View report page

116
I recommended—
"That the attention of the Local Government Board be directed to the need of
legislation . . . . to take away the power of the Companies to cut off water from premises,
and to substitute therefor such other powers, to enable the Companies to recover rates
as to their wisdom should seem sufficient and equitable*."
The matter had been dealt with in more than one of my monthly reports in 1882, and these
had been referred to the Sanitary Committee, who reported (inter alia) —
"(a) That the Water Companies should be requested . . . . to give the Vestry
notice in every case when they have cut off the supply of water from inhabited premises,
from whatever cause; and,
"(d) That the Sections of the Acts, conferring on the Water Companies the power of
cutting off the water from premises, should be repealed, such other powers to enable the
Companies to recover rates . . . . being substituted as to the wisdom of Parliament
shall be deemed equitable . . . .
The Committee recommended—
"(e) That (their) report, together with the legal questions raised in the reports of the
Medical Officer of Health (dated February 1st and March 1st, 1882, respectively) be
referred to the Law and Parliamentary Committee, for consideration as to the best way for
giving effect to the recommendations contained in the said reports: and,
"(f) That upon the receipt of a report from the Law and Parliamentary Committee
on the subject, a communication be sent to each Vestry and District Board of Works in
the Metropolis, with a request that they should appoint three of their members to a conference
upon the whole subject of water supply . . . . for the purpose of taking such
action in the matter as may be deemed expedient."
The report was adopted by the Vestry, and referred; but no immediate action was taken
thereon.
The question came up again, in 1884, in an acute form, consequent on the action of the
Grand Junction Waterworks Company in cutting off the supply from Hayden's Mews, Notting
Hill, with the result that 80 persons, occupying 15 separate premises, were deprived of water, for
which they had paid in their weekly rents, the landlord having failed to pay the rate. "The
Company" (as I stated) "had an indubitable right to cut off the water, under the provisions of the
Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847," but did so "without notice to the Vestry, the authority
responsible for the sanitary condition of the Mews, or to the people inhabiting the Mews."
The case attracted wide attention, and the Vestry resolved—
" That a copy of the Report of the Medical Officer of Health 1- (setting out the facte of
the case) and a oopy of (his) correspondence with the Grand Junction Waterworks Company,
be sent to the Home Secretary, the Local Government Board, the Metropolitan Board
of Works, to each member of the Royal Commission on Housing of the Working Classes, to
the several Vestries and District Boards of the Metropolis, and to the Grand Junction Waterworks
Company."
The Royal Commission—of which the President of the Local Government Board was
Chairman, and the (then) Prince of Wales a member—recommended, in their report, that the
Companies be deprived of the summary power to cut off the water supply from inhabited premises.
In the Session of 1885, a Bill was introduced by the Earl of Camperdown, for "Regulating
the Powers of those Water Companies which incorporate in their Special Acts the Waterworks
Clauses Act, 1847." It proposed, among other things, that the Companies should be deprived of
the power of cutting off the supply of water for the non-payment of the rate, except in cases where
an order was obtained, on a summons, setting forth the reason for the power being put in force, and
the date at which the water might be cut off. The Bill found considerable favour with the public,
and also with the sanitary authorities generally, many of whom petitioned in favour: it was supported
by the Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne) and by Lord Salisbury, and referred to a small Select Committee,
upon the understanding that Counsel should not be heard. It emerged from the Committee
room, and passed the Lords, in a form that failed to satisfy public opinion. Petitions were presented
to the House of Commons praying, in effect, that the Bill might be restored to its original shape: it
did not become law.
* My view was "that a Company should demand payment of their water rental in advance, in the case of a bad tenant,
and take proceedings to enforce payment prior to the expiration of the period covered by the demand note," and that the
Companies should be "endowed with the same facilities for recovering their rentals as a nuisance authority for the recovery of
their rates, which are simplicity itself."
† It was a Special Report (No. 13, 1884, December 17th, page 79) setting out the facts of the Hayden's Mews case, and
rtie correspondence between myself and the Secretary of the Water Company.