposes, and also for manufactures.
1114. You have told us about the average
supply of water; can you tell us of any cases in
which the supply was deficient, and the Water
Company had to pay the millowners a sum of
money for leave to take more water than Par-
liament authorised them to take 2–In one case
I understand the Edinburgh Water Company
had to pay somewhere about 5,000l.
1115. Was October 1870 a period of great
drought?—Yes, it was.
1116. In other places as well as Edinburgh P
— All over the country.
1117. When the Bill was being promoted,
was it the policy of the Water Company to
endeavour to show the public that they had an
abundant supply in the reservoirs?—Unques-
tionably it was ; and it was for that reason that
the company, in order to give the citizens all the
water the pipes could deliver, sent in water
during the time the undertaking was in their
hands, which should have been reserved for a
later period of the year.
1118. When it came into the hands of the
trustees, the most that they could distribute was
14 gallons a head at that period?—Yes.
1119. And a similar drought occurred some
years before, when the Water Company paid
5,000l. to the millowners for an additional Sup-
ply 2–That is so.
1120. You have stated the difficulties that
would attend taking more water from the present
district of the Pentlands with reference to the mill-
owners; are the millowners referred to nearly
all paper-makers?—They are.
1121. Do they require very pure water for
carrying on their business?—They require pure
Water.
|Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872.
50
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872,
water. It is essential to the conduct of their
business. ©
1122. Are you aware that the trade is a very
large one in that district; that about a sixth part
of all the paper used in Great Britain is made
there 2–It is so.
1123. Have you reason to believe that they
would strongly resist any attempt to take more
water from the Pentland district 2–I know it,
for this reason: I asked the secretary of the
paper-makers to come up here and give evidence
on the subject to the Committee of the Lords,
He consulted the gentlemen with whom he acted,
and he came up and said that they would resist
to the death any attempt to abstract more water
from that district, as it was a matter of vital im-
portance to them. Allow me to add that since
this Bill has been rejected, and since public
attention has been drawn to the Pentlands, that
statement has been repeated by the same gen-
tleman in letters to the newspapers, in which he
has intimated to the citizens of Edinburgh that
the paper-makers will resist to the very utmost
any attempt to take more water from the Pent-
lands.
1124. Was the Water Company’s Act ob-
tained half a century ago, in 1819 –The Water
Company was constituted in 1819.
1125. Has the population of Edinburgh, Leith,
and Portobello, speaking roundly, about doubled
in that time 2—That is the case; but it does
not represent the whole necessity for large addi-
tional supplies of water.
1126. It has about doubled in that time?—It
has. *º
1127. Does Edinburgh, from the large number
of high-rented houses, of the number of water-
closets, baths, and those things, consume a larger
quantity of water than most other towns?—It
does. I do not know whether I may be allowed
to call the attention of the Committee to what
Lord Deas says upon this subject.
1128. I do not know that it is of much im-
portance; with reference to the question I have
just asked you, did you hear the evidence given
the other day, that the rental of Sheffield was
over 600,000 l. a year for a population of
248,000 °– I did not hear that.
1129. What is the rental of Edinburgh for
under 200,000; is it about a million and a quarter
a year !—The annual value of real property in
Edinburgh is 1,253,412 l. ; that does not include
the rental of Leith and Portobello.
1130. What is the rental of Edinburgh, Leith,
and Portobello put together?—£. 1,524,234.
1131. How much would I d. a pound on that
rental produce 7–It would not be levied on that
rental, because there are a lot of properties that
are exempted, and some are rated differently;
shops are charged upon a different rate,
1132. What is 1 d. a pound upon that rental?
—It would give 3,300 l.
1133. Are you speaking of water rates?—Of
domestic water rate.
1134. My question had reference to 1 d. of
rate for anything ; for police, or poor, or any-
thing 2—About 5,000 l., I think.
1135. If a rate were laid upon all the pro-
perty of Edinburgh and Leith and Portobello,
1 d, would produce about 5,000 l. 2–It would
produce, I find, upwards of 6,300!,
1136. How many Acts did the water company
get from the time they were first constituted up
to the period of their ceasing to be a company
in order to increase the supply from their dis-
trict 7–They got eight Acts in all, five being for
the purpose of additional supplies, and three for
financial purposes.
1137. Were all those Acts for obtaining water
from nearly the same district of country 2–Five
of them were ; all the other three were for re-
gulating the financial affairs of the company.
1138. None of them went to such distant terri-
tories as St. Mary’s Loch 2–None ; but the
scheme which the water company proposed, after
the corporation had taken action to have the
undertaking transferred to public trustees, con-
templated going, not to the Pentlands, that
Source being considered by themselves to be
practically exhausted, but to the Moorfoot district,
a different district altogether.
1139. Did the engineer and manager of the
water company and the directors agree in
opinion that it would not be profitable any
longer to seek supplies from the old districts?
—Undoubtedly they did.
1140. Therefore they went to this new district
where they would spend 200,000 l. and get an
additional supply 2—That was the reason.
1141. Was there a general opinion in February
1868, when the plan was first devised, of going to
St. Mary’s Loch, that it was indispensable to get
a very large supply at once, so as to prevent the
necessity of those supplemental Acts?--There
was, and that opinion existed long afterwards.
1142. You have been asked about waste; have
you any reason to believe that there is any more
waste in Edinburgh than there is in every other
town 2–I am not aware of it; I do not see how
it should be.
1143. Does the waste arise from defective
apparatus chiefly, ball cocks and taps out of
order, and that sort of thing 2—So the engineers
are agreed.
1144. Did the water trustees increase the
number of inspectors three or four-fold when
they came into power, in order to check that ?—-
They did.
1145. And they go about from house to house
constantly checking that waste?—Yes.
1146. When the Bill was applied for in 1868,
which was passed in 1869, did it contemplate a
largely increased rate for water in Edinburgh,
and make provision in the Bill for that increased
rate 2–-Yes. The water company were only en-
titled under their Acts to charge water rates for
the houses to which they supplied water, but
when the trustees proposed to go to St. Mary’s
Loch, they thought it was quite necessary—-
1147. But will you tell us the amount of the
rate; what rate could the water company charge?
—Their maximum domestic rate was 10 d. upon
four-fifths, corresponding to 8 d. on the real rent,
and they charged their maximum.
1148. The water company were authorised to
charge not more than 8 d. a pound on the entire
rental ; did the trustees seek power and obtain
it, to charge a 1s. rate 2–They did.
1149. In order to pay for the expense of their
new works –And to give security to the water
company’s shareholders for their permanent
annuities.
1150. In the opposition that was got up to the
Trustees’ Bill, was it alleged by the ratepayers
that 1s. would not be nearly sufficient to cover
the expense of the new works?—It was so stated:
again and again.
1151. Have the trustees reduced the rate by
# d.
on MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 51
# d. since it came into their hands 2—They have
reduced it by 1 d., and they would have reduced
it by 1% d., but for the fact that when they made
the reduction, after the works came into their
hands, they found that they were in a very
unsatisfactory condition, and that an abnormal
expenditure would be required to be made to
put them into repair; therefore they only re-
duced it by 1 d., but I understand they will next
year be in a position to reduce it another d., or
1; d. in all, or perhaps they will be able to re-
duce it to 2 d.
1152. What is the present rate 2 –– Seven-
pence.
1153. And you have power to levy 1s. ?—Yes.
1154. That was intended to cover the new
works 2—To give security to the shareholders.
1155. Were many people alarmed at the idea
of the local rates being increased so much, and
did they oppose the Bill on that ground 2–It
was said they would be doubled and trebled, and
they were alarmed on that ground.
1156. You have referred to the long time the
Bill was discussed before both Houses; had you
eminent engineers employed who required large
º that helped to increase the expenditure ?—
€S.
1157. Will you name the engineers ?—We
had Mr. Stewart, civil engineer, and Mr. Bateman,
the eminent engineer from London ; we had also
Mr. Hawkshaw down to examine the several
Sources of supply, and meet the objections that
were thrown out by the opposition, and we had
Mr. Gale, the engineer from Glasgow. Then
we had Dr. Stevenson Macadam, of Edinburgh,
and Dr. Frankland, from London, each collecting
Samples of water in the several districts, and
making independent analyses of the water. Dr.
Odling, of London, also examined the water, and
gave evidence. Then, on the medical part of
the case, we had Professor Douglas Maclagan,
Dr. Alexander Wood, Dr. Littlejohn, Dr.
Struthers, and, in short, the highest authorities
in every department that we could get, so as
to allay, if possible, the uneasy feeling which
existed in the public mind with regard to the
quality of the water, and the cost of the scheme.
1158. Were some of those witnesses obtained
in consequence of the opposition that was got up
by the ratepayers?—A very large proportion of
them.
1159. And the expense was thereby increased?
—Yes, necessarily, and to a very great extent.
1160. The 19,000 l. would not have been
19,000l. but for the opposition ?—Nothing like
19,000 l.
1161. You had eminent counsel employed ;
how many ?—We had four counsel, Mr. Calvert,
Mr. Denison, Mr. Clerk, and Mr. Pope, and I
should explain with reference to this matter,
that we did not contemplate having a fourth
counsel, but it was intimated by Mr. Clerk to
the solicitor in London, that it would be abso-
lutely necessary to have another counsel, as the
engagements of himself and the other counsel
with him at that time were so numerous that
they could not undertake the conduct of the case
satisfactorily, unless they had another counsel to
share the labour with them.
1162. You have been asked why you did not
comply with the opinion of the Lords Com-
mittee; was the opinion of the old trustees, that
the Lords opinion was not a sound one in saying
that with increased storage they could get
0.84.
abundance of water for the city from the present
districts 2–That was the opinion of the trustees,
and the opinion of all their engineers.
1163. Have the new trustees obtained a report
from their engineers as to how they could get
"increased storage from that district, in com-
Eliance with the opinion of the House of Lords
Committee –They have ; they have got the
opinion of Mr. Leslie, who was the engineer of
the water company, and is now consulting
engineer of the trust, and he has made a report
upon this subject.
1164. Has he shown that 12 new reservoirs
would be required to get the small additional
quantity of water which could be got from that
Source 7---Either 11 or 12.
1163. There are eight already ?—There are
nine already ; at a cost, for new works, of about
390,000l. That is even assuming that the mill-
owners will accept the compensation he has calcu-
lated, which there is no chance of their doing.
1166. Was St. Mary’s Loch, by raising the
embankment to a small extent, to be your only
reservoir under your new system 2–Certainly
not. No one intended for a moment to dispense
with the supply from the Pentlands.
1167. My question was meant to be, was it
the only new reservoir 7–It was the only new
reservoir, and it afforded the means of an in-
exhaustible supply. |
1168. Notwithstanding all the opposition that
was manifested in Edinburgh, was the opposition
ever mixed up with local or general politics;
were both sides composed of men of all parties?
—I dare say politics and personal feeling too
were mixed up with it, as you must expect in any
large question of that kind.
1169. As a rule, it was not made a Liberal or
Conservative question ?—Not at all; I do not
think it took that form.
1170. Are you also clerk to the Convention of
Royal Burghs in Scotland 2–I am.
1171. The Convention of Royal Burghs is a
meeting of the representatives of 70 of the old
burghs of Scotland held in Edinburgh every
year?—It is.
1172. Did that Convention meet recently —
On 2nd and 3rd April current.
1173. Did it pass a resolution as to presenting
a petition to this House in favour of the Bill?—
It did.
1174. Was that petition proposed and seconded
by the Provost of Aberdeen and Perth 2–The
Lord Provost of Aberdeen proposed it, and the
Lord Provost of Perth seconded it.
1175. From your situation as town clerk, I
presume you have a great deal of knowledge
about the history of local Bills relating to Edin-
burgh and to other towns?—I know all about
what relates to Edinburgh, and I have had a
great deal to do with other towns also.
1176. With reference to the 5th section of this
Bill for retrospective legislation, have you ever
known any instance of any Bill which was pro-
moted either for Edinburgh, or any other town in
Scotland, in which it was sought to make the
promoters of that Bill personally liable for the
expenses of it? — It was never thought of in
Edinburgh, and I am not aware of its ever having
been dreamed of anywhere else than in a case in
Dundee where the circumstances were perfectly
different. I had occasion to know all about that
case, and after all it was a mere temporary diffi-
culty which resulted in the gentlemen, who pro-
G 2 moted
Mr. J. D.
Marrijick.
24 April
1872.
52 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872.
moted the Bill being relieved from liability for
expenses, they being official men. In Edinburgh,
I scarcely need tell the honourable Member who
asked the question, Bills have been promoted by
the corporation of Edinburgh which failed, and
the expenses connected with these were invariably
charged without a demur against the municipal
rates. Mr. Black, at one time a Member of this
House, for example, promoted two Bills during his
Lord Provostship; one was a “Municipality Ex-
tension Act,” and the other was a “Police Act.”
The Police Commissioners, who were at that time
a different body from the municipal corporation,
promoted one also. Both the Bills that were
promoted by the corporation of Edinburgh failed,
and in both cases the expenses were charged
against the municipality, and appeared in the
accounts.
1177. You have never found any instance in
which the expenses of promoting a Bill fell upon
private parties?— I never heard of a single
C8 S62.
1178. Mr. Leeman.] You say that one of the
engineers you employed in Edinburgh was Mr.
Gale, who had been employed by the Glasgow
water people 2–Yes; he is at this moment the
resident engineer, and he was then.
1179. You spoke of the Glasgow corporation
having failed, as I understood you, in two or three
applications, before they succeeded in getting the
Act which enabled them to bring a supply in
Glasgow from Loch Katrine?--They failed twice,
but succeeded in the third application. By the
third Bill, which passed, they obtained powers not
only to pay the expenses of that Bill, but also to
pay the expenses of the two abortive Bills, so
that was an instance of retrospective legislation.
1180. You have mentioned Mr. Bateman as
the engineer whom the trustees at Edinburgh
selected 2–He was.
1181. Was Mr. Bateman the engineer who
had constructed waterworks for Glasgow —He
W3.S.
1182. Mr. Bateman is the most eminent en-
gineer, is he not, in water matters ?—I presume
there is no doubt about that ; the trustees be-
lieved so when they employed him.
1183. Had Mr. Bateman from the first recom-
mended the St. Mary’s Loch scheme to you ?—
Yes, from the very first time he saw it, and the
more he saw of the scheme, and the more he
looked into it, the more convinced he was that
Edinburgh had sustained a great loss in not having
got its water supply from St. Mary’s Loch.
1184. You say that originally the supply was
7,500,000 gallons per day?–Yes.
1185. That fell after it came into the hands
of the trustees down to 3,500,000 gallons?—
It did.
1186. But that was not a fall consequent upon
anything that had occurred subsequently to the
trustees coming into possession ?—Certainly not;
as I have explained it was the fault of the water
company, and one of the grievances of which
which the trustees complained was that the water,
which should have been reserved for general
supply over the year, was sent in in unduly large
quantity in the earlier part of the year, so as to
oblige the trustees when they came into possession
absolutely to starve the people during the
remainder of the year.
1187. As I understand you, the people of
Glasgow have arrived at the conclusion that less
than 50 gallons per head per day will not meet
the requirements 2—It has been found impossible
to bring it below that.
1188, You said there is no reason why that
should not be the case as regards Edinburgh 2–
I think the reverse is the case.
1189. Is it your opinion that this is the feeling
of the ratepayers of Edinburgh 2–I believe that
the feeling of a very large proportion of them is
that they cannot have too much water, provided
it be good, and provided they have not to pay a
great deal too much for it.
1190. Mr. McLaren.] There are the manufac-
turers of Glasgow – They are supplied to a con-
siderable extent by water from the Clyde ; that
was proved in evidence. We have no water
unless what is got from the water company; the
brewers, to be sure, have some wells
119). Mr. Delahunty. You say that the
judgment of the court was appealed from ?—It
Wà.S.
1192. In the Appeal Court how many judges
sat?—Four; the Lord President and three other
judges.
1193. You said there was a majority of one 2
—No ; only one of these judges supported the
contention of the water trustees.
1194. You were asked a question a little
while ago with regard to whether the trustees,
being for water only, they would have any power
to act as gas trustees 2–In answer to a question
put to me by an honourable Member, I said I
thought such powers as might be given to water
trustees should be limited to objects falling
within their proper province. They should not
be entitled to promote, as water trustees, Gas
Acts or Sewerage Acts, or things which have
nothing to do with the water supply of the dis-
trict.
1195. Are not the water trustees a sort of com-
mittee of the several corporations to carry out a
certain object?—They are an independent cor-
poration elected by the corporations, with the
exception of the provosts of the three towns, who
hold their position ea officiis.
1196. Being appointed by the members of the
corporation, or by the councils, for a specific
purpose, is it likely that their constituents would
authorise their proceeding in any way to obtain
Acts of Parliament for other purposes?–Once
elected, the trustees are independent, for the
year, of the corporations; but I can scarcely
conceive that any body of trustees appointed to
administer the water supply of any district
would ever dream of going out of their own pro-
vince and interfering with the promotion of Bills
with reference to something quite foreign to the
objects of their trust.
1197. Are they not, in fact, a sort of com-
mittee of the corporations?—No.
1198. Elected annually 2–They are elected
annually. s
1199. With full powers to carry out certain
objects?—Yes.
1200. They are controlled by their consti-
tuents, who are the corporations?—I cannot say
that they are controlled.
1201. Controlled so far that they can be re-
placed?—Others can be substituted at the end
of the year, but the corporations have no power
of controlling them during the year.
1202. They have no power of controlling
them as regards the work they are authorised to
do P-Quite so.
1203. If they undertook any other work, they
would
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 53
would be at once replaced by their constituents 2
—I have no doubt they would at the next period
of election.
1204. So that idea of their travelling out of
their present duties could never arise ?–It was
a thing, I am sure, that never entered the minds
of the trustees, and it did not enter mine until the
question was put to me by the honourable Mem-
ber. But I think it is right it should be under-
stood that public trustees are not to be allowed
to promote schemes outside their province.
1205. I understand that the estimate for the
scheme promoted by the trustees of getting a full
and sufficient and constant supply from this Loch
was 200,000 l. ?—No, 200,000 l. was the estimated
cost of the works, which the water company
proposed to execute.
1206. What was the estimate for bringing the
water from the Loch P – £. 480,000 ; under
500,000 l., taking everything into account.
1207. In addition to the cost of the existing
works P−Yes.
1208. Which you say are about 200,000 l. 2–
No, the existing works cost a great deal more
than that; the existing works which were exe-
cuted by the water company cost, exclusive of the
expense of laying distribution pipes, 471,429 l.
The total cost of the whole work would have
been about 900,000l., if St. Mary's Loch scheme
had been carried out.
1209. I also understood from you as to the new
reservoirs, and adding to the supply, that the
suggestion of the Lords Committee would cost
390,000 l. 2–That is so, according to the report
of Mr. Leslie, and it is a very much more costly
scheme, relatively, to the quantity of water pro-
posed to be got than any other that was ever
dreamed of by the trustees.
1210. It cannot be obtained without going for
a Bill?—The trustees must go to Parliament to
execute that, or any other scheme.
1211. If they failed they must pay the costs
out of their own pockets 2—They will be in the
same position as the present trustees.
1212. Is it likely that if this Bill did not
pass, and that Scotland is not included in it, or
if it does not pass at all, the new trustees will go
for a Bill to increase the present supply –If
the old trustees are found responsible for this ex-
pense, incurred by them in the best possible
faith (no one questions that), and with the best
possible advice, if, notwithstanding that, these
men are found personally responsible for these
expenses, I should think he would be a very un-
wise man indeed who would run the risk of em-
barking in such a Bill with such a responsibility
attaching to him.
1213. If that is so, unless private individuals
put their hands in their pockets to promote a
Bill of the kind, Edinburgh and Leith and Porto-
bello must for ever remain without a constant
supply of water ?–Edinburgh, Leith, and Por-
tobello must, and that very soon, have a large
additional supply, and if the water trustees are
not protected in the attempt to get it, I do not
know what is to come of these towns. I do not
think you will get private individuals to subscribe
such a sum as may be required to meet the risks
incident to the promotion of a Bill.
1214. You think it is essentially necessary
that not only the 5th clause should be adopted,
but also that the rest of the Bill should be
adopted by Parliament?—I think that is neces-
sary, and I think it is most just and proper. Par-
0.84.
liament lays duties upon public bodies, town
councils, police commissioners and water trustees;
it charges them with providing everything that is
necessary for the health of towns, and assuming
it does not pass this Bill, it practically refuses to
afford them protection in the execution, in bond
fide, of their public duties. That would be a con-
dition of matters in which I cannot doubt public
interest would speedily and seriously suffer. Then
if you give protection in the future I cannot see
upon what principle you can refuse protection in
the past.
1215. You say that you are secretary to the
Convention of Burghs 2—I am.
1216. And that they are composed of 70
burghs 2–Yes, of the royal burghs of Scotland.
1217. Did a meeting of this convention unani-
mously approve of the Bill? — It was not an
unanimous approval; it was on a division. If
necessary I can explain what the cause of the
division was.
1218. Chairman.] In the decision of the Court
of Session I understand that the judges who
were against the payment of these costs, par-
ticurlarly Lord Kinloch, stated that the statutes
were reasonably satisfied by supposing an obliga-
tion to do all which could be done that the
means of supply gave 2–That was his view.
1219. And that was the view of the other
judges, I suppose, who concurred with him 2–
That seemed to be the view of the others, but
the old trustees were and are quite unable to
see how that can be. In his judgment, Lord
Deas most clearly expresses the views which
they have always entertained on this subject.
1220. The Lord President had also that view,
had he not, in his decision ?—He had.
1221. Did the Lord President also, in giving
his decision, say that he considered that the trus-
tees were actuated by good faith?—He did so,
most heartily.
1222. And he also used these expressions:
“ that he took it for granted, not only that they
believed it was a scheme for the public benefit,
but I mean also this, that I think they un-
doubtedly believe that even if unsuccessful in
their application to Parliament, they would be
entitled to charge the expenses against the com-
munity” P – He did say so, and no one ever
doubted it.
1223. Was that really the opinion of the trus-
tees 2–It was the opinion of the trustees, and, I
venture to say, of the whole community; there
was not the slightest indication of difference of
opinion upon this subject until the Bill of 1871
was rejected by the Lords. It was the view also
of the opponent ratepayers, as stated by their
own counsel, who made these observations when
he addressed the Lords, after which the Lords
came to the decision which I have read: “I ask,
after the evidence given by Mr. Colin Mackenzie,
Mr. Cowan, and others I have called, do you be-
lieve it would be in the mouth of any one of the
15,000 persons that are represented here as peti-
tioners, at any future stage to come and oppose a
Bill brought in for the purpose of a supply from
the Pentlands or from the South Esk P Any
one who acted so dishonourable and dishonest a
part as that would be scouted out of the Com-
mittee room. Therefore, I say, by the course
we have adopted, and by our general evidence,
and by our engineering evidence, we have com-
mitted ourselves to this proposition, that the
Pentland Hills or the South Esk are available
G 3 supplies,
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872.
54
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Marwick.
24 April
1872.
Mr.
P. Møller.
supplies, and we are stopped, anyone of us (and
I speak it advisedly) from objecting to such a
scheme if it was brought forward by the
trustees at any future period. Therefore
there can be no apprehension on that ; and if
my learned friend in reply says, “If you throw
out the Bill, all the expense of coming to
Parliament this year will have been wasted, and
legislation will be deferred for another year,” my
answer to that is this: “We, the ratepayers, are
paying every halfpenny of the expenses incurred
in the promotion of the Bill, and it its our wish
that this Bill should be abandoned, and that the
money expended hitherto should be wasted, if
they pleased to call it so. We would rather
stand the loss than that the Bill, pregnant with
so many evils and disadvantages, should be further
proceeded with.’ It is not like the case of pri-
vate individuals, they are dealing with public
funds, dealing with my funds. I have the right
to say to them, ‘Postpone legislation, though the
expense may be 15,000 l. to be wasted. You had
better do that than condemn us to water which
we believe to unwholesome, and to an expense
which we believe to be perfectly unnecessary and
outrageous.’”
1224. That speech was made before this deci-
sion was given in the Court of Session, was it
not ?---It was, and it does not affect the legal
question; it merely affects the ra!epayers for
whom the statement was made to the Lords. It
is worthy of note, however, that after the state-
ment was made, and it must be presumed on the
faith of the statement to which the learned gen-
tleman pledged his constituents, the Lords re-
jected the Bill.
1225. At what time of the year are your ward
meetings held in Edinburgh 2–Usually they are
held in October ; in the year 1868, when the
municipal elections were postponed for a month,
in connection with the extension of the franchise
during the year, they were held in November.
1226. When do the elections take place P--
They usually take place in November ; in the
year 1868 they took place a month earlier.
1227. Are not the elections generally held on
the 1st of November in Scotland 7–On the first
Tuesday of November.
1228. Do you remember when this resolution
of the trustees to go to St. Mary’s Loch for water
was published in the newspaper; do you remem-
ber whether it was before or after the election ?
—That is of the Bill of 1871. The resolution
was published before the municipal elections;
but the statement which is made, and which is
quite correct, is that the ward meetings had
been held before that resolution was published.
The answer, however, is that all through the
two previous years the citizens of Edinburgh
knew quite well of the St. Mary’s Loch scheme,
and at the ward meetings, preparatory to this
very election, the scheme was explained, and the
report of all the speeches on the subject appeared
in the newspapers, so that the public were tho-
roughly informed as to it.
1229. It had been discussed at the ward meet-
ings —Yes; though the final resolution had not
then been come to.
1230. Sir J. Ramsden.] Did you take any
opinion as to whether you were entitled to charge
these expenses 2–Before the Bill was promoted P
1231. Yes?—No question was ever raised in
the mind of anybody in regard to the matter,
and no opinion was taken ; it was never
doubted.
1232. I ask it for this reason, because in the
Lord President's judgment I see this: “Most
unfortunately they were either not advised at all
or they were very ill-advised. If they were not
advised, and if they did not take legal advice be-
fore acting upon this assumption, it is much to be
regretted, because undoubtedly the result has
been to place them in that position ?”—Yes.
1233. Did you take advice P.-No opinion was
taken on the matter; no question was ever
raised; and even if it had been, it would have
been impossible to obtain the advice of any law-
yer whose opinion would have commanded more
implicit respect and confidence than that of the
eminent judge in the minority, Lord Deas, who
has so unhesitatingly confirmed the views upon
which the trustees acted. Besides, no one who
is acquainted with the proceedings before the
Committee of the Commons and Lords in rela-
tion to the Bill of 1869, or with the Minutes of
Evidence in regard to that Bill, can doubt that
it was only a preliminary step to returning to
Parliament during an early future Session for
authority to bring in additional supplies.
1234. Mr. M'Laren.] Apart from all matters
of controversy and keeping just to the simple
fact, I suppose you admit the fact, that at the
last election the party opposed to the water trus-
tees’ procedure got a great majority in the town
council 2–There is no doubt of that,
1235. And there was manifested a strong
feeling on the part of a very large body of rate-
payers against that particular plan 2–That is
quite the fact.
1236. But then the plan had been devised in
1868 °– And it had been launched, and much
expense had been incurred before that time.
Mr. PETER MILLER, called in ; and Examined.
1237. Chairman.] You, I believe, wish to
make a statement to the Committee on behalf of
some of the ratepayers of Edinburgh 2–1 do.
1238. Did the ratepayers for whom you ap-
pear, form an association to oppose the Bill
which was introduced into Parliament in 1871,
by the Water Trustees of Edinburgh –Yes,
they formed an association in 1871; the first
meeting was held in the month of February.
1239. Did they object entirely to the scheme
of the Water Trustees?—They objected entirely
to bringing water for the supply of Edinburgh
from St. Mary’s Loch. -
1240. Do you know the ground upon which
they objected 2–Chiefly, the enormous expense
that it entailed ; one of the chief elements was,
the quality of the water.
1241. Did they oppose the Water Trustees
applying to Parliament for any powers whatever;
did they suggest that they should obtain the
water from any other source 2–Yes, there were
several other sources of supply within a shorter
distance of Edinburgh. There was first the Pent-
lands, from whence they get their present supply;
then there was the Moorfoot, then there was the
Heriot scheme, any one of which would have pro-
vided an ample supply for the immediate and
prospective wants of the city, and at half the cost
of the St. Mary’s Loch scheme. -
1242. Did your association oppose the Bill
before
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
55
before the Committee of the House of Commons?
—Yes; at the first meeting, about the 17th Feb-
ruary, I think they took steps to petition against
the Bill, praying to be heard by counsel against
the St. Mary’s Loch scheme.
1243. Did your association represent the rate-
payers from the various wards of Edinburgh –
From the entire city, and they presented a peti-
tion, I think, to the Commons, signed by 14,000
or 15,000 of the ratepayers.
1244. You heard the evidence which Mr. Mar-
wick gave about the meetings in the various
wards 2—I did.
1245. Did you agree with what he stated 2–I
totally differ from his statement with respect to
the ward meetings.
1246. When were the ward meetings held,
before the Committee of the Commons, or after-
wards?—The ward meetings were held after the
Bill passed the House of Commons.
1247. You say you petitioned previously; what
course did you take; did you appear by counsel ?
—We appeared by counsel, and brought evidence
in support of our views. The inquiry lasted 14
or 15 days altogether. The evidence was re-
ported in the pages of the “ Scotsman,” in Edin-
burgh, almost verbatim, and the inhabitants had
the facilities for the first time of ascertaining the
real merits of the water question. Up to that time
the reports were not satisfactory, and, in point
of fact, the two principal reports on which the
whole evidence was based were withheld, not only
from the town council but from the ratepayers,
and it was only after the matter had proceeded
before the Committee of the House of Commons,
I think, some six or seven days, that they were
able to extract, and that with considerable diffi-
culty, these two reports from the promoters of
the scheme, Mr. Leslie's report and Mr. Stewart's
report. What the Water Trust proceeded upon
was a report of the Committee made up from these
reports; but there were two or three essential
features in the reports that were kept altogether
out of the Water Trustees’ report.
1248. Did you oppose the Water Trustees on
the ground that they had no power or right to
go to Parliament and spend the ratepayers'
money in seeking to obtain fresh water —No ;
I am not aware that that question was agitated
during the controversy.
1249. Not at that time 2—Not at that time.
1250. You did not succeed in your opposition
befor the Commons’ Committee ?—In the Com-
mons they passed the preamble of the Bill.
1251. You then held certain meetings in Edin-
burgh 2–Yes; subsequent to its passing in the
Commons there was another public meeting held
in the largest hall in the city, the Music Hall,
which was well filled.
1252. Was that a public meeting called by
the Lord Provost 2–No, it was called by the
Ratepayers' Association ; the Lord Provost de-
clined to call any meetings at all; he declined to
call a meeting of his own ward, although he was
requested to do so by his constituents. They
afterwards called a meeting of their own accord.
1253, How many persons were present 2-—
I cannot tell you the number, for I was not pre-
sent at any of the ward meetings, except one.
1254. Was it a large meeting 7–It was, I
understood, a very large meeting. I understood
it was unanimous. At this meeting in the Music
Hall, at which I was present, there were nearly
2,000 attended; there was some show of opposition
0.84.
by a few members of the Water Trust and their
supporters. Mr. Marwick referred to one of them
being turned out by the chairman. He inter-
rupted the meeting. He wanted to speak, and
the chairman ruled that he was out of order, but
he pertinaciously resisted the decision, and the
chairman had no alternative but to order him to
be taken out by the police. That large meeting
resolved to oppose the Bill in the House of
Lords, and to take all necessary steps for doing
so. Then there were ward meetings. The usual
way of calling ward meetings in the city of Edin-
burgh, is by requisition to the members of the
town council representing the wards. In two
of the wards, the Lord Provost’s Ward and St.
George's Ward, where the members were in favour
of the Water Bill, they absolutely refused to call
meetings of their constituents, and their consti-
tuents called the meetings themselves. I believe
in both those wards the meetings were unani-
mous against the Bill. Out of 13 wards in the
city, 10 had meetings, and nine of them, either
by large majorities, or some of them, unanimously
resolved to oppose the Bill. In the 10th ward,
St. Cuthbert's, the resolution took the form of a
vote of confidence in the three members who re-
presented them in the town council. In the
other three wards there were no meetings. In
my own ward there were two of us opposed to
the Bill, and only one in favour of it, and I think
in the other ward all the three members were
against the Bill, and the supporters of the Bill
called no meeting.
1255. After that expression of opinion of the
various ward meetings, was a motion submitted
to the town council with respect to the Bill 2–
I cannot say whether each ward sent represen-
tations of the result of their meetings.
1256. Was any motion brought forward before
the town council with respect to the Bill?—Yes,
1257. What was that motion, and what was
the result of it 2–I myself made a motion, the
purport of which was this, “ that in respect that
a vast majority of the ratepayers of the city of
Edinburgh are opposed to the Bill, the town
council resolve to oppose the Bill in the House
of Lords, and appoint a special committee with
full powers to take all necessary measures for
carrying out the resolution.” We carried that
motion by a majority of one At a subsequent
meeting, on the approval of the minutes, it was
reversed by the casting vote of the Lord
Provost, who had in the division given a de-
liberative vote; only one of the members of the
council having declined to vote. The whole of
the members were present on the second occa-
sion. I may add that on the second occasion one
member voted, who declined voting on the first
occasion, and sent in his resignation to the town
clerk, but he turned up at the next meeting, and
withdrew his resignation, and voted against the
approval of my motion.
1258. Did this agitation against the Bill pro-
ceed more from an objection to the source of
supply, than from any opposition to having an
increased source of supply –So far as I under-
stood the matter, and so far as I understand it
now, the citizens of Edinburgh are not, and
never were, opposed to an additional supply of
water being brought in, but they objected to such
an expensive scheme, and on account of the qua-
lity of the water, for the water they have at pre-
sent from the Pentlands is of first rate quality,
mostly pure spring water.
G 4 1259. Your
Mr.
P. Møller.
24 April
1872.
56 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
P. Miller.
24 April
1872.
1259. Your association, I presume, appeared
before the Lords Committee to oppose the Bill ?
—They did.
1260. Did the association give evidence against
this Bill?—Yes, they brought forward a great
amount of evidence, all kinds of evidence, engi-
neering evidence, and evidence as to the quality
of the water.
1261. The result was that the Bill was thrown
out by the Lords Committee, the Committee
having adopted the resolution which was read by
the town clerk 2–Yes.
1262. I suppose that the opposition of the rate-
payers' association cost some money 2–It cost
about 9,000 /., and the larger portion of that has
been subscribed by the ratepayers. We have
had subscriptions from 4 d. up to, I think, 200 l.,
or at least 150 l.
1263. Does your association combine both
large ratepayers and small ones, or what class of
ratepayers is it principally composed of 7–Just
the general mass of the ratepayers; it is not con-
fined to one class; there is no political or party
feeling in the matter. The opposition is com-
posed of all the different political sections in the
community.
1264. Did your association take any steps to
obtain the interdict for the protection of the rate-
payers against the application of the ratepayers’
money 2–Although I am a member of the rate-
payers' association, I have not taken much in-
terest, so far as attending the meetings is con-
cerned; I am not a party to the interdict; I was
not consulted in it, and I am not a party to it.
1265. Are you yourselves satisfied with the
present provision of water supply for Edinburgh
and the other two places?—With the present
quantity ?
1266. Yes?–No; my opinion is that the grow-
ing necessities of Edinburgh require an additional
supply for prospective wants, but I am of opinion
that the present supply is ample for the present
wants. The population has been increasing so
rapidly of late, that I think it would only be
judicious on the part of the authorities to look
about immediately for an additional supply of
water. The present supply is about 32 gallons
a head per day; we have had something like from
28 to 36 gallons a head per day during the last
six months; I am speaking from official returns;
we have official returns every fortnight, and the
last one is dated 16th April; delivery as above,
equal to 32°59 gallons per head per day, to a
population of 254,000.
1267. Mr. M'Laren.] Was that for a week or
for a year?—That is for the previous fortnight.
1268. Could you give us easily the average
for the last six or 12 months 2–I could not do it
offhand; I am positive as to the statement that
since the month of October, we have been getting
not less than 28 gallons a head per day up to the
present time, and during the three or four months
that have elapsed of this year, there has been an
immense quantity of water flowing to waste at
Glencorse and the other reservoirs.
1269. Are the present works capable of sup-
plying any larger quantity than they are now
supplying 2—The largest quantity they have
supplied during this season is 36 gallons a head
per day.
1270. Mr. Carter.] What are your works
capable of supplying 2—Do you mean on an
average 2
1271. You are now supplying eight million
gallons per head : what are your works capable of
supplying, are you at your limit 2–The return
for the 2nd of April was, delivery 1,049 cubic
feet per minute, equal to 37'23 gallons per head
per day, to a population of 254,000.
1272. Mr. M'Laren.] That was the maximum?
--Yes, I think that is about the highest quantity
that we have had during this season.
1273. Chairman.] Are the works capable of
giving an increased supply beyond what you have
stated?—Not to any very great extent.
1274. Chairman.] You have seen the Bill
which has been referred to this Committee ?—I
have.
1275. Have you noticed the 5th clause of
that Bill?—I have.
1276. As an opponent of this scheme connected
with the ratepayers' association, do you think the
ratepayers would object to be called upon to pay
the expenses of the promoters?—Yes, I think
they do object; I presume they would be willing
to come to some reasonable arrangement with
the promoters of the Bill, but they are of opinion
that any arrangement of that sort, any settlement
of this matter, should be put into the next Bill
that they get from Parliament for additional
powers; that has been the invariable practice,
and I think it is the only constitutional mode;
there has been a decision in the courts of law
in favour of the ratepayers, and I object to that
decision being set aside by a Secretary of State.
1277. I suppose you do not wish to suggest
that the trustees were actuated by anything but
good faith in promoting a Bill of that kind?—
No ; but what I say, and what the ratepayers
say is this, that after the ratepayers expressed
their opinion in such a decided manner about
this Bill, they should have withdrawn it at all
events after they came out of the House of
Commons.
1278. Was it not the case that a great pro-
portion of the expense was already entered into
before the ratepayers gave any strong expression
of opinion ?–No ; I am not aware that that is
the case. As I understand the matter, about
10,000 l. of the expense was incurred up to the
time that they came out of the House of Com-
mons, and the 9,000 l. was contracted in the fight
in the House of Lords.
1279. Your own opinion is, that after the
strong representation which was made against the
Bill by the ratepayers, they should have with-
drawn their Bill and not have proceeded further?
—Most certainly ; because the opinion was so
decided in the city of Edinburgh, and they
looked upon the conduct of the trustees as
treating the ratepayers with perfect contempt.
1280. I suppose it was understood generally
amongst the ratepayers, that if the Water Trus-
tees were unsuccessful, they would be able to
charge the expense against the community
generally 2–As I said before, that question was
not mooted, and in evidence of the strong
opinion of the ratepayers at the municipal elec-
tions which took place in November, all the sup-
porters of St. Mary's Loch scheme who had
to retire by rotation, were kept out of the
council. I think only two of them were returned.
There were contests in most of the wards; thir-
teen retire annually, and I think there were
eight of the promoters who came out who failed
to be re-elected.
1281. As I understood you, the objection
principally was against the particular source of
supply
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDS) BILL.
57
supply and the great expense it would occasion ?
—Yes.
1282. Not so much against having an addi-
tional supply from some other source?–No ;
the community were all but unanimous in getting
water from a less expensive source, and water of
a better quality, a quality something like what
they have at present. Allow me to say further,
that the election of the Water Trustees is made
on the third Tuesday of November, a fortnight
after the municipal elections. The opponents
of the scheme obtained such a large majority,
that every one of the old trustees who were in
favour of the St. Mary’s Loch scheme were
turned out, with the exception of the Lord Pro-
vost, who sits there ea officio: not only that, but
the new trustees dispensed with the services of
the engineer, Mr. Stewart, and also of the clerk
and solicitor, Mr. Marwick, and appointed a new
engineer and a new clerk.
1283. What is the policy now of the Water
Trustees?—The policy of the Water Trustees is
to carry out the remit, or the decision of the
House of Lords; and they have been doing that
so far as they have powers to do it, and so far as
the remnant of the old Water Trustees that are
still in the trust, will allow them to do it. As to
the question of waste, we have succeeded in
finding out a great many sources of waste; I
cannot speak for the whole of the Water Trustees.
I am a member of the trust and chairman of the
works committee, but we have come to no decision
yet as to where we shall go for a fresh supply;
further than this, that there has been a remit
asking Mr. Hawksley to examine the Pentland
source of supply, and the Moorfoot, and to give
us a report upon them. The old Water Trustees,
before they went out, and subsequent to the deci-
sion in the House of Lords, remitted to Mr.
Leslie, for him to give a report on the additional
supplies of water which may be got from the
existing, or new sources of the Pentland Hills;
and he gave them a report, and in that he reports
that, for an outlay of 207,700 l., a supply equal
to 64 millions of gallons can be obtained from
the Pentland sources.
= 1284. Mr. M'Laren.] You stated to the Com-
mittee that during two weeks in April, the sup-
ply was about 37 gallons a head 2–Yes.
1285. Is it, in point of fact, that the supply
depends in those large cases upon whether the
reservoirs are full or not ?—We utilised all the
water that we could possibly do, rather than
allow it to run to waste; there was a large
quantity running to waste and they filled the
pipes to the extent of their capacity.
1286. The winter and spring rains had filled
all the reservoirs up to April 2—Yes.
1287. But during the last six months you
have stated that the average supply has been
about 28 gallons a head 2–I did not say the
average; I say it has ranged from 28 gallons a
day to 37. tº
1288. I thought there was a statement handed
in which gave 28 gallons?—No, that is my state-
ment; that it ranged from 28 up to 37.
1289. You have referred to the opposition after
the Bill passed the House of Commons; do you
think, looking at the situation of the trust, having
members from Leith, Portobello, and Edinburgh,
and that the Trustees’ Bill had been passed by
the House of Commons, it would have been
right for them to have withdrawn it then 2–I
think it would. I think every representative
0.84,
body is bound to obey the behests of its con-
stituents. *
1290. Suppose that the inhabitants of Leith
were in favour of the Bill as it stood, and that
Portobello was in favour of it, would their repre-
sentatives have been bound to give way ?–I
do not say that. They were all in favour of the
measure, but even in Leith, before the matter
was finally decided in the House of Lords, there
was a very large number of the inhabitants of
Leith opposed to this scheme, after they had
read the evidence.
1291. You have spoken about the present
policy of the trustees to get water from the
Pentlands; is it the fact that the plan which is
now before them implies the erection of 10 or 12
new reservoirs 2–It does involve the erection of
reservoirs.
1292. Ten or 12 2–I do not know the exact
number, but I presume they can go to no locality
within a reasonable distance of Edinburgh with-
out reservoirs.
1293. Would not there be a very large expense
incurred for buying land, and erecting embank-
ments in so many reservoirs?—All that is taken
into account in Mr. Leslie's report in the
207,700 l.
1294. You stated that your own personal
opinion is, that if things could remain as they
now are, Edinburgh is practically adequately
supplied with water?—Yes; I think 32 gallons
a head per day is a very ample supply, and I do
not know any large city in the kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, with the exception of Glas-
gow, which has a larger supply; in the City of
London the average supply is from 30 to 32
gallons a head per day; the highest, I think, is
32 gallons; that was brought out in evidence in
this case last year, and you have the same store
of facts brought out in the Duke of Richmond’s
report,
1295. We have not yet got out that the
average supply is 32; we should like to have the
average supply for six or twelve months; not for
particular weeks, but the real average supply 7–
So far as my personal knowledge of the matter
goes, it has never been under 28 for the popula-
tions of Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello since
I became a member of the Trust.
1296. That, of course, includes your manufac-
tories 2–Eor all purposes,
1297. And for the railway companies and
brewers ?—I understand the North T3ritish Rail-
way Company have an abundant supply of water
for themselves from the canal. Edinburgh has
really no manufactories; Leith has to a certain
extent, but Edinburgh has no manufactories of
any consequence. The brewers get a supply of
water for their ales from wells.
1298. Are you aware that the Water Trustees
have refused to give a large sugar refinery in
Leith as much water as will enable them to carry
on their business?—I believe, during the drought
of 1870, they were obliged to do so. --
1299. Is it a general opinion that if there was
abundance of water at a cheap rate to supply
manufactories, manufactures would be promoted
in Edinburgh 2–Some people have that opinion.
I do not hold that opinion because I think Edin-
burgh will never become a seat of manufactures;
Teith may, but not Edinburgh.
1300. Assuming, with you, that the supply at
present is about adequate for Edinburgh, Leith,
and Portobello, would it be adequate 10 or 12
years
Mr.
JP. Mølle).
24 Aprii
4872.
58
COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDIENCE TAR EN BEFORE THE SELECT
Mr.
P. Miller.
24 April
1872,
years hence if the population goes on increasing
as it has done for the last 10 or 12 years?—No ;
and the present Water Trustees have no idea
that it should, for their object is, as far as I can
understand it, to go the next Session to Parlia-
ment for an additional supply of water, and they
are not deterred by the idea of this interdict, for
they are prepared to go in accordance with the
wishes of the community, the ratepayers, and take
them along with them. They do not anticipate
that there will be any difficulty in getting what
they want from Parliament.
1301. Has not this season been rather favour-
able for filling the reservoirs of the company ;
has not the rainfall on the hills round about Edin-
burgh been larger than the average 2–It has:
but what led to all the difficulty was this: there
were two years of more than usual drought, and
that led to a slight scarcity of water; but our
experience in Edinburgh is that that only occurs
periodically, every 20 or 30 years. The same
circumstance occurred, I think, in 1841, or some
time thereabout, when there was a scarcity.
1302. Were you present at the Committee of
the House of Lords, when Mr. Rodwell, as
counsel for the promoters, stated to their Lord-
ships, that the ratepayers were willing that all
the expense incurred in promoting that Bill for
St. Mary’s Loch should be paid out of the
Water Trust Funds, if the Lords would throw
out the Bill ?—I heard it, but I put a different
construction entirely from what you put on it.
He said, if they would withdraw their Bill, but
they did not withdraw their Bill.
1303. I presume the words of the speech are
accurately quoted in this petition from the town
council which have already been read 2–I pre-
Sume they are ; I have not compared them.
1304. Did you remonstrate against the sort of
obligation which your counsel tried to put upon
the ratepayers ?–As far as I know, speaking as
an individual, I did not remonstrate with him
against anything that he said.
1305. You have been a long time one of the
magistrates of the city of Edinburgh, and a
commissioner of police, and have for many years
taken an interest in public matters ?–Yes; I
have been nearly 12 years now in the Edinburgh
Town Council, and eight years of that time I
have been one of the magistrates.
1306. Have you ever known in your ex-
perience any instance in which ratepayers or
any other parties have sought to make public
authorities in Edinburgh responsible for the
expenses of a Bill which failed to be carried
through Parliament 2–Yes; I have heard of one
case that occurred in Glasgow.
1307. First, as to Edinburgh 2–In Edinburgh,
no; the rule in Edinburgh during my time has
been this, and I believe it was the rule before
that, when they had occasion to go to Parliament
for additional powers; the Water of Leith Bill,
the City Improvement Bill, and the Water Bill
of 1869; not one farthing expenses was paid out
of the corporation funds; what they did was this,
they got a separate credit from the banks to
advance the money necessary for the preliminary
expenses, and only after they got their Act of
Parliament, were the expenses charged against
the rates.
1308. Mr. Zeeman. On whose account at the
bank 2–Really I cannot answer that question;
Mr. Marwick was the Parliamentary agent.
1309. Is not that the root of the whole ques-
tion ?—Yes, but they did not become personally
responsible; it was a credit obtained by the clerk
under the sanction, I suppose, of the committee.
1310. The question is, in whose name was it 2–
Some one was responsible to the bank ; who was
responsible 2-—The members of the corporation
who were opposed to these proceedings, took
care to keep themselves free from any liability
by protesting against any of the corporation
funds being used for the purpose of promoting
the Bill.
1311. Mr. M' Laren.] I think there is a mis-
understanding on this point; am I right in under-
standing that the promoters of the Bill borrowed
for one year from the bank as much money as
would pay the expenses, and then having got a
Bill in the succeeding Session, that Bill carried
the bygone expenses as well as the present
expenses, and that in that way the promoters
were personally relieved altogether?--No ; when
they resolved to go to Parliament, as I understood,
they did this: Mr. Marwick, the city clerk, or
some other party, opened a credit with one of the
banks to advance money to promote the Bill in
Parliament, to pay the necessary outlay and
other expenses.
1312. Then did Parliament in the succeeding
year empower the expenses which had been paid
out of the credit account with the bank, to be
laid upon the ratepayers ?—Certainly.
1313. That I apprehend is no answer to my
question, which was, did you ever know any ex-
pense connected with an abortive Bill in the city
of Edinburgh, which was laid upon the persons
promoting the Bill 2–No ; I am not aware of
any.
1314. Did you ever know of any injunction or
interdict being applied for to make them pay the
expenses until this case occurred P--In Edin-
burgh, no.
1315. You referred to your own personal wish
as rather in favour of some equitable arrange-
ment of this kind being made ; supposing that
this clause is so amended as to give the rate-
payers every power of remonstrance, of appeal,
and of explanation to the Home Secretary, or to
the chairman of the Local Government Board,
regarding these bygone expenses, making any
representation they think fit about a part being
paid by the promoters and part by the public,
would you consider that a likely way of arriving
at an equitable arrangement by appealing to one
of those two high public functionaries?—No ;
my opinion is, as stated before, that these matters
ought to be arranged in the next Act of Parlia-
ment, and with the consent of the parties before
they proceed to Parliament for the next Bill.
1316. Mr. Leeman.] Do you think that with
the experience the trustees now have without
this Bill they might be encouraged to come to
Parliament *--Of course it would afford an in-
ducement to go to Parliament, because if the
principle of this Bill is carried out, whether the
promoters of a Bill get their Bill passed or not
in Parliament, they are certain that they will not
have to be personaly responsible for the costs of
the Bill.
1317. You are in favour of the prospective
clauses of this Bill ?–No.
1318. You do not object that the trustees
shall next year come to Parliament under the
provisions of this Bill, supposing it passes 2–
No ; I homologate the opinion expressed by the
President of the Court of Session of Edinburgh.
1319. Do
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONs (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
59
1319. Do you individually object to the trustees
coming next Session for a Bill for supply from
any place you like 3–No ; as a member of the
trust I am prepared to come to Parliament with-
out any protection of the sort.
1320. You have told us that the practice has
been that the town clerk opened an account 2–
Yes.
1321. A separate account for the particular Bill
that was before Parliament?—Yes; I understand
that was the mode in which the money was ad-
vanced. I think so far as I understand the
matter that has been done in three cases. I know,
from my own knowledge, that not one farthing
of the municipal funds was expended in the pre-
liminary expenses of these three Acts of Parlia-
ment.
1322. In whose name was that account so
opened in each of these cases 2–I cannot speak
from my own knowledge.
1323. You were a member of the corporation
at the time 2—I was.
1324. Was it opened in your individual name
amongst others?—No; so far as I know it was not.
1325. Have you any doubt that it was opened
in the name of the corporation ?—I cannot tell
in what form the account was opened.
1326. Assuming it was, would the town clerk
have an authority to open an account at a bank
in any other name than that of his principal, the
corporation ?–He got authority from the com-
mittees. Now I recollect that in one of the Bills
I was a consenting party to his opening an ac-
count; the City Improvement Scheme.
1327. You would be a party responsible –Of
course I would for that.
1328. Was the same plan pursued in the other
two accounts 2–I understand something of the
Same SOrt.
1329. It was opened in the names of the finance
committee 2–No ; I happened to be opposed to
the two other Bills, and consequently I cannot
speak about them.
1330. Were you a member of the finance com-
mittee 2–No, I was not.
1331. Were you a member of the committee
that was promoting the particular Bill to which
you objected f—No ; I was a member of the
town council which promoted these Bills, but I
objected to both of them.
1332. Assume the account to have been opened
in the name of the town council, who would
have been responsible 2–I presume the town
council, if they gave their authority.
1333. Assume the town clerk to have been
the man who opened the account, you would
assume that he did it with authority ?–He did it
with the authority of the committee.
1334. Assume if you like that the account was
opened in the name of the committee. Were the
committee in these three instances pursuing the
wish of the town council 7–Yes, they had a ma-
jority of the town council.
1335. The opening of the accounts, then, was
in truth in each instance the act of the corpora-
tion substantially 2–Yes.
1336. Assume that any one of these bills had
been lost, who would have been liable?—The
parties who became security for the advance.
1337. That is the corporation?—I do not admit
that the corporation were consenting parties.
1338. Assume that it was the finance com-
mittee ?–Assuming that they were consenting
parties to it, of course the individual members
0.84.
of the corporation were liable, with the exception
of those who took the precautionary steps as I
did. -
1339. In one instance 7–In two instances; to
protest against the expenditure of any of the
corporation funds.
1340. In the case in which you did not protest
you would be liable 2–Certainly ; because I was
a consenting party.
1341. You were consenting in the interests of
your city. You consented because you thought
the act in which you were engaged was for the
benefit of the city of Edinburgh P--Yes.
1342. Assume you had lost the Bill would you
have thought it right that you should have been
individually called upon to pay, as a member of
the corporation, the proportion of the expense
incurred, whether it were 5,000l. or 10,000 l. 2–
I should have thought it, I dare say, a little hard.
1343. Would you have thought it right 2–If I
undertook obligations.
1344. Would you have thought it right. The
question is a very simple one 2–1 have answered
it. I say that it would have been hard.
1345. Would it have been right, as a matter of
right or wrong. Would it, in your judgment,
have been right that you should have been called
upon to pay when you were promoting an Act
for the benefit of the city of Edinburgh 2–1t was
a legal obligation that I could not get rid of.
1346. Would you have thought it right 2—It
would have been perfectly legal, and in that sense
it would have been right.
1347. Would it haye been right?—I should
have thought it hard.
1348. Would you have thought it right?—Yes,
I should have thought it right.
1349. You would have thought it right that
you should have paid individually *—Yes, I
would. I should have felt it hard but right at
the same time in a legal sense.
1350. Do you mean seriously you would have
thought it right?—I say so.
1351. And equitable 2–I’ersonally, we have
no disposition to be hard upon these parties. On
the contrary, had certain proposals been carried
out, emanating from the old water trustees, I
believe the matter might have been arranged
between them and the ratepayers. So far back
as the month of December, when this interdict
was got, and when they were about to appeal to
the First Division of the Court of Session, I re-
ceived from the Lord Provost of Edinburgh the
following letter: “ Edinburgh, 9th December
1871. – Dear Bailie Miller, at our meeting to-
day, we were assured by Mr. White-Millar that
we have up till the 25th current to lodge a
reclaiming note in the Court against Lord
Gifford's Judgment in place of a week, as hinted
at by Mr. Wormald. This being so, it was re-
solved to name a committee to meet with you,
the Messrs. Cowan, Mr. Macdonell, Mr. Macken-
zie, and, say, six or eight of the new trustees, with
the view, if possible, of arranging as to the settle-
ment of the case, without going farther. I cannot
possibly fix a time for meeting in the event of the
‘Prince of Wales’ case, but it must be soon; and
if you would think over it, and devise a time on
Monday, Tuesday, or any other day next week,
I will feel much obliged. Meantime, I remain,
dear Bailie Miller, yours truly (signed), William
Law.” This was from the Lord Provost of
Edinburgh. I called a meeting of the new water
trustees, and read the letter. They appointed a
H 2 Committtee
Mr.
P. Miller.
24 April
1872.
60
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
P. Milleq'.
24 April
1872.
committee to confer with this committee of the
old water trustees. We had a very friendly
meeting, and one of the old water trustees, the
Provost of Leith, made a suggestion that met
with all but unanimous approval; that suggestion
being that if the old water trustees paid as much
as the ratepayers had contributed, about 9,000 l.,
that might form the basis of an arrangement. It
was suggested that they should get a considerable
abatement in their accounts, and that by sub-
scribing amongst themselves and their friends
about 5,000 l., that might form a basis of arrange-
ment for settlement with the water trustees.
They undertook to ascertain how much abatement
could be made in their accounts. They have not
done so, and the matter remains as it was.
1352. If they would have subscribed 5,000 I.,
and have included your expenses as well as the
expenses of the promoters, you would have been
inclined to come to a settlement 2 - No. We have
always objected to having the expenses of the
ratepayers mixed up in the matter, although at
that meeting there was a suggestion to that
effect. *
1353. A proposal 7–Yes.
1354. Did you propose it?—No.
1355. Who did? — I think it was Mr. James
Cowan.
1356. That is one of the ratepayers' association?
—He suggested some idea of that sort.
1357. Mr. James Cowan, who was one of the
large ratepayers, proposed what ?—He suggested
that part of the case should be arranged in that
way.
1358. That is to say, the whole case, after the
expenses had been weeded, there being a sub-
scription of 5,000 l., on the part of the water
trustees and their friends, and that then the
balance should be paid in the way you stated 2–
No, that was not his proposition at all. That
was the proposition of the Provost of Leith, which
was very different. -
1359. You are not one of those who deny that
it is a great hardship upon these people 2-—I am
one of those who would be quite willing, with
the consent of the ratepayers, to come to an
arrangement with the old water trustees, but on
this occasion I made it a proviso that we, the new
water trustees, would agree to nothing without
the consent of the ratepayers, and that is so still.
1360. Assume the ratepayers consent to such
an arrangement. You then do not object to the
Secretary of State determining what portion of
the expenses would fall on the corporation, or on
the water trustees, or anybody else?—So far as
I am personally concerned, I am quite willing to
be regulated by the opinion of the ratepayers.
If they say remit the whole, or a portion of it,
I consent.
1361. You would not object to the tribunal
which is proposed by this clause, namely, that
the Secretary of State should hear that question,
and determine either what amount of the whole
should be paid, whether the whole or part, and in
what proportion it should be borne by the different
parties interested in Leith and Portobello?—
I think the Secretary of State is just about the
worst man that could be appointed for such a
purpose.
1362. Assume it were somebody else, as re-
gards the principle of settlement by a third party,
would you personally be aggrieved 2–I am pre-
pared to accept anything that is satisfactory to
the ratepayers.
1363. Will you answer the question?—I would
not be aggrieved, but I say that the proper ordi-
nary and constitutional mode of giving relief to
the old water trustees is by inserting a clause in
the next Act of Parliament, either giving them
an indemnity for the whole of the 19,000 l., or
for a portion of it, as may be agreed upon between
them and the ratepayers.
1364. Assume the next Bill lost, what then ;
who is to pay ?--We would take all proper pre-
cautions that our Bill would pass, for we should
take the ratepayers along with us, and with them
along with us we should run no risk. --
1365. The ratepayers were not the only parties
who opposed your Bill before ?—Yes; but even
in that case I believe the ratepayers would stand
between us and all personal responsibility. What
has made the ratepayers so strong on this point is
the old water trustees running so counter to the
all but general opinion of the ratepayers. In
fact, they treated them with contempt; that is
the feeling about it.
1366. Can you tell Ine how many ratepayers
there are in Edinburgh 2–In Edinburgh alone?
1367. Yes?—I suppose they will probably
amount to between 30,000 and 40,000.
1368. And in Leith ?—I do not know the num-
ber in Leith.
1369. Nor in Portobello 2–No.
1370. The number of ratepayers that you had
against the Bill was 14,000 —I think the petition
was signed by 14,000 or 15,000.
1371. Mr. Carter.] Were they inhabitants or
ratepayers?—They were all ratepayers, I under-
stand. -
1372. Sir J. Ramsden.] You said, I think, that
you agreed with the opinion that had been pro-
nounced by the Lord President 2–I did.
1373. That is in the case of Charles Cowan and
Colin Mackenzie v. Elord Provost Law and others?
—Yes.
1374. Has your attention been called to the
opinion expressed by the other judges in that
case ?—I think I read all the speeches; I heard
part of them delivered, and I think I have read
almost all the statements in that printed paper.
1375. I will read to you what Lord Kinloch
said. It is at page 10. “ There has been much
said as to the inexpediency of those vested with a
public trust for the supply of water to a large
town like Edinburgh being held destitute of power
to go to Parliament to obtain authority for
acquiring additional supplies. This would not in
any view be sufficient ground for a judicial de-
termination ; but it must not be forgotten that
there would be at least as great inexpediency in
giving to such a public body the discretionary
power of prosecuting every theory, which in how-
ever good faith they may unwisely and dogmatic-
ally maintain at the cost of the funds under their
charge; it is probably, on the whole, safer and
more advantageous to throw them, for the cost of
any scheme for extending or varying their power,
on the voluntary assistance of those beneficially
interested.” Do you agree with that opinion ?—
I quite agree with that.
1376. Then again at page ll is the opinion of
Lord Ardmillan. He says, “.. I do not doubt that
the respondents meant according to their judg-
ment to discharge what they thought their duty,
and to act under what they thought their powers,
and to meet an unusual exigency by an unusual
effort. I attribute to them no bad faith or bad
motive, but something more than good intention
IS
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 61
is required to sustain a proposal to assess the
citizens of Edinburgh for payment of the costs of
a proceeding to which a large proportion of those
citizens were strongly opposed, and for which no
statutory warrant can be shown.” Do you agree
in that opinion ?—I quite agree with that.
1377. Will you turn to page 19, to the judg-
ment of the Lord President? He says “But the
question is asked if they be so, and if the rule of
law applicable to such a trust is so strict in its
application, how is an adequate supply to be got?
how are the powers to be obtained from Parlia-
ment for the purpose of bringing in an additional
supply of water? The people of Edinburgh, or
any other city similarly circumstanced, are placed
in this unhappy predicament, that they never can
have such a supply, because nobody can go to
Parliament except at his own risk or cost. I do
not suppose the people of Edinburgh will be
placed in any more unfortunate position than
the people of Southampton were by a similar
decision, to the effect that the Water Trustees
could not apply any of the funds in their hands
for the purpose of promoting a Bill in Parliament
for obtaining an additional supply. The case
was decided in the year 1850, and it was by no
means the first of a long series of cases to the
same effect, and I am not aware that any practical
inconvenience has ever been found to result from
the existence of this rule, for this very plain
reason, that no party can approach Parliament
except at his own risk in the way of expense, and
those who obtained the Act of 1869 incurred that
risk, and every party who goes to Parliament to
get an Act constituting such a trust for the first
time incurs that risk, and every statute obtained
for the first time to supply a town with water is
obtained at this risk. Was there any difficulty
in getting such acts or getting them charged
against the community ? None whatever. But
these parties must be careful to go to Parliament
with such a scheme as is likely to obtain the
sanction of Parliament, and as much as possible
to disarm opposition in the community they repre-
sent. And if they take these precautionary
measures, they will not only obtain their Act, but
obtain it with a clause authorising them to charge
the expense of obtaining it against the funds
raised under its authority. It is in that way that
all such Acts are obtained ; that all persons who
go to Parliament for powers, whether for the
first time or for the purpose of increasing or
enlarging the powers already conferred, in-
variably go with this risk; that if they fail in
obtaining the Act, they must themselves pay their
own costs. I confess I do not view the operation
of the rule of law leading to results of this kind
with apprehension. On the contrary, I think it
is most salutary indeed, and absolutely indis-
pensable to prevent abuse.” Do you agree in
that opinion of the Lord President?—I concur in
every word of that.
1378. You concur in the opinion of those three
iudges?–Yes.
1379. Chairman.] You stated just now, in reply
to the honourable Member, that you thought the
Secretary of State, to whom it is proposed to
leave the decision with respect to expenses pre-
viously incurred under the 5th clause, was about
the worst person you could appoint for that pur-
pose?—I think so; because his time is so much
taken up with his other official duties that he
could really have very little time to read over
carefully any inquiry that might be made ; and I
presume an inquiry would be made in Edinburgh.
0.84.
1380. Did not you suggest rather, that if the
ratepayers assented to such a proposal, or rather
to such an expenditure, you would not object to
this clause?—Personally I am disposed to agree
to anything the ratepayers think proper. I should
not like to dictate to them.
1381. You say, if it were left to the ratepayers
to decide whether the expenses previously in-
curred should be paid or not, you would have no
objection to the clause ?–No. What I have said
all along is this; you, the old water trustees and
the ratepayers, arrange this matter, and whatever
decision you come to, put it into the next Act of
Parliament.
1382, I did not quite understand you to go so
far as that; I understood you to say that if it
were left to the ratepayers to decide as to whether
these expenses which had been previously incurred
should be paid or not, you would have no objec-
tion to the 5th clause 2–No ; my opinion is that
it will be far better without that retrospective
clause, leaving it to the present constitutional
and ordinary mode of settling these matters; that
was the case in the Glasgow Water Bill.
1383. You expressed an objection to the
Secretary of State under the 5th clause; I want
to know whether, if the ratepayers were put in
this clause instead of the Secretary of State, you
would have the same objection to that clause 2–
I do not object to the matter being arranged be-
tween the ratepayers and the old water trustees,
only I think the constitutional form is to put it
into the next Bill.
1384. Mr. Delahunty.] You seem to be of
opinion that representative bodies, public bodies,
should have no power either to defend local in-
terests, or to remove what they conceive not to
be local interests, unless with the danger of having
to pay personally any costs incurred.
1385. Municipal corporations in Scotland have
discretionary powers in these matters; I do not
Know to what extent, but it is a common prac-
tice to defend the interests of any matter within
their province; they have much more discretion-
ary powers than this water trust, which is regu-
lated entirely by statute ; they have no power
outside their Act of Parliament, but municipal
corporations have discretionary powers.
1386. Chairman.] You mean to say that this
decision of the Court of Session was given with
reference to the water trustees as a body, having
powers under an Act of Parliament, and not with
reference to their municipal authority ?—Exclu-
sively, as water trustees, and with reference to the
powers they have under their Act of Parliament.
That is the essence of the decision.
1387. Mr. M. Laren.] Can you state any
instance of a decision in any court in Scotland,
that corporations have the power you suppose ?---
All I know is, that it is the invariable practice
(it has been in Edinburgh) to oppose Bills. The
Corporation of Edinburgh opposed the Water
Company’s Bill in 1863, and spent several hun-
dred pounds out of the corporation funds.
1388. It never was challenged?—No, it was not
challenged, and I may say now, with my ex-
perience, it was a very unwise action, because
what the water company wanted then was powers
to stop the waste of water. Our present Acts do
not give us sufficient powers. -
1389. Mr. Delahunty.] Are you aware that last
year Parliament passed a law appointing what is
called a Local Government Board 2–Yes; for
England.
H 3 1390. Assuming
Mr.
P. Målſe?".
24 April
1872.
62
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr.
P. Milleq'.
24 April
1872,
Mr.
J. Watt,
1390. Assuming that the Municipal Corpora-
tions of Scotland or the water trustees, such as
those of Edinburgh, had no discretionary power
to incur expenses such as have been incurred
here, would you give them those powers under
the direction or control of such a board as has
been appointed for England 2–My idea of that
board is that it is too centralising; it takes the
power in a great measure from the local parties,
who are fully competent.
1391. You would not consider that a sufficient
check on any improper expenditure on the part
of a local public body ?—Of course it would be a
check.
1392. Would it be sufficient 2 — It might
operate in two ways,
1393. Would it, in your opinion, operate as a
check?—It would, in the event of their losing
any measure which they promoted in Parliament,
secure to them the payment of their expenses;
but my objection to that is, that if they have any
security, they go in the teeth of the majority of
the ratepayers. I think that all representative
bodies, such as town councils and water trustees,
should represent the ratepayers, and should
carry out the wishes of the ratepayers, whatever
they may be.
1394. Chairman.]. You prefer the ratepayers
to the central authority ?—I do.
Mr. JAMES WATT, called in ; and Examined.
1395. Chairman.] You are the Provost of
Leith ?—I am.
1396. How long have you been a magistrate 2
—Since 1860; and provost since 1866.
1397. Have complaints come to you from the
ratepayers of Leith respecting the water supply
—There have ; ever since I entered the council
there have been very great complaints coming in
every short time from the ratepayers, complain-
ing of the scarcity of water.
1398. What did the council do in consequence
of those complaints?—In consequence of those
complaints we sent representations to the water
company, and on three several occasions there
was a committee appointed to wait upon the
manager of the Company, and point out to him
the suffering the inhabitants were enduring, and
to endeavour to get an additional supply.
1399. Did the council make any representa-
tions to the water company ?–To the water
company, through their manager, Mr. Ramsay.
The then manager of the water company met us,
and on one occasion we met the whole of the
directors of the water company, but the truth of
the matter was that they had no water to give
us. They acknowledged that, and Mr. Ramsay,
in his evidence on the Bill at the transfer, ac-
knowledged that Leith certainly was a weak
point with him ; that we had not got the quan-
tity of water we should have got.
1400. During the year 1868, did the people
of Leith particularly suffer great hardship from
the want of water 7–They did ; in 1868 the
want of water was very grievously felt indeed,
so much so that I, as a magistrate, could scarcely
appear in the street without parties coming up
to me and making representations of their suffer-
ings. I had working men calling at my house at
10 or 11 o'clock at night, representing the
grievances to which they were subjected; that
after working a hard day’s work, when they
came home they had to go out and stand at a
well to get a pitcher of water. There is one
well, not with good water, certainly, at a place
called the Links of J.eith, and one Sabbath
morning at that time I saw 30 or 40 people
round that well waiting to get water.
1401. I suppose the water was only turned on
for a very few hours during each day ?--It was
turned on chiefly during the night; it was
scarcely ever turned on, I believe, until seven or
eight at night, and then it was taken off again in
the morning. The practice was for people to
wait up the greater part of the night in order
that they might get a sufficiency for washing
purposes. *
1402. At that time you received an invitation
from the Corporation of Edinburgh to meet
them 2–We did ; but previous to that the com-
plaints coming to the town council were so
numerous and so grievous that we instructed our
officer of health to issue a handbill, saying that
parties feeling the scarcity of water should send
in their names and addresses, because the manager
of the company had said that a great many com-
plaints arose from defective apparatus. Within
the course of a few days there were no fewer
than 700 written complaints came in with the
names and addresses of the parties. Immediately
after that we received this invitation from Edin-
burgh; a committee of our council was appointed
and we met with the corporation of Edinburgh.
1403. The result was that you resolved to
apply to Parliament with the Corporations of
Edinburgh and Portobello, for the transfer of the
company’s works to public trustees?–Yes, as
you have heard described by Mr. Marwick.
1404. Did your corporation or council approve
of what you had done?—They approved of every-
thing that we did, and they have done so down
to the present day, and that unanimously.
1405. Was any public meeting ever held in
Leith to consider the matter of the transfer 2–
There was a public meeting held in Leith in the
Corn Exchange, in the month of November 1868.
At that meeting there was a unanimous wish
expressed that the corporation should agree with
Edinburgh in promoting the transfer of the Water-
works to a public trust, and in going to St.
Mary’s Loch for an additional supply of water.
1406. Then we come to the other Bill, as to
which we have heard so much when they applied
to Parliament for powers to take water from St.
Mary’s Loch; did your council approve of that
Bill?—With the works clauses withdrawn from
it. As was explained by the town clerk, the
works clauses were thrown out on Standing
Orders in the House of Lords, and then it was
resolved to proceed with the transfer.
1407. I am presuming that your corporation
agreed entirely ; that they were unanimous in
approving the transfer to the Water Trustees?—
They were.
1408, Now we come to the Bill which was
promoted by the Water Trustees, Was that ques-
tion ever mooted before your council P-It was.
At every stage, the conjoint meetings with Edin-
burgh and Portobello were reported to our
council,
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 63
council, and approved of by them, and the com-
mittee appointed by the trustees was instructed
to go on.
1409. Were there any ward meetings held in
Leith or any public meetings to oppose the Bill P
—None. The usual ward meetings were held in
November 1868, 1869, and 1870. The subject of
water supply was prominently brought before
those meetings; at none of them was there any
objection made to it. The question was fully dis-
cussed, I may say, during those three years in
Leith.
1410. When this Bill was before the House of
Lords, and before the Lords' decision upon it, was
an effort made to ascertain the opinion of the
ratepayers of Leith upon the Bill?—Not by the
trustees.
1411. By the corporation ? — There was no
public meeting called, but the agitatio.3 in Edin-
burgh had got very strong. There are a number
of gentlemen connected with trade in Leith who
reside in Edinburgh. Five gentlemen, three of
whom resided in Leith, resolved on sending out
printed cards to see whether the parties agreed,
whether they objected, or whether they were
neutral. We have no means of judging how
those cards were sent out, or what was the mode
of procedure; but one of the gentlemen who
was active in sending out those cards, according
to his evidence in the Lords, said, that they
posted 6,078. Of those they got returned 1,664
against the measure of St. Mary’s Loch, 968 for
it, and 1,075 neutral, which leaves 2,420 uncol-
lected. If you take the neutrals, the majority for
is greater than those opposed to it. If you take
those for and against, there is about a majority of
600 against.
1412. Do you know anything with reference to
the Corporation of Portobello ; were they in
favour of this Bill?—The Corporation of Porto-
bello have been, like the Corporation of Leith,
unanimous from beginning to end; I may say that
also for the population of Portobello; a plebis-
cite, as it was called, these cards, was also tried
there, and there was a certain number which is
not to be wondered at, who objected; but I cannot
give you the particulars of it.
1413. What is the general opinion in Leith
and in Portobello with respect to this injunction
which was raised as to the expenses 2–So far as
I have come in contact with gentlemen they uni-
versally reprobate this injunction. I have con-
versed with many who were opposed to the in-
troduction of St. Mary’s Loch. There is no
doubt of that. But they think that the trustees
acted in good faith, and they consider it not only
harsh, but very unjust that gentlemen who have
given their time, and devoted the best of their
abilities, as they conceived, for the interests of
the community they represented should be
mułcted in personal expenses.
1414. I do not know whether you have seen
the 5th clause of the Bill, which is now before
the Committee, to allow expenses, which have
been incurred previous to the passing of the Bill,
either in promoting or opposing Bills in Parlia-
ment; do you know what is the opinion of the
ratepayers of Leith upon such a proposal 7–I
think it is very generally approved of. If the
ratepayers who were objectors to the Bill for St.
Mary’s Loch can convince the Home Secretary
that the money was spent needlessly and impro-
perly, it is for him to consider what part he
would allow, and I think there can be nothing
0,84.
more judicious. It is left then for both parties
to state their case to the Home Secretary, and it
is for him to judge whether any of the money
that was spent in obtaining that Bill was spent
unnecessarily, and not to allow it.
1415. Sir M. H. Beach..] I see that Leith re-
turns four water trustees, and Portobello one;
are those still supporters of the St. Mary’s Loch
scheme 7 — They are. The St. Mary’s Loch
scheme is not before us. That is away altogether.
1416. Has any change been made since the
municipal elections in November last in the
opinions of the water trustees returned by Leith
and Portobello upon that subject P--In regard to
St. Mary’s Loch
1417. Yes?—I could not say, because after the
Lords threw out the Bill of St. Mary’s Loch
there was no public question raised in regard to
it. The matter has not been before us. The
new trustees who have been appointed have
been in accordance with the decision of the
Lords, looking to the Pentlands for a supply, and
I believe also they are intending to look to the
Moorfoot or South Esk scheme.
1418. You are aware that the matter was an
important topic at the municipal elections in
Bdinburgh in November 2—Yes,
1419. Was it so at the elections in Leith and
Portobello 7–No, there was no change made in
Leith or Portobello ; not one of them were
changed. I should state that in Leith at last
November elections, this question was only
brought up at one ward, where there were op-
posing candidates; the one approving of the
procedure of the trustees, the other disapproved;
the result of the election was, that the former
was chosen a councillor, while the latter was
rejected by a large majority; at all the other
wards the procedure of the trustees was approved.
1420. Mr. Me Laren.] You are an ex-officio
trustee appointed by Parliament 2–Yes.
1421. The chief magistrate of Portobello and
of Edinburgh is so also 2–Yes.
1422. Being in that position nominated by
Parliament, would you think it a right thing
that you should be saddled with your proportion
of this large expenditure?—I think it would be
very unjust. I am bound to be a member of the
trust, whether I will or no, so long as I remain
Provost, and I think it would be very unjust
when I am bound by an Act of Parliament to
be a member of it, that I should be mulcted in
expenses.
1423. What is the population of Leith ?--
47,000.
1424. And the rental 2–The rental of Leith,
I think, is about 237,000 l.
1425. How much water rate is payable by
Leith, do you know 2–The same as Edinburgh.
1426. What is the aggregate amount?—I do
not know. -
1427. Are all the shipping that come to
Iueith and go from Leith supplied by the water
trust 2–They were supplied by the water com-
pany and are now supplied by the trustees.
1428. Had there been inconveniences fre-
quently experienced about getting a proper
supply for shipping —I do not know that the
shipping were inconvenienced, because the
trustees and the water company thought that
the shipping had a greater claim than the in-
habitants, and when the inhabitants were in very
great stress for water the shipping was supplied ;
but I may mention that the rate for shipping is
H 4 very
Mr.
J. Wałł.
24 April
1872.
64 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mir.
.J. Watt.
24 April
1872.
Mr. J. D.
Iſ 'ormald.
&iº
very high. The rate we are obliged to charge
is 1 s. 6d. per ton, which is equal to 6 s. per
1,000 gallons. In London, the same quantity
can be got for 6 d., so that all the steamers sailing
between London and Leith get their supply from
London.
1429. Was there an understanding that if this
great supply from St. Mary’s Loch were brought
in, the rates to shipping and manufactories could
be considerably reduced 2–Decidedly.
1430. You have stated the amount of dis-
tress that occurred in your burgh from the want
of water in certain years; has there been any
increased supply of water since that time 2–
Last year the inhabitants were just as much put
to it as they were before, but they had a great
deal of consideration for the trustees, knowing
the state in which they got the reservoirs from
the water company; most of the reservoirs were
empty, Glencorse was entirely empty; there
was another one; no water came from that at all.
The greater part of our supply was from springs;
as Mr. Marwick stated, it descended to 3,500,000
gallons.
1431. If the rain-fall had been as small this
year as it was in some years to which you have
referred, would not the distress have been as
great for water?— Just as great. There was a
question put to Bailie Miller about the quantity
of water; I see that Mr. Gale puts that very
clearly; he says, “I fear that the nature of this
subject has induced me to write a prolix report;
the general conclusions are, that Edinburgh is
at present using nearly 9,000,000 gallons of
water a day; that the quantity must be reduced
to 7,000,000 gallons a day till the reservoirs get
filled up; that not more than 7,500,000 gallons
a day can be got from the works in a moderately
dry year; that the reduced quantity should be
regularly spread over the summer, and that the
only proper way to accomplish this is to institute
a system of intermittent supply.”
1432. During all the time that the people of
Leith were so destitute of water, and when you
had got 700 written remonstrances, were the
water company bound by Act of Parliament to
have a constant supply 2–According to the Act
of i847, the Waterworks Clauses Act incor-
porated with this, they were bound to give an
unintermittent supply of sufficient pressure to
go to the highest houses in Edinburgh.
1433. Was it the object of the inhabitants of
Leith and Edinburgh, in calling for a water
trust, to give additional water, rather than to
get any pecuniary advantage 2 – Most un-
doubtedly the great thing was to get a supply of
water, even though we should pay more for it.
1434. Mr. Delahunty.] Are all the trustees
liable equally for the amount that has been ex-
pended ?–I suppose so. There are 25 trustees,
and the amount is 19,000 l. ; that is 800 l. each
which we should have to pay.
1435. Whether you approved or not, you
would be liable —Certainly, although I was
compelled to attend there as an ex-officio
member.
1436. You consider that all parties would be
liable alike by being trustees 2–I suppose so.
Perhaps I may mention, that even yet we are, in
Leith, very deplorably supplied with water. A
very lamentable fire occurred on Saturday last.
I have here a paper of Monday, giving a descrip-
tion of the fire. It says, “There was not a
sufficient quantity of water in the mains to
supply even one manual engine, and then, but
for the copious supply of water obtained from
ponds referred to,” that is, ponds belonging to
works in the neighbourhood, “ and the skill with
which it was used, in all probability the great
part of the surrounding property would have
been destroyed.” I think what occurred on
Saturday is clear evidence that Leith, at all
events, must look after a larger supply of water.
1437. Chairman.] You state that in justifica-
tion of the application which the water trustees
made to Parliament for an increased supply P
—I do ; because there is no doubt whatever
that we have not a sufficient supply of water,
and had we a sufficient supply of water, the manu-
factories of Leith would increase every year.
1438. Mr. Mundella.] Have you still an ef-
ficient supply of water for, domestic purposes?—
We have not been so deficient as to a supply for
domestic purposes since the month of December,
because it has been a very wet season, and the
ponds that had been empty before have got filled
up. Although we have not a constant supply,
we have a fair supply.
MR. JOSEPH DAWSON WORMALD, called in ; and Examined.
1439. Chairman.] IN what capacity do you
appear?—I appear as one of the Ratepayers' Asso-
ciation; I am also a member of the Corporation,
and a member of the Water Trust of Edinburgh.
1440. Did you hear the evidence which was
given by Mr. Bailie Miller –I did.
1441. He is also a member, I suppose, of the same
association of which you are a member 2–Yes.
1442. Do you agree generally in the evidence
which he gave 2–I do.
1443. Were you connected with this associa-
tion from its first formation ?—No ; I objected at
first to go to the preliminary meetings, being a
member of the corporation; I said I thought it
better that the ratepayers should take action
themselves without being influenced by any
member of the corporation. It was not until
after some meetings had been held that I asso-
ciated myself with them, although they repre-
sented my views.
1444. Are you one of the water trustees?—I
am ; not of the old trustees. I was elected before
the November elections. One of the old water
trustees after the defeat of the Bill in the House
of Lords resigned his seat, and as he was a col-
league of mine in the same ward, I was elected
by the town council to take his place. That was
in the month of August last year, some two or
three months before the election of the new
trust. --
1445. On what grounds did you, as a ratepayer,
oppose the Dill which was introduced by the
water trustees? — In the first place, I opposed the
Bill, because I thought it a very extravagant
scheme, much more so than was necessary for the
wants of Edinburgh ; in the second place, because
I had great doubts as to the quality of the water;
and in the third place, and above all, because the
ratepayers had not been fairly consulted.
1446. Had the ratepayers been consulted at all
before
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 65
before notices of the Bill were given in the
newspapers?—Certainly not; it was utterly im-
possible that they could be
1447. Were they consulted in any way before
the Bill was before the Committee of the Com-
mons?–No, after the report of the Old Water
Trust, which was published for the first time on
27th October last, the whole of the ward meetings
had been held. It appeared on the morning of
the fast day in Edinburgh, the half-yearly sacra-
mental fast, and the last ward meeting held was
held the night previous to that, so that up to
that time the citizens had no information what-
€Ve]”. &
1448. Had the ratepayers of Edinburgh ob-
jected to any application being made to Parlia-
ment for an increased supply of water for the
district 2–No, the position of the ratepayers has
never been that. So far as I have been able to
ascertain, they were always favourable to an ap-
plication being made to Parliament for a reason-
able supply of wholesome water,
1449. Are you satisfied now with the supply
of water for Edinburgh and the district 7–At
present our supply is sufficient, I believe, for the
wants of the population, but the new water
trustees are quite sensible that they must pro-
vide for an emergency; such an emergency as
we had in 1868, 1869, and 1870. We really had
three consecutive dry years, and it is the duty of
water trustees to provide for that, and that we
are aiming to do.
1450. I suppose the ratepayers' association
spent a large sum of money in opposing the Bill?
—We spent 9,000l. in round numbers.
1451. How has that money been found 2–It
has been subscribed voluntarily by the ratepayers
of Edinburgh ; and to show the general character
of the opposition the subscriptions have ranged
from 4 d. and 6 d. to 200 l.
1452. How do you account for there having
been no strong objection on the part of the rate-
payers to the Bill until the Bill was passed by
the Commons 2—It is just the ordinary pheno-
menon that takes place in all municipal towns;
it requires a little time to get up the steam.
Beople complain privately, but they are very un-
willing to take any very prominent opposition for
some time, and it is only under strong pro-
vocation that they do come out, as they did in
Edinburgh, so unanimously and indignantly
against a scheme.
1453. Do you agree with Mr. Bailie Miller,
who said that he thought the ratepayers would
have been satisfied to have paid the expenses if
the water trustees had withdrawn the Bill before
it had gone into the Lords, or when it was be-
fore the Lords?—I think they would. If they
had withdrawn the Bill either before they went
to the Lords or in course of the proceedings be-
fore the Lords' Committee, I think the ratepayers
would never have raised this question. I think
I may go further and say, with reference to Mr.
Rodwell's statement, that he has been a little
misunderstood. Mr. Rodwell made the state-
ment, which is quoted in the petition for the pro-
moters of St. Mary’s Loch Bill, on this distinct
condition, that they should withdraw the Bill,
but they refused to do so. They refused to do
what Mr. Rodwell laid down as a condition, and
therefore we were no longer bound by it.
1454. You no doubt know the Bill that is now
before this Committee?—Yes.
0.84.
1455. Have you read the fifth clause ?—I
have read it very carefully.
1456. Have you, as a ratepayer, an objection
to that clause 7–Yes, I have ; a decided objec-
tion.
1457. Do you object to it in toto, or do you
object to the mode of procedure which is pro-
posed in it?—I object to it in toto. I think it is
the introduction of a new and very dangerous
principle into legislation; it involves the refer-
ence to the Secretary of State of matters that
have formed the subject of judicial decision in a
court of law, and I am not aware that before this
there has been an attempt at legislation in that
direction.
1458. I suppose the ratepayers really had no
knowledge that the water trustees were expend-
ing money in promoting the Bill for which they
would be personally liable?—No ; I think the
question never occurred to any one, and I think
I may add to that, that possibly the question
would never have been raised, had it not been
for the obstinacy of the old water trustees, after
they were defeated in the Lords, retaining their
position as water trustees. I believe if they
had resigned their seats and allowed a new trust
to come in, possibly the question would never
have been raised.
1459. Sir M. H. Beach.] Was any allegation
of improper motives of any kind ever made
against any of those trustees?—No, I do not
think any allegations of improper motives were
made against them ; we have generally admitted
that they might be acting quite sincerely and
in bona ſides, but that they were misled.
1460. Or of improper expenditure in the pro-
ceedings 2–Of course they were accused of im-
proper expenditure and of extravagance, and of
having made a serious mistake in promoting the
Bill without the full concurrence of the rate-
payers.
1461. Taking it for granted that they in good
faith promoted the Bill, was it ever alleged that
they had done so at an improper cost, or an un-
necessary cost?—Yes, it has been stated that
they did promote the Bill at a most extravagant
COSt.
1462. In what manner P-The total cost on
their side amounted to 19,000 l., in round num-
bers; the total cost on our side amounted to
9,000 l. ; they spent 10,000 l. more in promoting
the Bill than we did in opposing the Bill; and
we think that they employed far too many coun-
sel and far too many engineers, and were gene-
rally very extravagant in their expenditure of
money in promoting that Bill.
1463. Mr. M'Laren.] Did the strength of the
opposition induce them to engage more engineers
as witnesses and more scientific men than other.
wise ?—That is their plea now ; but that to me
is a further condemnation of them. I think
the strength of the opposition ought to have led
them to withdraw the Bill instead of spending
more money in concussing the citizens to swallow
a Bill which they did not like.
1464. Is that your opinion ; do you think that
the strength of the opposition induced them to
bring many more witnesses, scientific and other
expensive engineering witnesses, than they would
have done had the opposition been of smaller di-
mensions 2–I have no doubt of that.
1465. Can you give us the average supply of
water for the last 6 or 12 months?—I can give
you the average supply since the new trustees
ordered
Mr. J. D.
Wormald.
April 24
1872.
66 . MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Wormald.
24 April
1872.
ordered a fortnightly return; an official return
to be made of the quantities of water brought
from the different sources.
1466. Will you give the Committee the ge-
neral results 2—I can only give you the results
since the beginning of this year. The returns
show that the average since the beginning of
January up to this date has been 33:09 gallons
per head per day.
1467. Has this been an unusually wet season in
the hills round Edinburgh where the water
supply comes from ?—It has been a wet season ;
I do not say unusually wet, but, on the whole, a
Wet SeaSOn.
1468. You stated that your committee had
expended 9,000 l., I think; how much of that is
still to collect 2—We have raised it all except
about 1,200 l., and the financial committee of the
association are personally responsible to the bank
for that balance.
1469. You stated that if the trustees had re-
signed their seats at once when the House of
Lords defeated the Bill, you think that the same
feeling would not have been got up in the city
against them 2–No; I think that was the imme-
diate cause; the provocation which led to the
interdict being taken out. -
1470. The Bill was thrown out in the autumn
of 1871, was not it?–In July 1871.
1471. And the election of town councillors
took place in November 1871 ?–In November
1871.
1472. And the whole constitution of the Edin-
burgh Town Council was changed by that elec-
tion ?—Entirely.
1473. And the trustees were changed by that
election ?—The old trustees were turned out.
1474. The trustees, in fact, only remained in
office a few months longer than they would have
done had they retired at once 7–About three
months; from July to November. During those
three months they instituted an inquiry into the
Pentland scheme, as we thought, with the express
purpose of undermining the evidence laid on our
side before the House of Lords.
1475. In doing that, would they just carry
into effect the opinion of the House of Lords 2
—They said so, but we thought they were not
the parties to do it; seeing that they did not be-
lieve a word that the House of Lords had laid
down, they were not the parties to carry out
that opinion.
1476. The waterworks extended for 36 miles,
from Edinburgh to St. Mary’s Loch 7–That is
their proposed scheme.
1477. Would not the surveys, engineering,
preparation of plans, and all that, cost a large
sum of money, which the Ratepayers’ Associa-
tion could not have to pay ?—No doubt of that.
These surveys were taken in the first instance,
in 1868 and 1869, when the first Bill was got;
the Bill for the transfer. |
1478. You have referred to there being no
opportunity given to express public opinion on
that point. I have to ask you, was not this plan
promulgated by, the former Lord Provost of the
city, Mr. Chambers, in 1868?–It was.
1479. And publicly discussed then 2–Yes.
1480. Was not there an election of town coun-
cillors in November 1868? — There was, after
the publication of the report; but not very long
after.
1481. Was not there another election of town
councillors in November 1869 P-Yes.
1482. And another in
Yes.
1483. And on all those occasions was not the
opportunity given to the electors to express
their opinion, through the kind of members
whom they returned to the town council 7–No.
I will explain to you the reason why. After
the passing of the Bill of 1869, which did not
contain the St. Mary’s Loch scheme, the St.
Mary’s Loch scheme having been struck out of that
Bill on Standing Orders, the new trustees, on
the 8th of September 1869, made a new remit to
reconsider the whole question, and to investigate
all the different sources of supply, and their re-
port under that remit was not published until
the morning of the fast day, a few days before
the November elections, and on the very last day
that candidates could be nominated for the
town council. That report did not contain suffi-
cient information; it was simply the report of
the committee. Mr. Leslie’s report, the con-
sulting engineer, and Mr. Stewart's report,
the resident engineer, were never published at
all, and we never saw them till we extracted
them out of their hands in the House of Com-
IY) OHS.
1484. Was there anything in the plan that
was laid before the community at that time dif-
ferent from the plan that had been promulgated
in 1868 –Perhaps, generally, it was the same;
I believe there were some deviations.
1485. It was substantially the same 2–Yes;
but we did not know that they were going to
St. Mary’s Loch before the elections.
1486. Was it your opinion that that plan
would cost about 500,000 l. or 600,000 l. 2–It
was said by them to be 500,000/., but the general
feeling was it would cost 700,000l. or 800,000l.
1487. Was not that a question of sufficient
magnitude to have interested the inhabitants
during those two earlier years?—No doubt, but
the inhabitants said, and I said myself, at my
ward meeting, I am unable to pronounce any
opinion on this matter, because I have no infor-
mation ; I have the report of my speech delivered
in St. Stephen's ward on the 25th October. I
said, “I have no information, and I cannot
advise you until I get the reports.”
1488. Have you any suggestion to make as to
how those expenses ought to be paid 2–A very
simple one ; I would do it in the ordinary con-
stitutional method; so far as I am personally
concerned, I have no objection that the trustees
should be relieved of every farthing of these ex-
penses, but I say that the ratepayers of Edin-
burgh have, by the decree of the Court of
Session, acquired certain legal rights, and that
those rights ought not to be set aside without
the consent of the ratepayers. It is a rate-
payer's question, and ought to be settled by the
ratepayers, and whatever the ratepayers desire in
this matter, I would be the last man in the world
to throw any difficulty in the way of.
1489. Would you explain how you mean to
carry into effect the wishes of the ratepayers, sup-
posing an agreement to be made ; what do you
mean by the usual constitutional manner 2–I
mean the manner in which the expenses of the
Glasgow corporation were paid when they got
their Loch Katrine Bill. They went to Parlia-
ment, I think, twice, and failed; they succeeded
the third time, and in that third Bill they got a
clause of indemnity to cover the whole expenses
of the two previous Bills; that, I believe, has
hitherto
November 1870 ?—
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL. 67
hitherto been the ordinary mode of settling these
questions in Scotland, and I do not see why we
should have any alteration of that method.
1490. Do I understand you that you would
approve of the expenses being all paid in that
manner P-In that manner if the ratepayers ap-
prove ; but I think in these questions of expense
as well as of selection of a scheme of water sup-
ply, the ratepayers, out of whose pockets the ex-
penses have to come, are entitled to be con-
Sulted.
1491. Are you aware that the expenses of one
of the Glasgow abortive Bills was upwards of
15,000 l. 2–I am not aware of the amount.
1492. There was a second contest which was
unfortunate; you do not know what the expense
of that was 2–No.
1493. The clause in the Glasgow Bill provides
for every expense present and past 2–Yes.
1494. Was there a similar case with the Glas-
gow Bridges Act 2—I think I have heard some-
thing to that effect; but I do not know from my
personal knowledge.
1495. Do you think the general feeling in
Edinburgh would be like your own; a personal
wish that the members of the committee should
be freed, only in that more circuitous way than
this Bill provides 2—I think the ratepayers of
Edinburgh would be willing to consider any fair
and reasonable proposal. I have never seen any
indication to the contrary; but they do feel that
they are entitled to be consulted.
1496. There has been a good deal of feeling
about it 2–Yes, there has.
1497. Mr. Mundella.] You said you were
opposed to this retrospective clause ?—Yes.
1498. In the interest of the ratepayers?—
Yes.
1499. Do you think then, that it is to the inte-
rest of the ratepayers, that the public governing
bodies, elected by themselves, should be utterly
powerless to promote any scheme for the benefit
of the city or the town they govern ?—I do not
think they are powerless, but they are under
certain restrictions which, I think, on the whole,
are salutary.
1500. You have shown that the water trustees
of Edinburgh were powerless; you have illus-
trated that, in Glasgow, the Loch Katrine
scheme twice failed in this House ?—Yes.
1501. That was a very meritorious scheme,
was not it 2–Opinions differ in regard to it; but
I believe it is generally admitted to have been a
very meritorious scheme for Glasgow ; but Glas-
gow, as everybody knows, was in a most fearful
condition previously, and this was really the best
available scheme for Glasgow. -
1502. The question is whether the governing
body should have the power; I have always
understood that Loch Katrine was understood to
be a very meritorious scheme 2—Yes, I believe
the ratepayers of Glasgow approved it.
1503. It failed twice 3–Not through the action
wf the ratepayers; the third time it was suc-
cessful.
1504. Suppose it had failed a third time; you
would advocate that the whole of that expense
should have been thrown on the patriotic bodies
who initiated that scheme 2—Yes; that is my
opinion.
1505. You think that is a very encouraging
way of developing patriotism and public spirit”—
I think it is a very wise and salutary method,
because patriots would then have to consult the
0.84.
ratepayers; and I think it might clip their wings
sometimes, and prevent them from going into
absurd and extravagant schemes. .
1506. Chairman.] You say that in the Glas-
gow scheme the ratepayers were assenting par-
ties, and yet the Bill was lost on two occasions?
—Yes. I am willing to admit that a scheme
may be thrown out of Parliament through the
opposition of other parties away from the towns,
but there is also this remedy, that the ratepayers
can voluntarily assess themselves, who are in
favour of the scheme.
1507. Mr. Mundella.] You said this question
in Edinburgh was a ratepayers’ question; that
whatever they desired you think ought to be
promoted and give effect to ; how would you
ascertain that desire?—I would ascertain it in
the method that is already provided in several of
our Scottish Acts of Parliament. In our General
Police of Scotland Act, for example, we have a
machinery distinctly laid down for ascertaining
the wish of the ratepayers in regard to the
adoption of the clauses of that Act, and it is
provided by section 327 that this shall be done
in a certain way. With reference to clauses 317
and 318, I will read those two clauses to show
you the machinery in operation at present in
Scotland, which I think is a fair and reasonable
OIl62.
1508. State their general bearing”— I will
read the margin: “As to certain matters au-
thorised to be done by the Commissioners by
special orders only.”
resolution not to be carried into effect for one
month, nor then if a majority of the ratepayers
remonstrate against the same.”
1509. Mr. Carter.] How do you get the ma-
jority ?—It is provided that you call a public
meeting, and, in the event of a minority being
against the introduction of the Police Act, then
the sheriff has authority to appoint a vote to be
taken of the ratepayers.
1510. Mr. Mundella.] That is for towns that
have no Police Act 2––Yes.
1511. And to enable them to obtain the benefit
of it 2–Yes. A
1512. That would not apply to Edinburgh at
all. The Water Trustees are an elected body ?
—Yes.
1513. Being an elected body, they fairly re-
present the ratepayers?—Not necessarily. They
are not elected by the ratepayers.
1514. The ratepayers elect the corporation ?—
No doubt; but the corporation may elect water
trustees in November, and these trustees may go
to Parliament with a Bill without consulting the
ratepayers, and inflict very serious injustice.
1515. You are a water trustee 7–I am.
1516. Do you regard yourself as a represen-
tative of the people?—I do ; because I am a mem-
ber of the town council as well.
1517. Being a member of the town council
makes you a representative 2–I am a represen-
tative directly of the ratepayers as a member of
the town council, and I am a representative of
the ratepayers as a water trustee by virtue of
my election by the town council. -
1518. And every other member of the town
council has the same power to elect water trus-
tees that you have 2–No doubt.
1519. And that is a trust they hold direct
from the people of Edinburgh 2–Yes.
1520. And exercise for the people of Edin-
burgh 2–Yes.
I 2
Then the next is, “Final
1521. Therefore
Mr. J. D.
Wormald.
24 April
1872.
68
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. J. D.
Wormald.
24 April
1872.
1521. Therefore the water trustees represent
the people of Edinburgh?—In that way they do.
1522. Mr. Carter.] Were the people of Leith
favourable to this scheme 2—I believe the Leith
people, until the case was in the House of Lords,
were generally in favour of the scheme.
1523. That is, they encouraged the repre-
sentatives for that district to promote it?—I
believe so.
1524. Was it the same at Portobello?— I
believe it was to a large extent.
1525. Can you give me the rateable values
of Portobello and Leith ?–No ; Provost Watt
would be able to do that better than I can.
1526. What proportion do they bear to the
rateable value of Edinburgh P-I should suppose,
perhaps, a fifth, or something like that.
1527. Do you mean the two together?—A
fifth, I think, or somewhere thereabouts. Out
of the 25 trustees, Leith and Portobello sent
seven; Leith five, and Portobello two, and Edin-
burgh 18. Each town has an ea officio number.
1528. Then it is seven to 18 °–Yes.
1529. Do you know what the rateable values
are 2–I do not know.
1530. Do you know the reason why the people
of Deith and Portobello complained of the sup-
ply of water when there was no complaint from
Edinburgh 2–That is easily explained. Since
the new water trustees have been elected we
have been going into a very minute investigation
of the whole system of distribution and waste;
and we found that Leith has had some reason
to complain, because the supply to Leith has
been conveyed through their old and defective
pipes, that have been laid for some 50 years;
pipes which were utterly insufficient to give
them their fair share of supply; but we are just
now in the process of remedying that difficulty,
and I have no doubt in a very short time Leith
will have its fair proportion of supply.
1531. Really when these circumstances took
place, Leith and Portobello did not get their fair
share of water 2—I believe they did not, but of
course it must always be borne in mind that in
1869 and 1870, we had two extraordinary dry
summers, and that while Edinburgh suffered,
nearly every town suffered.
1532. Did Edinburgh suffer in the same pro-
portion as Leith and Portobello?—I do not think
they did, for the reason I have mentioned. They
did suffer no doubt.
1533. May I take it that they had reason to
suffer which you or the ratepayers of Edinburgh
had not in reference to the supply? — They
may have had I think additional reasons to
complain. *
1534. Mr. Leeman.] Supposing the third Bill
of Glasgow had been lost the two previous Bills
having been lost, who ought to pay ?—i answer
that question in this way; if the trustees acted
in accordance with the wish of the ratepayers,
which they were bound to do, the ratepayers
ought to relieve the trustees of all responsibility;
and if they had no power to do it under the Act
of Parliament, or by virtue of their corporate
Acts, then the ratepayers ought to have assessed
themselves voluntarily.
1535. Supposing the ratepayers did not choose
to assess themselves voluntarily and yet had
given authority to the Glasgow corporation to
promote two Bills, both of which were lost, how
were those people to have been reimbursed al-
though the ratepayers had given them authority ?
—I can scarcely conceive it possible that such a
case could occur; my experience is that rate-
payers are on the whole very generous, and if a
fair appeal were made to them they would not
allow their representatives to suffer any loss.
1536. In point of law that must have been the
case, unless there had been some clause like this?
—Yes.
1537. I understood you to say that the ex-
pression of Mr. Rodwell had been mistaken 2–
Yes.
1538. That he in truth only made a conditional
proposition ?–-I think if you read it his words are
clear and explicit. -
1539. As I understand you, his proposal was
something like what we hear from America, only
a proposition that if the promoters withdrew
their Bill then the people of Edinburgh would
pay the expenses incurred; that is your state-
ment to the Committee ?— Yes, Mr. Rodwell
made that statement, if they would withdraw the
Bill.
1540. Find me any such thing; there is the
speech 2–Here it is. “Therefore there can be .
no apprehension on that ; and if my learned friend
in reply says, “If you throw out the Bill, all the
expense of coming to Parliament this year will
have been wasted, and legislation will be deferred
for another year, my answer to that is this:
“We, the ratepayers, are paying every halfpenny
of the expenses incurred in the promotion of the
Bill, and it is our wish that this Bill should be
abandoned, and that the money expended hitherto
should be wasted, if they pleased to call it so.
We would rather stand the loss than that the
Bill, pregnant with so many evils and disadvan-
tages, should be proceeded with.’” I refer you
to the words “abandoned,” and “further pro-
ceeded with.” -
1541. Do you construe that language to mean
a condition precedent, namely, the withdrawal of
the Bill before Mr. Rodwell admitted the moral
liability (the legal liability, in his mind) of the
ºple of Edinburgh to pay the expenses?—
€S.
1542. Then Mr. Rodwell admitted the liability,
but not to withdraw the Bill ?—He voluntarily
made the statement, “If you will withdraw the
Bill we will raise no question as to the expenses.”
1543. In truth you never, up to the time that
Mr. Rodwell made that speech, doubted that the
expenses would have to be paid by the town 2–I
never doubted it for this reason, that I never had
studied the Act of Parliament as to express
powers.
1544. You never did, in fact?—No ; certainly
110t.
1545. Nor had ever heard a doubt suggested
by any one 2–1 do not think there was.
1546. You heard the question put by the
Honourable Baronet; he asked you as to whether
there was an extravangant expenditure on the
part of the town, and you say you think there
was. You have been asked by the Honourable
Member for Edinburgh whether, looking at the
cost of engineers for service, which would be very
costly if the water was to be fetched for 36 miles,
there would not necessarily, in various ways, be
much greater expenditure incurred by the pro-
moters of a Bill of this nature than by those
opposing it; is not that clearly so ; are you not
a legal man?—I am.
1547. Have you had anything to do with
Parliamentary practice 2–Yes.
1548. Have
ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
69
1548. Have you had to do with the promotion
of water bills and gas bills?—Not personally.
1549. You know enough as a legal man to be
aware that there is an immense expenditure to
which parties are put as promoters, to which
opponents are not?–I am aware of that:
i550. You say, if the ratepayers of Edinburgh
should consent, then you think that it is only
right that these trustees should be reimbursed?
— Quite, if the ratepayers agree to do so.
1551. Looking at clause 4, which gives power
to the Secretary of State to examine all charges,
where would be your difficulty, assuming the
power in respect to the past to be vested in the
Home Secretary with regard to expenses.
Would there be any difficulty in your mind in
submitting such a matter to the Home Secre-
tary 2–I think so; I do not think the Secretary
of State is the proper person.
1552. Any tribunal. If that tribunal, be it
the Secretary of State or any other party, has the
power of clause 5 to determine either the whole
of the questions or parts of the questions; would
that appear to you to be then a reasonable
clause?–No, I think you can have no higher
tribunal than the will of the ratepayers them-
selves.
1553. I am assuming the will of the rate-
payers?—If the will of the ratepayers be to re-
fer it, I would have no objection; but I think
they would prefer to have it in their own hands.
1554. Mr. M'Laren.] Supposing your com-
mittee of ratepayers, and the committee of the
old trustees agreed in something that both parties
considered equitable, and went to the Secretary
of State and said we have agreed, there is our
agreement; would you then have any objection
to the Secretary saying, I am glad you agree ; I
give it my sanction ?—If Parliament should pass
this Bill, I think it is very likely, if the rate-
payers said, we will go to the Secretary of State
as provided by this Bill, and agree upon certain
terms for a compromise of this question, we
should throw no difficulty in the way.
1555. Do you see any objection in the case I
have supposed to that course —Not in the case
you supposed. At the same time I doubt the
propriety of passing such a Bill,
1556. Mr. Delahunty.] I think you said for
some time past there has been a sufficient supply
of water for Edinburgh – At present, and for
three months past we have had no complaints of
any deficiency.
1557. Then your observation does not apply
to the whole of last year?—A part of the last
year. I think there was during the summer
months not so large a supply by any means as we.
have now ; but still there were very few com-
plaints during the whole of last year.
1558. You have heard the Provost of Leith
say that in Leith the supply was very bad?—I
did not hear him make that statement. I was
not in the room ; I believe Leith was a little ex-
ceptional, on account of the bad piping.
1559. He also stated that a fire had taken
place at Leith, and that the only supply that
could be had from the trustees was as much as
would feed one manual engine 2–That must
have arisen not from any deficiency of supply,
but from defect in the pipes. I am quite sure
the present supply is amply sufficient for ordi-
nary purposes, and for putting out fires.
1560. If that defect exists in one night, it
must be constant 2–But we are putting in new
0.84.
pipes; taking up pipes that have been laid for
50 years, and putting in new ones, and regulating
the pressures. *-->
1561. If they are deficient in supply at Leith
and Portobello, owing to these exceptional
causes, they will take from Portobello a portion
of the supply that they now can enjoy P—I think
it is very likely, and still we may have enough
left. We have 33 gallons a head per day.
Y 1562. That is during the last three months?—
CS.
1563. You have not that during the summer ?
—We had about 28 gallons last autumn.
1564. You heard the statement of the town
clerk of Edinburgh; he stated that the average
was 28 gallons; is that correct?—I believe that
is pretty near the truth; most people regard that
as an abundant supply.
1565. Then we are to understand that the
average is 28 gallons?—I am prepared to admit
that. I may mention, with regard to what the
Honourable Member has just stated, that Mr.
Stewart, the engineer of the old water trustees,
admitted, in his evidence in the House of Com-
mons and House of Lords too, that the present
works were capable of supplying 28 gallons per
head per day, speaking from past years.
1566. Mr. Carter.] Do you include these three
years you mentioned?—-Yes, he had in view these
three years.
1567. Sir Weville-Grenville.] Capable of sup-
plying that quantity; is it a fact that they did?
—The average supply had been that. We are
capable of supplying about 36.
1568. Sir M. H. Beach. In answer to the
Honourable Member for Sheffield, you stated
Something about the mode in which the opinion
of the ratepayers of a town might be taken upon
a question of this sort, but you did not entirely
explain that ; will you do so 2–I am afraid the
only way I can explain it is by reading the
clause.
1569. Could not you state it generally 7–A
public meeting is called by public advertisement,
giving so many days' notice. The ratepayers
meet (all who take an interest in these ques-
tions meet) at this public meeting, and the
question is put and a vote taken. If a majority
of the meeting are in favour of the introduction
of this Police Act, then it is introduced, unless
action is taken by the minority, and in that case
the sheriff has power to take a vote of the rate-
payers.
1570. How does he take that vote 7–In the
ordinary way, the same as in municipal or Par-
liamentary elections, and the ratepayers are
allowed to go to a polling booth and record
their vote for or against, but that only in the
event of opposition arising at the public meet-
ing; if the meeting is unanimous, then the whole
of that expense is saved.
1571. Still, any minority, however small, can
demand a poll of that kind?—A minority can
insist upon it.
1572. Mr. Munſiella.] With the result of that
poll you would be perfectly content?—I would.
1573. Mr. M. Laren.] Has the sheriff any
power in Edinburgh P – No; Edinburgh has a
Police Act of its own.
1574. Then it would not apply; if you were
to ask the sheriff to call such a meeting, would
not he refuse?—I think so.
1575. Mr. Mundella.] What is the population
of Edinburgh?—About 190,000.
I 3 1576. How
Mr. J.
D.
Wormald.
24 April
1872.
J
TMr. J. D.
Wormald.
24 April
1872.
70
1576. How many ratepayers ? — Between
30,000 and 40,000 ratepayers.
1577. Have you any room that would hold
30,000 or 40,000 ratepayers?—No. I suppose
in Edinburgh, as in elsewhere, we regard large
public meetings as indicating generally the feel-
ing of the town. There is one error I should
like to correct with regard to the statement made
by Mr. Marwick, as to the ward meetings; the
number of ratepayers in those different wards,
and the number attending the different meetings.
I think Mr. Marwick must have made a serious
mistake in regard to the St. Cuthbert's ward
meeting. He stated the attendance at that meet-
ing in the Corn Exchange was 2,000 ; now I
happened to be present myself; I went out of
curiosity, and I am satisfied there were not more
than 300 or 400; it was held in a corner of the
Exchange, and the issue put to the meeting was
not either for or against St. Mary’s Loch scheme,
but it was a question of confidence in the repre-
sentatives. It broke up in considerable confu-
sion, but supposing that they were all in favour
of the vote as taken, it does not indicate the feel-
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:-MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL.
ing on the question of the St. Mary’s Loch; and
if the correct numbers were given, it would give
the majority attending these different meetings
to be something like a thousand against St.
Mary’s Loch. º -
1578. Mr. Carter.] In regard to these clauses
that you have referred to in this Bill, I under-
stand there is no governing body in the districts
to which you refer; do you know whether these
apply in any cases where there is a representative
body ?—I do not think so, for this reason, that
in all corporate towns they have a very ready
mode of gathering up the general feeling of the
ratepayers at the ward meetings; and at our
ward meetings we do that on important questions
like this ; and if the water trustees had done that,
they would have saved all this trouble and ex-
pense. -
1579. Mr. Mundella.] What I gather from your
evidence is this, that for the initiation of any
great new schemes imposing permanent taxation
on the town, you would like something like the
Free Libraries Act, where the initiation is taken
by a public meeting 2—That is my view.
A P P E N D I X,
Appendix, No. 1.
OPINION handed in by Mr. Yeomans, 19 April 1872.
The SHEFFIELD CORPORATION and The SHEFFIELD WATERWORKS COMPANY. Appendix, No. 1,
I AM of opinion that the Council may legally pay the expenses of what are called the
magisterial proceedings, and also the expenses of opposing the Company's Bill in Parlia-
ment out of the borough fund; in other words, out of the borough rate. Where the
expenses had reference both to opposing the Company's Bill and promoting the Bill of
the Corporation (such, for instance, of the costs of the brief), I am unable to suggest any
other mode of dealing with them than that of dividing them equally between the two
matterS. *3
(signed) H. Manisty.
Temple, 1 July 1870.
Appendix, No. 2.
PAPER handed in by Mr. Miller.
RETURN of WATER SUPPLY to Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello, from January 1871 Appendix, No. 2.
to March 1872, both inclusive.
Gallons.
1871.-January - º gº – 27.5
February - tºº tºº - 30
March dºg tºº sº 30
April – sº º ſºme – 33
May - - - - - 35
June - º º – 33
* . . . - : Per head per day
September - - - - 32°6 to a population of
October ſº &º gº - 32°1 254,000.
November - - - - 32°6
December - - - - 33°8
1872.-January - - - - 35-4
February § -º iº &º - 36.9
March º * = e iº- – 35
26 April 1872. W. H. Cameron, Treasurer.
0.84. I 4
[ 72 j
[ 73 J
I N D E X.
[N.B.-In this Index the Figures following the Names of the Witnesses refer to the Questions in
the Evidence; and the Numerals following Rep., to the Pages in the Report.]
A.
ARBITRATION. Evidence adverse to the proposal in the fifth clause of the Bill for
referring the question of payment of costs incurred by local authorities to the arbitration
of the Home Secretary, Miller 1276. 1315. 1360, 1361; Wormald 1454–1457. 1497–1499.
1550-1555 Approval of the arbitration vested in the Home Secretary, under the fifth
clause of the Bill, Watt 1414.
Audit of Accounts. Object of the audit of the borough accounts (as at Sheffield) merely to
see that there are vouchers for the expenditure, Moore 237–240 Willingness of the
corporation to submit the accounts of costs, &c., to a proper audit, ib. 314-316—Ap-
proval of a more stringent audit of the borough accounts, ib. 522–526.
B,
Bills in Parliament. See Costs and Erpenses. Edinburgh. Ratepayers. Sheffield.
Borough Funds. See Costs and Expenses. Edinburgh. Ratepayers. Retrospective
Action of Bill. Sheffield. --
C.
Compulsory Purchase of Undertakings. Proposed new clause providing that the Act shall
not extend to the payment of costs, &c., incurred in the compulsory purchase of the under-
taking of any company, which has not during the same Session made application to
ºn for an extension or amendment of the powers conferred by its special Act,
ép. XV.
Division upon the foregoing poposition ; rejection of the clause by the casting vote of
the Chairman, Rep. xv.
Costs and Eaſpenses (Bills in Parliament). Statement to the effect, that the courts have
decided that expenditure out of the rates for the promotion of Bills is illegal, Smith 698–
702.
Reference to the second section of the Bill, as providing more than is sought for in the
petition from the Edinburgh water trustees; expediency of water trustees not interfering
with questions of gas, &c., Marwick 1069, 1070. 1 194–1204. o
Admission, that though it is legally right, it is hard that corporate bodies promoting
Bills in good faith and for the public benefit should be personally liable for the costs in
the event of failure of the Bills, Miller 1342–1351.
Rejection by the Committee, by the casting vote of the Chairman, of a proposed amend-
ment, providing that the fifth clause shall not authorise allowance to be made in respect
of cºsts and charges unless it shall appear that the governing body had acted bond ſide,
and in the belief that such costs and charges might be lawfully incurred, Rep. xiv, x.
See also Edinburgh. Retrospective Action of Bill. Sheffield.
O.84. K
74 EDINBURGH (WATER SUPPLY).
Report, 1872—continued.
AEDINBURGH (WATER SUPPLY):
1. Evidence on the part of the late Water Trustees of Edinburgh, and
District, in Reference to the Bill promoted by them in 1871, and in
Support of their Claim to Payment of the Costs and Expenses out of the
IRates.
2. Evidence in reply to the Foregoing, and in Opposition to the Retrospec-
tive Action of the Bill before the Committee, as regards the Expenses in
Question.
3. Meetings and Views of the Ratepayers relative to the Water Trustees’
Bill.
4. Particulars relative to the Water Supply.
5. Practice hitherto at Edinburgh as to Payment of Costs incurred by the
Local Authorities in respect of Bills in Parliament. -
6. Suggestion that any Settlement with the late Water Trustees should rest
with the Ratepayers and should be Embodied in a New Bill.
7. Proposition for ascertaining the Views of the Ratepayers upon the
Question of Payment of the Expenses.
1. Evidence on the part of the late Water Trustees of Edinburgh, and District, in
Reference to the Bill promoted by them in 1871, and in Support of their Claim
to Payment of the Costs and Expenses out of the Rates.
Desire of the old Edinburgh and district water trustees to be relieved from the costs
of the measure which they promoted in Parliament in 1871, for procuring an additional
supply of water from St. Mary’s Loch, Marwick loo&. 1013, 1o 14 Number of trustees
elected respectively for Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello, ib. loog. 1010 —Transfer of
the works of the Edinburgh Water Company to the trustees in 1870, by an Act passed
in 1869, ib. 1011, 1012––Obligations of the Company, previously to the transfer, as
regards constant supply and high pressure; frequent complaints as to the inadequacy of
the supply and pressure, ib. 1015-1022 Actions taken by the corporations of Edin-
burgh, Leith, and Portobella in consequence of these complaints; promotion of a Bill in
1869 for the transfer of the works, and for carrying out the St. Mary's Loch scheme, ib.
1023-1027 Explanation as to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme having been struck out of
the Bill, upon the Standing Orders; suspension in consequence, for five years, of the penal-
ties for not giving constant supply, ib. 1027–1029. 1031–1035. 1091, io92. -
Circumstance of the water company having contemplated a new source of supply at a
great cost, Marwick 1030. 1 136-1141 Inquiries made by the trustees as to additional
sources of supply; resolution unanimously arrived at in favour of a supply from St. Mary’s
Loch, ib. 1036–1038 Opposition organised by the ratepayers against the Bill promoted
by the trustees in 1871 for carrying out the St. Mary’s Loch scheme, the result being the
rejection of the Bill in the Lords, ib. 1039–1 off 5 Full belief of the trustees as to their
right to promote the Bill at the expense of the trust, ib. Io96——Strong evidence
adduced upon the Bill as to St. Mary's Loch being the best source of supply,
20. 1 O57.
Proceedings subsequently instituted successfully against the payment by the trustees
of the costs of the Bill; judgment of the Appeal Court also adverse to such payment,
although Lord Deas dissented therefrom, Marwick 1058–1060. 1088. 1191–1 193. 12 18–
I 2.2O Estimate of 19,000 l. as the total expense incurred, of which 2,908 l. has been
paid, ib. 1061–1007 Full inquiry and reports made on the part of trustees as to the
Source of supply and prevention of waste, before the Bill of 1871 was promoted and
lodged, ib. 1071–1073. 1078, 1079. 1 o88–1090 Large consumption in Glasgow
adverted to as a criterion of the supply required for Edinburgh, ib. 1077. 1187—l 190
Justification of the course pursued by the trustees in 1870 in promoting an additional
supply from a new source, instead of in addressing themselves merely to an increase of
storage and prevention of waste, ib. 1084–1 og2. 1 162–1167 Large proportion of the
expense incurred by the trustees at the time of the opposition at the ward meetings, ib.
1095. 1234–1236 Production of about 6,300 l. by a penny rate in Edinburgh, Leith,
and Portobello, ib. 1128-1 135 Several Acts of the company for the purpose of
additional supplies, ib. 1 136, 1 137.
Explanation as to the water-rate which the trustees are empowered to charge, and as
to the reduced rate levied, whilst there is good prospect of further reduction, Marwick
1 146–1154 — Necessarily expensive character of the witnesses and of the counsel on
the part of the Trustees’ Bill of 1871, ib. 1156–1161 Support of the St. Mary’s Loch
scheme by Mr. Bateman and other eminent engineers, ib. 1157. 1178–1 183 Estimate.
of 480,000 l. as the cost of the scheme, the cost of the existing works being about the
same, ib. 1205–1208.
Great improbability of the trustees promoting another Bill either for new resorvoirs or
for constant supply, if they are privately to be held liable for the Bill of 1871, promoted
aS
EDINBURGH (WATER SUPPLY). 75
Report, 1872––continued.
sº-
EDINBURGH (WATER SUPPLY)—continued.
1. Evidence on the part of the late Water Trustees of Edinburgh, &c.—continued.
as it was in the utmost good faith, Marwick 1209–1213—-Statement that it was the
opinion not only of the trustees but of the opposing ratepayers, that the costs of the Bill
of 1871 could be charged against the community, even though it failed ; it was not
thought necessary in fact to take any legal opinion on the subject, ib. 1221–1224. 1230–
1233.
2. Evidence in reply fo the Foregoing, and in Opposition to the Retrospective
Action of the Bill before the Committee as regards the Expenses in
Question.
Twofold objection raised by the Edinburgh Ratepayers’ Association to the St. Mary's
Loch scheme, the expense being enormous, and the quality of the water bad, Miller
1239, 1240. 1258. 1281, 1282—Other available sources of supply, as from the Pent-
lands, at half the cost, ib. 1241. 1283. 1291–1293— Influential evidence adduced by
the Ratepayer's Association against the Bill, the result being its rejection in the Lords,
after the preamble had been passed in the Commons, ib. 1247. 1250. 1259–1261
Belief that the question as to payment of the costs of the Bill was not raised in the first
instance; witness is not a party to the interdict subsequently obtained, ib. 1248, 1249.
1264. 128O.
Very equal division of opinion in the town council upon the question of opposing the
Bill, Miller 1255–1257 Cost of about 9,000l. incurred by the Ratepayers' Association
in opposing the Bill, the larger portion of which has been subscribed, ib. 1262.
Argument that the water trustees should have withdrawn the Bill when they saw the
strong feeling of the ratepayers against it, Miller 1277-1280. 1289, 1290. 1365–1371——
Belief that about 9,000 l. out of the 19,000 l. was incurred in the contest in the Lords, ib.
1278 Entirely different policy of the present body of trustees, the old trustees having
been largely replaced by opponents to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme, ib. 1282, 1283
Willingness of the present trustees to promote a Bill for an additional supply, without
being deterred by any fear of its failure, and by liability for the expense, i5. 1300. 1316–
1319–IReference to the statement by Mr. Rodwell, when the Bill was before the Com-
mittee of the House of Lords, that the ratepayers would pay the expense if the Bill
were withdrawn, ib. 1302–13O4.
Arrangements suggested in December last for settling the question at issue between
the old water trustees of Edinburgh and the ratepayers, Miller 1351–1358 Concur-
rence in the opinions of the several judges who gave judgment adverse to the application
by the trustees to charge the costs of the Bill upon the rates, ib. 1372–1378––Dis-
cretionary powers of municipal corporation in Scotland as compared with the restricted
powers of the Edinburgh water trustees, ib. 1384–1388.
Opposition of witness to the Water Trustees’ Bill of 1871, on the score of expense,
and of the quality of the supply, Wormald 1445 Strong objection to the Bill of 1871,
on the ground that the ratepayers had not been fairly consulted, and had never had the
St. Mary’s Loch scheme properly before them, ib. 1445–1452. 1478–1487. 1577,
1578.
Expenditure of about 9,000 l. by the Ratepayer's Association in opposing the Bill of
1871, the amount being almost paid off by voluntary subscriptions, Wormald 1450,
1451. 1468 If the Bill had been withdrawn, the ratepayers would probably have
raised no difficulty as to payment out of the rates; explanation as to a certain statement
hereon by Mr. Rodwell, ib. 1453. , 1537–1554—The question of expense would pro-
bably never have been raised if the old trustees had resigned their seats when the Bill
of 1871 was rejected, ib. 1458. 1469–1475.
Admission that the trustees may have acted in good faith, although in any case they
incurred an undue amount of expense, Wormald 1459–1464. 1476, 1477. 1546–1549––
Indirect representation of the ratepayers of Edinburgh by the water trustees, ib. 1512–
1523.
3. Meetings and Views of the Ratepayers relative to the Water Trustees’
JBöll. *
Particulars as to the character of the opposition to the scheme in comparison with the
support given to it; ill founded objections raised on the score both of cost and quality, ib.
1039–1051. 1093-1 108. 1146–1355. 1168–1174. 1225–1229. 1234–1236— Limited
attendance at the ward meetings in opposition to the St. Mary's Loch scheme, ib. 1 og5.
1225–1229 Fault of the ratepayers in not sooner expressing disapproval of the
scheme, it having been first advocated in 1868: obligation upon the trustees to proceed
with it, ib. 1096–11 131., 225–1229. 1234–1236.
Meeting of the Ratepayers’ Association in February 1871, when it was resolved to peti-
tion against and oppose the Bill promoted by the water trustees; subsequent petition
presented from 14,000 or 15,000 ratepayers, Miller 1242, 1243. 1263—Information
relative to the ward meetings and other public meetings held with reference to the Bill
O.84. K 2 for
76 E D [. H A L
Report, 1872—continued.
EDINBURGH (WATER SUPPLY)—continued.
3. Meetings and Views of the Ratepayers, &c.—continued.
for the St. Mary’s Loch scheme; large attendance of ratepapers, and strong feeling shown
against the measure after the Bill had passed in the Commons, Miller 1244–1247. 1251–
1254. 1276–1282.
4. Particulars relative to the Water Supply:
Explanation as to the large falling off in the supply after the works had come into the
hands of the trustees; fault of the company in the matter, Marwick 1 o'74–1080. 1 184—
I 186 Additional precautions taken by the trustees for the prevention of waste, ib.
1080–1083. 1 1.42–1145 Obstacles to further supplies from the Pentlands; difficulties
raised by the millowners and paper manufacturers, ib. 1084. 11 14–1123——Great in-
crease in the population of Edinburgh and Leith, and in the demand for water, since the
constitution of the water company in 1819, ib. 1 124–1 127.
Particulars relative to the present water supply of Edinburgh, Leith, &c.; belief that
this is adequate for existing wants, but that an additional supply will in time be required,
and can be obtained from the Pentlands, Miller 1258. 1265–1273. 1283–1288. 1291–
1304 Excellence of the water from the Pentlands, ió. 1258––Belief as to the suffi-
ciency of the present supply, save in peculiarly dry seasons; denial that many com-
plaints are made, Wormald 1449. 1465–1467. I 530-1533. 1556-1567.
Return of water supply to Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello, from January 1871 to
March 1872, inclusive, App. 71.
5. Practice hitherto at Edinburgh as to Payment of Costs incurred by the Local
Authorities in respect of Bills in Parliament :
Absence of any previous instance at Edinburgh of the expense of promoting a Bill
falling upon private parties, instead of upon the municipality, Marwick 1175–1177.
Examination as to the practice in Edinburgh of finding the money required for the
preliminary expenses of the Bills promoted by the corporation ; admission that witness
is not aware of any instance of the promoters having been ultimately required to incur
the costs individually, Miller 1305–1314. 1320–1341. .
6. Suggestion that any Settlement with the late Water Trustees should rest with the
Ratepayers, and should be embodied in a new Bill:
Willingness of the ratepayers to come to some reasonable arrangement with the pro-
moters of the Bill of 1871 as to the expenses, the best plan being to embody in the next
Bill any settlement that may be agreed to, Miller I 274–1276. 1315. 1351–1364. 1380–
1383. s
7. Proposition for Ascertaining the Views of the Ratepayers upon the Question
of Payment of the Earpenses :
Recommendation that it be left to the ratepayers of Edinburgh to determine whether
the expenses of the Water Trustees’ Bill of 1871 be paid out of the rates; suggestions as
to the detailed mode of carrying out this proposal, Wormald 1488–1496. 1507-1512.
1550–1555. 1568–1579.
See also Leith and Portobello.
Evidence on the Bill. Resolution of the Committee to restrict evidence to the fifth clause
of the Bill, Rep. x.
G.
Gas Supply. See Sheffield, &c., 4.
Glasgow. Strong opposition made for some time at Glasgow to the Loch Katrine scheme,
whereas it has conferred an immense boon upon the town, Marwick 1094. 1 i 79.
Statement relative to, and in approval of, the mode of payment of the expenses incurred
by the Glasgow Corporation, when they got their Loch Katrine Bill, after two failures,
Wormald 1489–1493. 1500–1506. 1534–1536.
H.
Halifar. Letter to the Chairman of the Committee, dated 24th April 1872, on behalf of
several influential owners and occupiers of property within the borough, requesting that
the petitioners from Halifax be allowed to adduce evidence against the Bill, more espe-
cially against the fifth clause, Rep. xiii, xiv. -
Resolution of the Committee not to hear any evidence from Halifax against the fifth
clause of the Bill, Rep. xiv.
I LL M A R. 77
Report, 1872—continued.
I.
Illegality of Earpenditure. Several decisions of the courts, as to illegality of expenditure out
of the rates in promoting Bills, Smith 698. 702. See also Edinbnrgh. Sheffield.
L.
Leith and Portobello (Water Supply). Numerous and well-grounded complaints made by
the ratepayers of Leith for several years past relative to the very deficient water supply
of the town, Watt 1397–1402 Unanimous and continuous approval by the town
council of Leith of the steps taken for transferring the Edinburgh Water Company’s works
to a public trust, and for going to St. Mary’s Loch for an additional supply, ib. 1402–
1408 Public meeting in July 1868, when the foregoing arrangements were strongly
approved of, ib. 1405 Non-objection to the St. Mary's Loch scheme at any of the
ward meetings in Leith in 1868, 1869, and 1870, ib. 1409.
Issue of circulars in Leith and Portobello when the Water Trustees Bill of 1871 was
before the House of Lords, in order to ascertain the views of the ratepayers; considerable
number of objections then made against the St. Mary’s Loch schene, Watt 141 1, 1412
Unanimous approval of the scheme by the town council of Portobello, ib. 1412—
General feeling among the better classes in Leith that the promoters of the Bill of 1871
should not be mulcted in personal expenses, ib. 1413, 1414 Continuance of the same
water trustees for Leith and Portobello down to the present time; rejection in one ward
at Leith of a candidate opposed to the action of the trustees, ib. 1415–1419.
Injustice if witness and other ea officio trustees were saddled with a share of the costs
of the Bill of 1871, Watt 1420–1422. 1434–1436—Great inconvenience to shipping at
Leith through the deficient water supply; high rate charged, ib. 1427–1429—Very short
supply in 1871, and at the present time, the works being inadequate to meet the demand,
save for domestic purposes, ib. 1430–1433. 1436–1438.
Number of water trustees for Leith and Portobello, these places having been favourable
to the scheme for bringing water from St. Mary’s Loch, Wormald 1522–1529 Good
grounds for complaint at Leith and Portobello, as compared with Edinburgh, in regard to
the supply, ib. 1530–1533. 1556–1567.
See also Edinburgh.
M.
Marwick, James David. (Analysis of his Evidence.)—Has been town clerk of Edinburgh
since 1860; appears in support of the fifth clause of the Bill before the Committee, and
of the extension of the Bill to Scotland, loo.3—1008—I)esire of the old Edinburgh and
district water trustees to be relieved from the costs of the measure which they promoted
in Parliament in 1871, for procuring an additional supply of water from St. Mary’s Loch,
1008. 1013, 1014 Number of trustees elected respectively for Edinburgh, Leith, and
Portobello, 1009, 1010.
Transfer of the works of the Edinburgh Water Company to the trustees in 1870 by
an Act passed in 1869; 10 1 1, 1 O 12 Obligations of the company, previously to the
transfer, as regards constant supply and high pressure; frequent complaints as to the
inadequacy of the supply and pressure, 1 O15–1022 Action taken by the Corporations
of Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello in consequence of these complaints; promotion of a
Bill in 1869 for the transfer of the works, and for carrying out the St. Mary's Loch
scheme, 1.023–1027 Explanation as to the St. Mary's Loch scheme having been
struck out of the Bill, upon the Standing Orders; suspension in consequence for five
years, of the penalties for not giving constant supply, 1027-1029. 1031–1035. 1091,
1 O92 Circumstance of the Water Company having contemplated a new source of
supply at a great cost, 1030. 1 136-1141.
Inquiries made by the trustees as to additional sources of supply ; resolution unani-
mously arrived at in favour of a supply from St. Mary's Loch, loš6–1038— Opposition
organised by the ratepayers against the Bill promoted by the trustees in 1870 for carrying
out the St. Mary’s Loch scheme, the result being the rejection of the Bill in the Lords,
1 O39-1 O55 Particulars as to the character of the opposition to the scheme in com-
parison with the support given to it; ill-founded objections raised on the score, both of
cost and quality, lo&Q–1051. log:3-1108. 1146–1155. 1168–1174. 1225–1229. 1234–1236
— Full belief of the trustees as to their right to promote the Bill at the expense cf the
trust, 1056—Strong evidence adduced upon the Bill as to St. Mary's Loch being the
best source of supply, 1057.
Proceedings, subsequently instituted, successfully, against the payment by the trustees
of the costs of the Bill; judgment of the Appeal Court also adverse to such payment,
O.84. K 3 although
78 M A. R. M IL
Report, 1872—continued.
Marwick, James David. (Analysis of his Evidence)—continued.
although Lord Deas dissented therefrom, 1058–1060. 1068. 1191-1193. 12 18–1220
Estimate of 19,000 l. as the total expense incurred, of which 2,908 l. has been paid,
1061-1067 Reference to the second section of the Bill as providing more than is
sought for in the petition from the water trustees; expediency of water trustees not in-
terfering in questions of gas, &c., 1069, 1 O70. 1 194–1204 Full inquiry and reports
made on the part of the trustees as to source of supply and prevention of waste before
the Bill of 1871 was promoted and lodged, 1071–1073. 1078, 1079. 1088–1090.
Explanation as to the large falling off in the supply after the works had come into the
hands of the trustees; fault of the company in the matter, 1074–1076. 1 184-, 186
Large consumption in Glasgow adverted to as a criterion of the supply required for
Edinburgh, 1077. 1187–1190 Additional precautions taken by the trustees for the
prevention of waste, 1080–1083. 1 142-3 145 Justification of the course pursued by the
trustees in 1870 in promoting an additional supply from a mew source instead of in
addressing themselves merely to an increase of storeage and prevention of waste, 1084–
1 O92. 1162–1167 Obstacles to further supplies from the Pentlands; difficulties raised
by the millowners and paper manufactures, 1084, 11 14-1123.
Strong opposition made for some time at Glasgow to the Loch Katrine scheme,
whereas it has conferred an immense boon upon the town, 1094. 1 179 Limited
attendance at the ward meetings in Edinburgh in opposition to the St. Mary's Loch
scheme; due discussion of the scheme at these meetings, 1095. 1225–1229 Large
proportion of the expense incurred by the trustees at the time of the opposition at the
ward meetings, 1095. 1234–1236 Fault of the ratepayers in not sooner expressing
disapproval of the scheme, it having been first advocated in 1868; obligation upon the
trustees to proceed with it, 1096–11 13. 1225–1229. 1234–1236 Great increase in the
population of Edinburgh and Leith, and in the demand for water, since the constitution
of the Water Company in 1819; 1124–1127 Production of about 6,300 l. by a penny
rate in Edinburgh, Leith, and Portobello, 1128–1 135 Several Acts of the company
for the purpose of additional supplies, 1 136, 1 137 Explanation as to the water rate
which the trustees are empowered to charge, and as to the reduced rate levied, whilst
there is good prospect of further reduction, 1 146–1154.
Necessarily expensive character of the witnesses, and of the counsel on the part of the
trustees’ Bill of 1871; 1156-1 161 ——Support of the St. Mary's Loch scheme by Mr.
Bateman and other eminent engineers, 1 157. I 178–1 183 Support given to the Bill
of 1871 by the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland, 1170–1174. 1215-1217
Absence of any previous instance at Edinburgh of the expense of promoting a Bill
falling upon private parties, instead of upon the municipality, 1175–1177.
Estimate of 480,000 l. as the cost of the St. Mary's Loch scheme, the cost of the
existing works being about the same, 1205–1208 Great improbability of the trustees
promoting another Bill, either for new reservoirs or for constant supply, if they are
privately to be held liable for the Bill of 1871, promoted, as it was, in the utmost good
faith, 1209–1213 Common justice in adopting the retrospective action of the Bill
before the Committee, and in extending the Bill to Scotland, 1214.
Statement showing that it was the opinion not only of the trustees, but of the opposing
ratepayers, that the costs of the Bill of 1871 could be charged against the community,
even though it failed ; it was not thought necessary, in fact, to take any legal opinion
on the subject, 1221–1224. 1230-1233.
Miller, Peter. (Analysis of his Evidence.)—Represents the association of ratepayers of
Edinburgh opposed to the scheme for blinging water from St. Mary’s Loch, 1237, 1238
—-Twofold objection to the scheme, the expense being enormous, and the quality of
the water bad, 1239, 1240. 1258. 1281, 1282 Other available sources of supply, as
from the Pentlands, at half the cost, 1241. 1283. 1291–1293 Meeting of the Rate.
payers’ Association in February 1871, when it was resolved to petition against and
oppose the Bill promoted by the water trustees; subsequent petition presented from
14,000 or 15,000 ratepayers, 1242, 1243. 1263.
Information relative to the ward meetings, and other public meetings held with reference
to the Bill for the St. Mary’s Loch scheme; large attendance of ratepayers, and strong
feeling shown against the measure, after the Bill had passed in the Commons, 1244–
1247. 1251–1254. 1276–1282 Influential evidence adduced by the Ratepayers’ Associa-
tion against the Bill, the result being its rejection in the Lords, after the preamble had
been passed in the Commons, 1247. 1250. 1259–1261 Belief that the question as to
payment of the costs of the Bill was not raised in the first instance; witness is not a
party to the interdict subsequently obtained, 1248, 1249. 1264. 1280 Very equal
division of opinion in the town council upon the question of opposing the Bill, 1255–1257
Cost of about 9,000 l. incurred by the Ratepayers’ Association in opposing the Bill,
the larger portion of which has been subscribed, 1262.
Particulars relative to the present water supply of Edinburgh, Leith, &c.; belief that
this is adequate for existing wants, but that an additional supply will in time be required,
and
M I L . M O O 79
Report, 1872—continued.
Miller, Peter. (Analysis of his Evidence)—continued.
and can be obtained from the Pentlands, 1265–1273. 1283–1288. 1291–1301
Willingness of the ratepayers to come to some reasonable arrangement with the promoters
of the Bill of 1871 as to the expenses, the best plan being to embody in the next Bill
any settlement that may be agreed to, 1274-1276. 1315. 1351–1364. 1380-1383
Objection to the proposal to leave it to the Secretary of State to determine the matter of
payment, 1276. 1315. 1360, 1361. 1379.
Argument that the water trustees should have withdrawn the Bill when they saw the
strong feeling of the ratepayers against it, 1277–1280. 1289, 1290. 1365–1371 —
Entirely different policy of the present body of trustees, the old trustees having been
largely replaced by opponents to the St. Mary's Loch scheme, 1282, 1283 Willingness
of the present trustees to promote a Bill for an additional supply, without being deterred
by any fear of its failure and by liability for the expense, 1300. 1316–1319.
Reference to the statement by Mr. Rodwell, when the Bill was before the Committee
of the House of Lords, that the ratepayers would pay the expense if the Bill were with-
drawn, 1302–1304 Examination as to the practice in Edinburgh of finding the money
required for the preliminary expenses of Bills promoted by the Corporation; admission
that witness is not aware of any instance of the promoters having been ultimately
required to incur the costs individually, 1305–1314. 1326–1341 Disapproval generally
of the retrospective action of the fifth clause of the Bill before the Committee, 1315–
1319. 1382. .
Admission that though it is legally right it is hard that corporate bodies promoting
Bills in good faith and for the public benefit should be personally liable for the costs in the
event of failure of the Bills, 1342–1351 — Arrangements suggested in December last
for settling the question at issue between the old water trustees of Edinburgh and the
ratepayers, 1351–1358 Concurrence in the opinions of the several judges who gave
judgment adverse to the application by the trustees to charge the costs of the Bill upon
the rates, 1372–1378.
Discretionary powers of municipal corporations in Scotland, as compared with the
restricted powers of the Edinburgh water trustees, 1384–1388 Expediency of the
check of the ratepayers upon the undue promotion of Bills by local public bodies, 1389–
1394. -
Moore, Thomas, and John Yeomans. (Analysis of their Evidence.)—(Mr. Moore.) Is
mayor of Sheffield ; was in office when the Corporation applied for Bills in 1870, to
take the waterworks and gasworks, l. 3, 4 (Mr. Yeomans.) Is town clerk of Sheffield,
2 (Mr. Moore.) Objectionable and costly regulations proposed by the Sheffield
Water Company before the justices in 1866, as to fittings, &c., in reference to constant
supply, 5–13. 263-265 Opposition made by the Corporation to the proposed regula-
tions, counsel having been employed on each side, and the proceedings having lasted for
thirteen days, at a cost of 1,500 l. to the Corporation, 5, 14–16. 32. 261, 262 Notice
suddenly given by the company in 1869 of a Bill in Parliament, embodying almost
literally the regulations proposed before the magistrates, 5-8. 44-53.
Confirmation, with very few exceptions, of the counter-propositions made by the
Corporation before the magistrates; examinations as to the grounds for this statement,
17–31. 36–38 Notice given to the company in 1869 to provide a constant supply:
discontinuance of such supply after it had been only one month in operation, the works
not having been completed, as required by Act, 33–35. 39–43 Resolution arrived at
by the town council in 1869 in favour of the immediate promotion of a Bill for the
purchase of the works of the company; public meeting, subsequently of the ratepayers,
when the Corporation Bill was sanctioned, and it was resolved also to oppose the
company’s Bill, 46–69—Withdrawal of the company’s Bill in March 1870 : subsequent
withdrawal of the Corporation Bill, 70–75. 350–368.
Cost of 4,113 l. incurred in promoting the Corporation Water Bill, and in opposing the
company’s Bill; explanation as to this amount not having been audited, the greater
portion having never been paid, 76–80. 150–160 Payment of 1,000 l. Out of the rates
towards the opposition to the company’s Bill, and of 1,500 l. for opposition to the
regulations, legal advice having first been taken (from Mr. Manisty) in support of such pay-
ments: judgment subsequently obtained against the Corporation in respect thereof, 80–
88. 150. 241-243 Explanation as to the Corporation having understood that they
could not legally expend the rates in promoting Bill: personal liability incurred on this
score, 87, 88. 342, 343.
(Mr. Yeomans.) Information in connection with the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench, as well as with the data on which it was assumed by witness that the Corporation
had power to promote their own Bill, and to oppose the company’s Bill out of the rates,
89–102—(Mr. Yeomans and Mr. Moore.) Explanations on the subject of the audit of
the item of 1,500 l. spent in opposing the regulations before the magistrates, 95-97. 139–
149—(Mr. Yeomans.) Frequent complaints by the ratepayers previously to 1870 as to
the deficient supply of water, and as to the loss of labour and of wages in consequence,
102–1 12– Act obtained by the company in 1864 empowering an increase of charges
0.84. K 4 to
8O M O O R. E.
Report, 1872—continued.
Moore, Thomas, and John Yeomans. (Analysis of their Evidence)—continued.
to the extent of 25 per cent. in connection with an obligation to give constant supply,
113-119. &
(Mr. Moore.) Total of about 14,000 l., for which the ratepayers of Sheffield would
become liable under the retrospective provisions of the Bill before the Committee;
several items, in respect of water and gas, of which composed, 120–125. 248-253
Explanation as to the cost of the Improvement Bill of 1871 not being included in the
foregoing total, 126–138. 260 Total of 6,065 l. incurred in promoting two Gas Bills
in 1870; this amount has not been paid nor audited, 162–170. 317 Object of one
Gas Bill to purchase the existing works, the other being an alternative Bill for the erec-
tion of new works: explanation as to the rejection of each Bill on the preamble, and as
to the grounds for bringing them forward at all, 162–165, 190-204.
(Mr. Moore and Mr Yeomans.) Statements on the subject of the actual cost, and of
the estimated cost to the corporation in promoting and opposing Bills in 1870; 171–178. 248-
253—(Mr. Moore.) Frequent expense imposed upon the corporation in past years in
watching the Water Company's Bills, 179—Expenditure of 3,436 l. in respect of the
company’s Bill of 1864; important benefits derived from this outlay, 180–184. 269-271.
492 Cost of 774 l. in respect of the Gas Company’s Bill of 1866: increased
illuminating power obtained, 185–189 Complaint as to the Sheffield Gas Company,
and gas companies generally, incurring much wasteful expenditure, rather than reduce
the price, when the maximum dividend is reached; reference hereon to the price and
quality of the Sheffield gas, 193-199. 326–339. 344–349. 484-486 Conditions under
which it was proposed to purchase the gasworks; good dividend offered, 200–202.
318–325. 510–513 Explanation as to no offer having been made by the corporation
to purchase the waterworks, 205–208.
(Mr. Yeomans.) Explanations in reference to the authority under which regulations as
to water fittings, &c., may be made, and as to the right of opposition before the justices,
209–220 (Mr. Moore.) Further evidence relative to the effect of the amended regu-
lations as regards pipes and fittings; great saving of consumption or waste since the old
pipes have been replaced, 221–232—(Mr. Yeomans.) Obligation upon the company to
supply water for trade purposes, 234–236.
(Mr. Moore.) Object of the audit of the borough accounts merely to see that there
are vouchers for the expenditure, 237–240 Statement as to the borough rates being
the only source whence to defray expenses in connection with water, gas, &c., 244-247.
254–260 Reduction hoped for in some of the items comprising the total liability of
the corporation, 252. 514–516 Defence of the course pursued by the corporation in
endeavouring to secure gas of lower price and better quality; frequent complaint as to
the quality of the gas, 266-268. 272-284.
Bursting of the Sheffield reservoir adverted to in connection with the Water Company’s
Bill of 1864, and the modification made therein at the instance of the corporation, 285–
, 294 Much larger expense incurred by the company than by the corporation in the
inquiry in 1864; 295-303 Circumstance of the Lord Chief Justice having in a sense
justified the opposition by the corporation to the regulations proposed by the company as
to fittings, although the judgment was adverse to the rates being charged with the cost
of opposition, 304-306 General feeling among the ratepayers, with the exception
of the water and gas shareholders, in approval of the course adopted by the corporation,
307-313. 493-4.99 Willingness of the corporation to submit accounts of costs, &c.,
to a proper audit, 3 14-316.
Belief that when witness became mayor of Sheffield four years ago, there were no
surplus funds of the corporation, 342, 343—-Impression that it was never considered
by the corporation whether the money spent in opposition to the Water Company’s pro-
posed regulations could be charged by them in their capacity as the sanitary authority
or local board of health, 369-382 (Mr. Yeomans.) Explanation on the foregoing
point, with reference more especially to the case submitted to Mr. Manisty, and to his
opinion that the expense could be paid out of the borough rate, 383-402.
(Mr. Moore.) Inadequacy of the testing clauses of the Sheffield Gas Act, the gas
being still very foul though the illuminating power is more satisfactory, 403-429—(Mr.
Yeomans.) Improved arrangements as to testing since the period of the Sheffield Act,
the question being still a very difficult one, 429–431 (Mr. Moore.) Admission that
the published accounts of the Gas Company have not been carefully checked at the
instance of the corporation in order to see whether there was wasteful expenditure, 432–
455. 491—Price of the gas further adverted to in reference more especially to the cost
of the public lamps ; payment of about 9,000 l. a year for these, 456-466. 528–532
Doubt as to the corporation having made direct complaint to the company about the
quality of the gas, 467, 468.
Pressure by the ratepayers for the purchase of the gas works by the corporation, 469.
482, 483 Sufficiency of a rate of 6 d. in the pound on the rateable value of Sheffield
to pay off the 14,000 l. of liability in respect of the Water and Gas Bills; very heavy
rates of the town already, 470-481 Peculiarly large consumption of gas in sº 5
II) ſellence
M O O S H E 81
Report, 1872—continued.
*
Moore, Thomas, and John Yeomans. (Analysis of their Evidence)—continued.
inference as to the saving feasible after payment of maximum dividends to shareholders,
484-490. -
Further explanation of the circumstances under which the corporation felt it their
duty to promote a Water Bill, whilst they subsequently felt constrained to withdraw it
through fear of personal liability for the expense, 500–509—Constant supply now
being given by the Water Company; peculiar demand for such supply at Sheffield, 517–
521——Approval of a more stringent audit of the borough accounts, 522–526.
P.
Petitions. List of the petitions referred to the Committee in favour of the Bill, Rep. iii-v.
— List of petitions against the Bill, ib. v.-vii. List of places which have petitioned
for alteration of the Bill, ib. vii, viii. . .
Portobello. See Edinburgh. Leith and Portobello.
Promotion of Bills. See Costs and Expenses. Edinburgh. Illegality of Expenditure.
Tèatepayers. Sheffield.
R.
Ratepayers. Expediency of the check of the ratepayers upon the undue promotion of Bills
by local public bodies, Miller 1389–1394 Concurrence in the view as to the propriety
of local public bodies being restricted by the opinion of the ratepayers as to the promo-
tion of Bills, Wormald 1488–1506. 1534–1536.
See also Costs and Earpenses. Edinburgh. Sheffield.
Retrospective Action of Bill. Common justice in adopting the retrospective action of the
Bill before the Committee, as contained in the fifth clause, Marwick 1214.
Disapproval of the retrospective action of the fifth clause of the Bill before the
Committee, Miller 1315–1319. 1382 Admission as to the hardship of not allowing
payment of expenses incurred in good faith, ib. 1342–1351.
Decided objection to the retrospective action of the fifth clause of the Bill, and to the
proposed reference to the Secretary of State, Wormald 1454–1457. 1497–1499. 1550–
1 555.
Amendment proposed in the Committee, at the end of the fifth clause, providing that
the clause shall not authorise allowance to be made in respect of costs and charges,
unless it shall appear that the governing body had acted bond fide, and in the belief that
such costs and charges might be lawfully incurred, Rep. xiv, xv.
Division upon the foregoing amendment, which is negatived by the casting vote of the
Chairman, Rep. xv.
See also Costs and Expenses. Edinburyh. Halifax. Petitions. Scotland.
Sheffield.
S.
St. Mary's Loch Scheme (Edinburgh Water Supply). See Edinburgh.
scotland. Advocacy of the extension of the Bill to Scotland, Marwick 1003 et seq.-
Support given to the Edinburgh Water Trustees’ Bill of 1871 by the Convention of
Royal Burghs in Scotland, ib. 1170–1174. 12 5–1217 Common justice in extending
the fifth clause of the Bill before the Committee to Scotland, ib. 1214.
Secretary of State. Objections to the proposal to leave it to the Secretary of State to
determine the matter of payment, Miller 1276. 1315. 1360, 1361; Wormald 1454–1457.
1497–1499. I 550-1 555 Statement favourable to the proposed reference to the Home
Secretary, under the fifth clause, Watt 1414. &
SH EFFIELD (WATER AND GAS SUPPLY) :
1. Evidence in Explanation and Defence of the Course pursued by the Corpo-
ration, and of the Expense incurred, in reference to the Water Supply
of the Town, and the Regulations and Bills promoted on the Subject.
2. Evidence in justification of the action of the Water Company, and in dis-
approval of the larye Earpenditure incurred by the Corporation.
3. Opinion of Mr. Manisty as to the Legality of the Earpenditure incurred in
- opposing the Water Company's Bill. ~ *
4. Gas Supply. * * *
5. Improvement Bill of 1871.
0.84. L 1, Evidence
82 S H E F F I E L D, &c.
Report, 1872—continued.
SHEFFIELD (WATER AND GAS SUPPLY)—continued.
1. Evidence in Explanation and Defence of the Course pursued by the Corporation
and of the Expense incurred, in reference to the Water Supply of the Town,
and the Regulations and Bills promoted on the Subject:
Objectionable and costly regulations proposed by the Sheffield Water Company, before
the justices in 1869, as to fittings, &c., in reference to constant supply, Moore 5–13. 263–
265— Opposition made by the Corporation to the proposed regulations, counsel having
been employed on each side, and the proceedings having lasted for thirteen days at a
cost of 1,500 l. to the Corporation, ib. 5, 14–16. 32. 161, 162 Notice suddenly given by
the company in 1869 of a Bill in Parliament, embodying almost literally the regulations
proposed before the magistrates, ib. 5-8. 44–53 Proposal in the Bill to postpone the
constant supply from 1869 till 1876, ib. 5–7. 48 It was calculated that the regula-
tions as first proposed, would cost the consumers 150,000 l., ib. 13. 263-265.
Confirmation, with very few exceptions, of the counter-propositions made by the
Corporation before the magistrates, examination as to the grounds for this statement,
Moore 17–31. 36-38—Notice given to the company in 1869 to provide a constant
supply; discontinuance of such supply after it had been only one month in operation,
the works not having been completed as required by Act, ib. 33–35. 39–43 — Re-
solution arrived at by the town council in 1869, in favour of the immediate promo-
tion of a Bill for the purchase of the works of the company; public uneeting subsequently
of the ratepayers when the Corporation Bill was sanctioned, and it was resolved also to
oppose the company’s Bill, ib. 46–69 —-- Withdrawal of the company’s Bill in March
1870; subsequent withdrawal of the Corporation Bill, ib. 70–75. 350–368–Cost of
4,113 l incurred in promoting the Corporation Water Bill ; explanation as to this
amount not having been audited, the greater portion having never been paid, ib. 76–80.
150-160.
Payment of 1,000 l. out of the rates towards the opposition to the company's Bill, and
of 1,500 l. for opposition to the regulations, legal advice having first been taken from
Mr. Manisty in support of such payments; judgment subsequently obtained against
the Corporation in respect thereof, Moore 80–88. 150. 241-243 Explanation as to the
Corporation having understood that they could not legally expend the rates in promoting
the Bill; personal liability incurred on this score, ib. 87, 88, 342, 343.
Information in connection with the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, as well
as with the data on which it was assumed by witness that the Corporation had power to
promote their own Bill and to oppose the company's Bill out of the rates, Yeomans 89–
I O2 Explanations on the subject of the audit of the item of 1,500 l. spent in opposing
the regulations before the magistrates, Yeomans and Moore 95–97. 139-149 Frequent
complaints by the ratepayers, previously to 1870, as to the deficient supply of water, and
as to the loss of labour and of wages in consequence, Yeomans, 102–1 12. 350-352
Act obtained by the company in 1864, empowering an increase of charges to the extent of
25 per cent., in connection with an obligation to give constant supply, ib. 113–l 19.
Total of about 14,000 l., for which the ratepayers of Sheffield would become liable
under the retrospective provisions of the Bill before the Committee; several items in
respect of water and gas of which composed, Moore 120–125. 248-253 Statements on
the subject of the actual cost, and of the estimated cost to the Corporation in promoting
and opposing the Bills in 1870, Moore and Yeomans 171–178. 248-253 Frequent ex-
pense imposed upon the Corporation in past years in watching the Water Counpany’s Bills,
Moore 179 Expenditure of 3,436 l, in respect of the company's Bill of 1864; im-
portant benefits derived from this outlay, ib. 180–184. 269-271. 492——Explanation as
to no offer having been made by the Corporation to purchase the waterworks, before the
Compulsory Bill was introduced, ib. 205–208.
Explanation in reference to the authority under which regulations as to water fittings,
&c., may be made, and as to the right of opposition before the justices, Yeomans 209–220
—Further evidence relative to the effect of the amended regulations as regards pipes
and fittings; great reduction of waste since the old pipes have been replaced, Moore 221–
232 Obligation upon the company to supply water for trade purposes, Yeomans 234–
236— Statement as to the borough rates being the only source whence to defray ex-
penses in connection with water, gas, &c., Moore 244-247. 254-260 Reduction
hoped for in some of the items comprising the total liability of the Corporation, ib. 252.
514–516. -
Bursting of the Sheffield reservoir adverted to in connection with the Water Company's
Bill of 1864, and the modification made therein at the instance of the Corporation, Moore
285–294 Much larger expense incurred by the company than by the Corporation in
the inquiry of 1864, ib. 295-303 Circumstance of the Lord Chief Justice having, in a
sense, justified the opposition by the Corporation to the regulations proposed by the com-
pany as to fittings, although the judgment was adverse to the rates being charged with
the cost of opposition, ib. 304-306.
General feeling among the ratepayers, with the exception of the water and gas share-
holders, in approval of the course adopted by the Corporation, Moore 307-313. 493-499
mpression
S H E F F I E L D, &c. 83
Report, 1872—continued.
SHEFFIELD (WATER AND GAS SUPPLY)—continued.
1. Evidence in Earplanation and Defence of the course pursued, &c.—continued.
—lmpression that it was never considered by the Corporation whether the money spent
in opposition to the Water Company’s proposed regulations could be charged by them in
their capacity as the sanitary authority or local board of health, Moore 369-382 Suffi-
ciency of a rate of 6 d. in the pound on the rateable value of Sheffield to pay off the
14,000 l. of liability in respect of the Water and Gas Bills; very heavy rates of the town
already, ib. 470-481. 3.
Further explanation of the circumstances under which the Corporation felt it their duty
to promote a Water Bill, whilst they subsequently felt constrained to withdraw it through
fear of personal liability for the expense, Moore 500–509 Constant supply now
being given by the Water Company; peculiar demand for such supply at Sheffield, ib.
517–52 1.
2. Evidence in Justification of the Action of the Water Company, and in Dis-
approval of the Large Expenditure incurred by the Corporation :
Incorporation of the Sheffield Water Company in 1830, the rates then fixed having
continued practically the same till 1853, Smith 536, 537 Promotion by the company
of a Bill in 1853 for an extension of works, the Corporation having withdrawn from
threatened opposition to the Bill upon the company consenting to a reduction of nearly
fifty per cent. in the rates, ib. 537–542. 707–716. 930-937 Important character of
these works, which were all completed by 1863, ib. 542.
Obligation upon the company under the Act of 1853 to give a constant supply in ten
years at the requisition of the town council ; absence of any formal requisition though
a letter of inquiry was sent to the company by the Corporation in February 1864, Smith
542-547 Bursting of the Dale Dyke Reservoir in March 1864, so that the question
of a constant supply could not be entertained, ib. 547, 548. 703+706——Exception taken
to the verdict of the coroner’s jury, attributing the accident to the want of engineering
skill, ib. 548–552 Denial that the claims consequent upon the accident, and paid by
the company, were so paid as though the verdict was one of negligence, ib. 552–554.
Information relative to the Bill promoted by the company in 1864, the Corporation
having spent, illegally, 3436 l. in opposing the Bill, to little, if any, purpose, Smith 552–
560——Modification of the proposal of the Bill of 1864, as to an increase of rates to
the extent of 25 per cent, in perpetuity; limitation of such increase to twenty-five years,
this, however, being no practical advantage to the present water-rate payers, ib. 554–557
Chief object of the opposition of the Corporation in 1864 to obtain compulsory
powers of purchase, whereas the company naturally objected to sell at a time of adversity,
ib. 555, 556.
Further illegal expenditure in opposing a Bill promoted by the company in 1865, for
extending the time for settling the claims consequent upon the accident to the reservoir,
Smith 561. Further opposition unsuccesfully, by the town council to a Bill in 1866,
relative to the purchase of the compensation water from millowners: failure however of
the company to obtain what they applied for, ib. 561–565. 569. 724-729——Regulations
prepared in 1869, in view of the introduction of a constant supply in July of that year;
necessity of these regulations as shown by the immense waste at first, under the new
system, ib. 565-583—The consumption per head per day was at first, forty gallons,
but has since been reduced to eighteen gallons, ib. 570–574.733-743. 929.
Comment upon the opposition made by the Corporation, before the justices, to the
regulations, and upon the expense thus incurred ; limited; extent to which alteration resulted
therefrom, the company having practically obtained the chief securities and precautions
applied for, Smith 570-591. 958, 959—Explanation as to the company having given
notice of a Bill in November 1869, embodying the proposed regulations, and modifying the
requirments as to constant supply; contment upon the simultaneous notice given by
the Corporation of a Bill to purchase the water-works compulsorily, ib. 591–6:1. 641,
642. 960–973 Refusal of the directors of the company to call a meeting of the
shareholders in order to determine the question of sale to the town council, ib. 605–61 1.
Injunction subsequently obtained against the Corporation restraining them from
spending the rates in promoting water and gas Bills, Smith 611-614 Personal
guarantee entered into by certain gentlemen with the town clerk for the payment of the
cost of the Corporation Water and Gas Bills of 1870; heavy expense incurred in connec-
tion with these Bills, which all failed, ib. 624–628.
Dissent from the statement that the ratepayers have been unanimous in approving the
proceedings of the Corporation, as against the water and gas companies; exceptions
taken to the course pursued as regards public meetings on the subject, Smith 629–633.
638-641. 877–885, 974–996— Payment of the borough rate at Sheffield with the
poor-rate since 1869, and without composition, an increase of the rate falling on the
landlords, ib. 634–638. 901–904 Few complaints by manufacturers as to the scarcity of
water, until after the accident to the reservoir, ib. 643–648——Payment by the Corpora-
O.84. M. tion
84 S H E F F I E L D, &c.
Report, 1872—continued.
.*-*msº —-d
SHEFFIELD (WATER AND GAS SUPPLY)—continued.
2. Evidence in Justification of the Action of the Water Company, &c.—continued.
tion of 1,000 l. in 1870 on account of the opposition to the company's Bill of 1869, Smith
660–662.
Documentary evidence in 1870 and 1871 relative to the several payments made, or pro-
posed to be made, by the Corporation in respect of the promotion of, or opposition to,
difierent water Bills; counter statements put forth in letters of witness and the town
clerk on the subject, Smith 662–664 Diverse statements on the part of the town council
as to the amount of expense in opposing the Company's Bill of 1869. ib. 664.
Explanation that the Court of Queen’s Bench in deciding against the Corporation, and
at the same time sympathising with that body, had not heard the Water Company on
the merits of the case, Smith 664–667. 81 1–818 Comment upon the insertion of
notice of a water Bill by the Corporation in 1870, and again in 1871, although no further
steps were taken, ib. 668–675 Voluntary rate of 6 d. in the pound now being raised
by the Corporation to pay off their liabilities, ib. 673, 674.
Total expenditure of 23,272 l, by the Corporation during the last eight years in Par-
mentary proceedings and litigation in respect of water, gas, &c., ib. 675–677. 691
Reasons for the larger expenditure of the water company than of the town council in the
proceedings before the justices respecting the regulations, ib. 678-682. 916–918. 958,
959. Much larger expenditure of the Corporation than of the Company in the litiga-
tion upon the Bill introduced by the latter in 1870, ib. 683–688. 966–973 Very
similar amount of expenditure of the company and of the Corporation in respect of Bills
since 1853; payment of the company’s expenditure chiefly out of capital, ib. 689-697.
840–842—IBare earning of a dividend of 3 per cent. by the company at the present,
time, ib. 697—There was nothing in the Bill of 1853 about rates, ib. 712-716.
Further statement that the contention between the Corporation and the water company
has had reference chiefly to the question of purchase of the works at a time of depression,
Smith 730-732. 770-772. 784, 785 Immense waste at first, under the constant supply,
as compared with the consumption under improved regulations, ib. 733–743. 749–759
Varying pressure upon the pipes, the town being very undulating, ib. 744, 745.
Explanation with further reference to the letter from the town council in February
1864 upon the subject of constant supply, this not having been a formal application under
the Act, Smith 746—748. 754–765 Exception taken to the statement that Government
engineers who examined the Dale Dyke Reservoir reported that the company had not
fulfilled its obligations to complete the works; letter from the mayor of Sheffield, in
January 1869, upon this question, ib. 766–784 Failure of the coronor's jury properly
to comprehend the question at issue, ib. 783. 938, 939–––Statement to the effect that it
was at the instance of Lord Harrowby (one of the Lords' Committee on the Bill of 1864),
and not of the Corporation, that the clause was introduced into the Bill rendering proof of
negligence unnecessary as regards claims through inundations, ib. 785–810. 919–925.
946-950. -
Justification of the course pursued by the company in giving notice of a Bill in
November 1869 for settling the regulations, whilst the matter was before the magistrates,
Smith 819–830. 958–970— Further coulment upon the action of the town council in
suddenly giving notice in 1869 of their Bill containing powers to purchase, ib. 831,
832—Inaccuracy of a statement that the water ratepayers were benefited to the extent
of 150,000 l. by the opposition of the Corporation to the regulations proposed before the
justices; public benefit conferred by the regulations, as promoted by the company,
ib. 833–839. 926-929 Individual interest of members of the town council in getting
the waterworks into their hands, ib. 843–847.
Further evidence to the impropriety and the illegality of expenditure out of the rates
in promoting water Bills, or in opposing them beyond their jurisdiction, Smith 848–855.
877–889. 95 I-957 Low price offered by the Corporation for the shares of the com-
pany, there having been, however, an alternative offer of an arbitration price, ib. 890–900
Relative amount of the water rate on cottage property in Sheffield and in Manchester,
ib. 905–908. 997-1001—— Average of about 80 l. as the present value of each 100 l. share
of the Sheffield company, the dividend earned being about 2% per cent. ib. 909-91.4
Explanation that the limitation of the increased rates to a period of twenty-five years was
not the result of any proposal by the Corporation, ib. 940–945.
3. Opinion of Mr. Manisty as to the Legality of the Earpenditure incurred in
Opposing the Water Company's Bill:
Explanation with reference to the case submitted to Mr. Manisty, and to his opinion
that the expense could be paid out of the borough rate, Yeomans 383-402.
Copy of opinion of Mr. Manisty to the effect that the expenses of the magisterial pro-
ceedings, and the expensss of opposing the Water Company’s Bill in Parliament, may be
legally paid out of the borough rate, App. 71.
4. Gas
S H E S M I 85
Report, 1872—continued.
*—
SHEFFIELD (WATER AND GAS SUPPLY)—continued.
4. Gas Supply:
Total expenditure of 6,065 l. incurred by the Corporation in promoting two Gas Bills in
1870; this amount has not been paid nor audited, Moore 162–170.317 Object of one
Gas Bill to purchase the existing works, the other being an alternative Bill for the erec-
tion of new works; explanation as to the rejection of each Bill on the preamble, and
as to the grounds for bringing them forward at all, ib. 162–165. 190–204 Cost of
774 /. incurred by the Corporation in respect of the Gas Company's Bill of 1866;
increased illuminating power obtained, ib. 185–189.
Complaint as to the Sheffield Gas Company, and Gas Companies generally, incurring
much wasteful expenditure, rather than reduce the price, when the maximum dividend is
reached; reference hereon to the price and quality of the Sheffield gas, Moore 193-199.
326-339. 344-349. 484-486 Defence of the course pursued by the Corporation in
endeavouring to secure gas of lower price and better quality; frequent complaint as to
the quality of gas, ib. 266-268. 272-284 Inadequacy of the testing clauses of the
Sheffield Gas Act, the gas being still very foul though the illuminating power is more
Satisfactory, ib. 403-429 Improved arrangements as to testing since the period of the
Sheffield Act, the question being still a very difficult one, Yeomans 429–431.
Admission that the published accounts of the Gas Company have not been carefully
checked at the instance of the Corporation in order to see whether there was wasteful
expenditure, Moore 432–445. 491 Price of gas adverted to in reference more espe-
cially to the cost of the public lamps; payment of about 9,000 l. a year for these, ib. 456–
466. 528–532 Doubt as to the Corporation having made direct complaint to the com-
pany about the quality of the gas, ib. 467, 468 Pressure by the ratepayers for the
purchase of the gasworks by the Corporation, ib. 469. 482, 483 Peculiarly large
consumption of gas in Sheffield; inference as to the saving feasible after payment of
maximum dividends to shareholders. ib. 484-490.
5. Improvement Bill of 1871.
Explanation as to the cost of the Improvement Bill of 1871, not being included in the
total expenditure of 14,000 l. to be covered by the retrospective action of the Bill before
the Committee, Moore 126–138. 260.
Comment upon the action of the Corporation, and the expense incurred, in reference
to the Improvement Bill of 1871 ; eventual withdrawal of all the clauses objected to,
Smith 648–660 — Influential opposition to the Improvement Bill, and its retrospective
action, Lord Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Norfolk, and numerous large ratepayers having
opposed it, ib. 649–654. 717–723. 856–865.
See also Audit of Accounts. Surplus (Borough Funds). Venables, Mr.
Smith, Ralph Blakelock. (Analysis of his Evidence.)—Is clerk and solicitor to the Sheffield
Water Company, and appears in opposition to the fifth clause of the Bill before the
Committee, 533–535 Incorporation of the company in 1830, the rates then fixed
having continued practically the same till 1853; 536, 537 Promotion by the company
of a Bill in 1853 for an extension of works, the Corporation having withdrawn from the
threatened opposition to the Bill upon the company consenting to a reduction of nearly
50 per cent. in the rates, 537–542. 707-716. 930-937—Important character of these
works, which were all completed by 1863; 542.
Obligation upon the company under the Act of 1853 to give a constant supply in
ten years at the requisition of the town council; absence of any formal requisition,
though a letter of inquiry was sent to the company by the Corporation in February 1864;
542-547 Bursting of the Dale Dyke Reservoir in March 1864, so that the question
of a constant supply could not be entertained, 547, 548. 703–706 Exception taken
to the verdict of the coroner's jury, attributing the accident to the want of engineering
skill, 548–552 Denial that the claims consequent upon the accident, and paid by the
company, were so paid as though the verdict was one of negligence, 552–554.
Information relative to the Bill promoted by the company in 1864, the Corporation
having spent, illegally, 3,436 l. in opposing the Bill, to little, if any, purpose, 552-560
— Modification of the proposal in the Bill of 1864 as to an increase of rates to the
extent of 25 per cent. in perpetuity; limitation of such increase to twenty-five
years, this however being no practical advantage to the present water ratepayers, 554-
557 Chief object of the opposition of the Corporation in 1864 to obtain compulsory
powers of purchase, whereas the company naturally objected to sell at a time of adversity,
555, 556 Further illegal expenditure in opposing a Bill promoted by the company in
1865 for extending the time for settling the claims consequent upon the accident to the
reservoir, 561.
Further opposition unsuccessfully by the town council to a Bill in 1866 relative to the
purchase of the compensation water from mill owners; failure, however, of the company
to obtain what they applied for, 561–565. 569, 57.0. 724–729 Regulations prepared in
1869 in view of the introduction of a constant supply in July of that year; necessity of
G.84. M 3 these
86 - sM IT H.
Report, 1872—continued.
Smith, Ralph Blakelock. (Analysis of his Evidence)—continued.
these regulations as shown by the immense waste at first under the new system, 565-583
Comment upon the opposition made by the corporation, before the justices, to the regu-
lations, and upon the expense thus incurred ; limited extent to which alteration resulted
therefrom, the company having practically obtained the chief securities and precautions
applied for, 570-591. 958, 959 Explanation as to the company having given notice
of a Bill in November 1869, embodying the proposed regulations and modifying the
the requirements as to constant supply; comment upon the simultaneous notice given by
the corporation of a Bill to purchase the waterworks compulsorily, 591–611. 641, 642.
960–973 Refusal of the directors of the company to call a meeting of the shareholders
in order to determine the question of sale to the town council, 605–61 1.
Injunction subsequently obtained against the corporation restraining them from spending
the rates in promoting water and gas Bills, 611-614—Personal guarantee entered into
by certain gentlemen with the town clerk for the payment of the costs of the corporation
water and gas Bills of 1870; heavy expense incurred in connection with these Bills,
which all failed, 614-628—Dissent from the statement that the ratepayers have been
unanimous in approving the proceedings of the corporation, as against the Water and
Gas Company; exceptions taken to the course pursued as regards public meetings on the
subject, 629-633. 638–641. 877–885. 974–996.
Payment of the borough rate at Sheffield with the poor rate since 1869, and without
composition, an increase of the rate falling on the landlords, 634–638. 901–904 Few
complaints by manufacturers as to the scarcity of water, until after the accident to the
reservoir, 643-648 Comment upon the action of the corporation, and the expense
incurred, in reference to the Improvement Bill of 1871 ; eventual withdrawal of all the
clauses objected to, 648–660 Influential opposition to the Improvement Bill, and its
retrospective action, Lord Fitzwilliam, the Duke of Norfolk, and numerous large rate-
payers having opposed it, 649–654. 717–723. 856–865 Payment by the corporation
of 1,000 l. in 1870 on account of the opposition to the Company's Bill of 1869; 660–
662.
Documentary evidence in 1870 and 1871 relative to the several payments made, or
proposed to be made, by the corporation in respect of the promotion of, or opposition to,
different water Bills; counter statements put forth in letters of witness and the town
clerk on the subject, 662-664 Diverse statements on the part of the town council as
to the amount of expense in opposing the Company’s Bill of 1869; 664––Explanation
that the Court of Queen's Bench in deciding against the corporation, and at the same time
sympathising with that body, had not heard the Water Company on the merits of the
case, 664–667. 811–818.
Comment upon the insertion of notice of a Water Bill by the corporation in 1870, and
again in 1871, although no further steps were taken, 668–675—Voluntary rate of 6 d.
in the pound now being raised by the corporation to pay off their liabilities, 673, 674
Total expenditure of 23,272 l, by the corporation during the last eight years in Parlia-
mentary proceedings and litigation in respect of water, gas, &c. 675–677. 691 Reasons
for the larger expenditure of the water company than of the town council in the proceedings
before the justices respecting the regulations, 678-682. 916–918. 958, 959––Much larger
expenditure of the corporation than of the company in the litigation upon the Bill intro-
duced by the latter in 1870; 683–688. 966–973 Very similar amount of expenditure
of the company and of the corporation in respect of Bills since 1853; payment of the
company's expenditure chiefly out of capital, 689-697. 840–842.
Bare earning of a dividend of three per cent. by the company at the present time, 697
Several decisions of the courts as to illegality of expenditure out of the rates in pro-
moting Bills, 698–702 Further statement that the contention between the corporation
and the water company has had reference chiefly to the question of purchase of the works
at a time of depression, 730-732. 770–772. 784,785 Immense waste at first under the
constant supply, as compared with the consumption under improved regulations, 733–
743. 749–753——Varying pressure upon the pipes, the town being very undulating, 744,
745.
Explanation with further reference to the letter from the town council in February
1864, upon the subject of constant supply, this not having been a formal application
under the Act, 746—748. 754–765 Exception taken to the statement that Government
engineers who examined the Dale Dyke Reservoir reported that the company had not
fulfilled its obligations to complete the works; letter from the Mayor of Sheffield in Janu-
ary 1869, upon this question, 766–784 Failure of the coroner's jury properly to com-
prehend the question at issue, 783. 938, 939.
Statement to the effect that it was at the instance of Lord Harrowby (one of the Lords
Committee on the Bill of 1864) and not of the corporation that the clause was introduced
into the Bill, rendering proof of negligence unnecessary as regards claims through inun-
dations, 785–810. 919–925. 946–950 Justification of the course pursued by the com-
pany in giving notice of a Bill in November 1869 for settling the regulations, whilst the
matter was before the magistrates, 819–830. 958–970 Further comment upon the
- action
S M I. * , W O R. - 87
Report, 1872—continued.
Smith, Ralph Blakelock. (Analysis of his Evidence)—continued.
action of the town council in suddenly giving notice in 1869 of their Bill containing
powers to purchase, 831, 832.
Inaccuracy of a statement that the water ratepayers were benefited to the extent of
150,000 l. by the opposition of the Corporation to the regulations proposed before the
justices; public benefit conferred by the regulations as promoted by the company, 833–
839, 926–929 Individual interest of members of the Town Council in getting the
waterworks into their hands, 843–847 Further evidence as to the impropriety and the
illegality of expenditure out of the rates in promoting water Bills, or in opposing them
beyond their jurisdiction, 848–855: 877–889, 951-957 Probable legality of the
expenditure if there had been a surplus of the borough fund out of which to defray it,
852-855. *
Low price offered by the Corporation for the shares of the company, there having been,
however, an alternative offer of an arbitration price, 890–900 Relative amount of the
water rate on cottage property in Sheffield and in Manchester, 905–908. 997-1001——
Average of about 8ol. as the present value of each 100 l. share of the Sheffield Company,
the dividend earned being about two-and-a-half per cent., 909-91.4 Explanation that
the linitation of the increased rates to a period of twenty-five years was not the result
of any proposal by the Corporation, 940–945.
Surplus (Borough Funds). Belief that when witness became Mayor of Sheffield, four
years ago, there were no surplus funds of the Corporation, Moore 342, 343 Probable
legality of the expenditure by the Sheffield Corporation in respect of water Bills, &c., if
there had been a surplus of the borough fund out of which to defray it, Smith 852-855.
T.
Title of Bill. Amendment made by the Committee in the title of the Bill, Rep. ix.
V.
Venables, Mr. Circumstance of Mr. Venables (as counsel) and his clerk having declined
to accept payment for services in respect of certain proceedings in Parliament of the
Sheffield Corporation, Moore 169. 3.17.
Voluntary Assessment (Promotion of Bills). Approval of the promotion of Bills being
restricted by the opinion of the ratepayers, who can assess themselves voluntarily in the
event of failure of the Bills, Wormald 1488–1506. 1534–1536.
W.
Water Supply. See Edinburgh. Sheffield.
Watt, James. (Analysis of his Evidence.)—Is provost of Leith, 1395, 1396 Testifies to
the numerous and well-founded complaints made by the ratepayers of Leith for several
years past, relative to the very deficient water supply of the town, 1397–1402
Unanimous and continued approval by the Town Council of Leith of the steps taken for
transferring the Edinburgh Water Company’s works to a public trust, and for going to
St. Mary’s Loch for an additional supply; public meeting on the subject in July 1868;
1402–1408—Absence of objection to the scheme at any of the ward meetings in Leith
in 1868, 1869, and 1870; 1409.
Issue of circulars in Leith and Portobello, when the Water Trustees Bill of 1871 was
before the House of Lords, in order to ascertain the views of the ratepayers; considerable
number of objectors to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme, 141 1, 1412——Unanimous approval
of the Bill by the Town Council of Portobello, 1412 General feeling of the better
classes in Leith, that the promoters of the Bill of 1871 should not be mulcted in personal
expenses, 1413, 1414——Approval of the arbitration vested in the Home Secretary under
clause 5 of the Bill before the Committee, 1414. -
Continuance of the same water trustees for Leith and Portobello down to the present
time; rejection in one ward at Leith of a candidate opposed to the action of the trustees,
1415. 1419– Injustice if witness and other official trustees were saddled with a share
of the costs of the Bill of 1871; 1420–1422. 1434–1436——Great inconvenience to ship-
ping at Leith through the deficient water supply; high rate charged, 1427–1429—Very
short supply in 1871, and at the present time, the works being inadequate to meet the
demand, save for domestic purposes, 1430–1433. 1436–1438.
Wormald, Joseph Dawson. (Analysis of his Evidence.)—Is one of the Edinburgh ratepayers'
association, and is a member of the corporation and of the water trust; concurs generally
in the evidence of Mr. Miller, 1439–1444——Opposition of witness to the Water Trustees
Bill of 1871 on account of the expense involved, and because of the doubtful quality of
the water, 1445 Strong objection by witness to the Bill, on the ground that the rate-
0.84. M 3 payers
88. W. O. R. . Y E O
Report, 1872—continued.
Wormald, Joseph Dawson. (Analysis of his Evidence)—continued.
payers had not been fairly consulted as regards the St. Mary's Loch scheme, 1445–1452.
1478–1487. 1577, 1578. :
Belief as to the sufficiency of the present supply of water for Edinburgh, save in ex-
ceptionally dry years; particulars hereon, witness denying that many complaints are
made, 1449. 1465–1467. 1530–1533. 1556–1567 Expenditure of about 9,000 l. by the
ratepayers' association in opposing the Bill of 1871, the amount being almost paid off by
voluntary subscriptions, 1450-1452. 1468 Impression that if the Bill had been with-
drawn, the ratepayers would have raised no difficulty about payment of the costs; state-
ment hereon by Mr. Rodwell adverted to and explained. 1453. 1537-1554.
Decided objection to the retrospective action of the fifth clause of the present Bill,
and to the proposed reference to the Secretary of State, 1454–1457. 1497–1499. 1550–
1555 Probability that the question of expense would never have been raised if the
old water trustees had resigned their seats when the Bill of 1871 was rejected, 1458.
1469–1475—Admission that the trustees may have acted in good faith, although in
any case they incurred an undue amount of expense, 1459–1464. 1476, 1477. 1546–
1549.
Proposition that it be left to the ratepayers to determine whether the expenses of the
Bill shall be paid out of the rates; suggestions as to the detailed mode of carrying out
this proposal, 1488–1496. 1507-1512. 1550–1555. 1568–1579 Defence of the system
whereby local public bodies are restricted by the opinion of the ratepayers as to the
promotion of Bills; facility of voluntary assessment in the event of failure of the Bills,
1488–1506. 1534–1536.
Statement relative to, and in approval of, the mode of payment of the Glasgow Cor-
poration when they got their Loch Katrine Bill, after two failures, 1489—1493. 1500–
1506. 1534–1536 Indirect representation of the ratepayers of Edinburgh by the
water trustees, 1512–1521 Number of trustees for Leith and Portobello, these dis-
tricts having been favourable to the St. Mary’s Loch scheme, 1522-1529 Good
grounds for complaint at Leith and Portobello, as compared with Edinburgh, in regard to
the supply, 1530–1533. 1556–1567.
Y.
Yeomans, John. See Moore, Thomas, and John Yeomans.
R. E. P. O. R. Tº
FROM THE
s E L E C T C 0 M M ITT E £,
ON
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
(BOROUGH FUNDS, BILL;
TOGETHER WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE,
MIN U T E S OF EVIDENCE,
AND APPENDIX.
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
1 May 1872.
[Price 1 s. 2 d.]
177.
Under 10 oz.
* - , -
* “xº~3°
g - - º 3.
- - * -
- .* - w - + i. - -
5 s
- { - ‘. . ;
- - y 4.
& - . . *
- .#
w
- *
*** * a ºn -
{
\\
- ºf 3rº, 22), meat. SELECT COMMITTEE
*
*
ON THE
*8. .
*
w"
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
(BOROUGH, &c. FUNDS, BILL;
|
*** . . . WITH THE
PROCEEDINGs OF THE COMMITTEE,
**. .”.
* * , * ,
w. .*... "
* * * *
...' * *
* Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
12 July 1871.


[ ii \
Friday, 30th June 1871.
MUNICIPAL CoRPORATIONs (BOROUGH FUNDs) BILL, read a second time, and com-
mitted to a Select Committee.
Thursday, 6th July 1871.
Ordered, THAT the Committee do consist of 17 Members.
Committee nominated of—
Mr. Ayrton. Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Viscount Sandon. Mr. Alderman Carter.
Mr. Birley. Mr. Sherriff.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Sir Massey Lopes,
Mr. Hinde Palmer. Mr. Charles Turner.
Mr. Mundella. Mr. Dodds. i
Mr. Cawley. - Mr. Holt.
Mr. Candlish. Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
Ordered, THAT Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
Ordered, THAT all Petitions in reference to the Bill be referred to the Select
Committee. -
REPORT * * * * * * * =
* * * - p. iii
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE - - - - - - p. ix
A--
tly
R. E. P. O. R. T.
THE SELECT COMMITTEE to whom the MUNICIPAL Corporations
(Borough FUNDs, &c.) BILL was referred, have gone through the Bill, and
made Amendments thereunto.
12 July 1871.
sºme
349. A 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE.
Friday, 7th July, 1871.
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Mr. Ayrton. Mr. Dodds.
Mr. Leeman. Mr. F. Stanley.
Mr. Mundella. Mr. Arthur Guest.
Lord Sandon. Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Cawley. Mr. Sherriff.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
Sir Massey Lopes. Mr. Alderman Carter.
Mr. Charles Turner.
Mr. AYRTON was called to the Chair.
The Committee deliberated.
[Adjourned till Wednesday next, at One o'clock.
Wednesday, 12th July, 1871.
MEMBERS PRESENT :
Mr. A YRTon in the Chair.
Mr. Leeman. Mr. Candlish.
Mr. Cawley. Mr. Sherriff.
Mr. Dodds. Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Frederick Stanley. Lord Sandon.
Mr. Hinde Palmer. Mr. Birley.
Sir Massey Lopes. Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Charles Turner. Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
Mr. Holt.
In the absence of Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Frederick Stanley took the Chair.
MUNICIPAL CoR poRATION's (Boroug H FUNDs, &c.) BILL.
Preamble postponed.
Clause I, amended, and agreed to.
Clause 2, amended.—Amendment proposed, in line 6, page 3, after the words “governing
body,” to insert the words “ or by two-thirds of the Members present, and *—(M. Lee-
man).-Question proposed, That those words be there added.—The Committee divided :
Ayes, 6.
Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Charles Turner.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Candlish,
Mr. Sherriff.
Clause further amended, and agreed to.
Clause 3, disagreed to.
Noes, 8.
Mr. Frederick Stanley.
Mr. Dodds.
Mr. Birley.
Sir Massey Lopes.
Mr. Holt.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Lord Sandon.
[ v |
Clauses 4 and 5, amended, and agreed to.
New Clause (Secretary of State not to allow costs incurred more thº
the passing of this Act)–(Mr. A. Guest)—read a first and second time
Question put, That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill. The Coº
Ayes, 10. Noes, 2,
Mr. Hinde Palmer. Mr. Dodds.
Mr. Birley. Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
Sir Massey Lopes.
Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Holt.
Mr. Cawley.
Mr. Arthur Guest.
Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Candlish.
Mr. Sherriff.
Clause added.
New Clause (Governing Body not to take proceedings in certain cases under this Act
without the consent of the ratepayers, &c. in the district)–(Mr. Holt)—brought up, and read a
first time.—Question put, That the Clause be read a second time.—The Committee divided :
Ayes, 4. Noes, 7.
Mr. Birley. Mr. Dodds.
Sir Massey Lopes. & Mr. Hinde Palmer.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Mr. Mundella.
Mr. Candlish.
Mr. Sherriff.
Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
New Clause brought up, and read a first time : (This Act shall not apply to any place
within the Metropolis as the same is defined in the Metropolis Management Act, 1855)—
(Mr. Holt). —Question, That the Clause be read a second time, put, and negatived.
New Clause (In certain cases Governing Body not to take proceedings, &c.)—(Mr. A.
Guest)—brought up, and read a first time.--Question put, That the Clause be read a second
time.—The Committee divided :
Ayes, 5. Noes, 4.
Mr. Birley. Mr. Dodds.
Sir Massey Lopes. Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Candlish.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
Mr. Sherriff.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the words “less than,” to leave out the words
& 4 * > * insert th rds “3,000," instead thereof—(Mr. Dodds).-Questi
5,000," in order to insert the words “3,000, ( OIl
put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.—The Committee
divided :
Ayes, 4. Noes, 5.
Mr. Birley. Mr. Dodds.
Sir Massey Lopes. Mr. Leeman.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Candlish.
Mr. Arthur Guest. Mr. Sherriff.
Mr. Alderman Lawrence.
Question, That the words “3,000 * be there inserted,—put, and agreed to.
Question, That the Clause, as amended, be added,—put, and agreed to.
Another new Clause brought up, read a first and second time, and added.
Preamble considered and amended.--Question, That the Preamble, as amended, be the
preamble of the Bill,—put, and agreed to.
º That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House, put, and
agreed to.
To Report.
349. a 3




R. E. P. O. R. T
FROM THE
s E L E cT com MITTEE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONs
(BOROUGH, &c, FUNDS) BILL;
on THE
WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE.
–4–
ºr-r: r--r:
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
- i2 July 1871.
-**
349.
Under 1 (2.