HC Deb 07 June 1880 vol 252 cc1440-7
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that he begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name. He might state that, in place of Sir John Mowbray, he intended to move that the name of one of the hon. Members for the City of London should be added to the Committee. Some desire had been expressed that power should be given to the parties interested to appear before the Committee by counsel; and, therefore, he should give Notice that it should be added to the Instructions of the Committee that the Corporation of the City of London, the Metropolitan Board of Works; and the Water Companies should be allowed, if they thought fit, to appear by counsel.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Select Committee on London Water Supply do consist of 17 Members."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that he had given Notice of a Motion similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated he intended to propose. He thought it only right that the Water Companies should be allowed to state their case before the Committee in the manner that they thought best. He could assure the House that their desire was to state their case in the fairest possible way.

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

said, that he thought it his duty to draw attention to the fact that the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro, who had taken a very active part in promoting rival Water Companies, had been placed upon this Committee. He should like to ask whether it was usual, in a case of this sort, for the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, in his capacity as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had promoted a rival scheme a few years ago, should be added to the Committee. He thought it would be far better that independent Members with impartial views, and unprejudiced as to the question which would come before them, and unconnected with the Water Companies, should be placed on the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that he must point out to the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough that the Question now before the House was whether the Select Committee on the London Water Supply should consist of 17 Members. The observations of the hon. Baronet would be in order upon the Motion to nominate the Committee.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that he was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary state his intention to allow the parties interested to appeal by counsel if they desired it. He wished to state that the great object the late Government had in view was, if possible, to get all the Water Companies and the rateyayers—the water consumers—together at the same table, in order that matters might be talked over. The great object and principle of the Bill presented in the last Session was to bring the Water Companies and the water consumers together, and submit their case to the judgment of the Committee. It had been stated throughout the country that the object of the Government was directly contrary to that; and the late Government was charged with wishing to force the undertakings of the Water Companies upon the ratepayers of London at a very high price; but all they wanted to do was to secure the water consumers such terms with the Water Companies as were fair. It was desired by him that the matter should be discussed in all its various bearings, and he had no desire whatever to force the direction of the Water Companies upon the Metropolis. It must be remembered, however, that whether they got the water supply of London from the present Water Companies, or from some other source, the whole of London was now intersected with pipes; and it would be a very serious question to break up those pipes. The object which they had in view had been misrepresented, so as to make it appear that they were trying to force on the consumers of the Metropolis a burden for which they were not willing to pay. He therefore wished to say, in the plainest terms, that the simple object of the Government was to get the lowest terms which the Water Companies were willing to sell at, and to submit those terms to the ratepayers and consumers, and see whether they would have them or not.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir James M' Garel-Hogg be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE

said, after the intimation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the Companies would have power of appearing by counsel and tendering evidence on this question, he thought the objection he had made to the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Truro came with even greater force, because it would now be in the power of the Metropolitan Board of Works to employ counsel. It was surely in the interests of the public, and in the interests of the Companies, that this tribunal should be constituted with every regard to impartiality; and it could scarcely be said that a Gentleman who had promoted a rival Bill to take away the rights of the Water Companies, and to seek fresh sources of supply, and who had actually appeared in Parliament as a direct opponent of the Water Companies, could be considered a strictly impartial person on this question. So late even as last Saturday he had appeared as the supporter of the rival scheme to supply London with water; and, therefore, of all men in the House, he surely was the one who ought not to be put on a Committee of this kind. He was not authorized at all to speak on behalf of the Water Companies, for he had raised this question entirely on his own Motion; but he knew that no single Member interested in Water Companies had been asked to sit upon this inquiry in order that it might be a fair and impartial one. He had no doubt his hon. and gallant Friend was of a judicial mind, and would do his best to be fair; but it was not possible for him to come to this subject with complete impartiality. Therefore, he trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would relieve him from the necessity of opposing his name. His hon. and gallant Friend must remember that he had expressed very strong views, even in that House, with regard to Water Companies, and that only two years since he had actually to go to the House to ask it to pass an Act of Parliament to indemnify him for what he had spent in opposing certain schemes of the Water Companies on his own Motion. He believed all Constitutional precedents were against such appointments, and that his hon. and gallant Friend, of all men, should not be nominated on the Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the objection to this name would not be persisted in, for the principle just laid down by the hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough would make appointments on Committees of that House almost impossible. If it was to be a rule that no man was to be appointed on a Committee who had never expressed an opinion on the particular question with which the Committee was to deal, they would have very few Committees in that House. He thought, on the contrary, the better way was to get on the Committee persons who had expressed strong views on the subject, taking care, as far as possible, that one particular view should not be allowed to predominate. It surely could not be said that out of 17 Members of the Committee, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro would have a predominating voice. It was said that his hon. and gallant Friend had opposed the Water Companies; but that had not been done in his private capacity, but in his public position as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was not interested in Water Companies as holding shares, but merely as the representative of the ratepayers. The Corporation of London was represented on the Committee by two of its most distinguished Members, and it seemed to him that it was only fair that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be represented in a similar manner.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

entirely agreed with the observations of the Home Secretary, and said when he was consulted on the matter one of the first names he suggested was this one. The distinction between private interests and public duty was a very clear one, and he took it as a result of that distinction that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was peculiarly fitted to serve on this Committee.

COLONEL MAKINS

thought it would be in the interests of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, in spite of what had been said, that he should not act on this Committee. He knew that it caused considerable surprise and was not calculated to give confidence in Parliamentary Committees, when the hon. and gallant Member was acting on a Committee recently with reference to a Gas Bill in the same way, in his official capacity? It was noticed that he left his seat behind the Table and instructed his counsel on the other side of the room. It was remarked that this practice was not calculated to increase confidence in the impartiality of Parliamentary Committees. He was quite sure that there must be Members who would be quite as well capable of protecting public rights as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, and he must think that it did not seem a correct position for his hon. and gallant Friend to hold.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he should leave himself entirely in the hands of the House in regard to this matter, and he should not have risen had it not been for the observation just made. The hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) had ventured to tell Mm that he had acted as a Member of a Committee in an improper way.

COLONEL MAKINS

If I expressed anything of that kind I at once and unreservedly withdraw it. I merely said that the conduct of the hon. and gallant Gentleman might give that appearance to the public, and that was all that I intended to say or convey.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

was very much obliged for the correction, and he begged leave to recommend the hon. and gallant Member in the future not to suggest inferences of that kind. When he sat upon the Committee he did so by the appointment of the House. He never sought the appointment at the hands of the House, and if the House wished to put him upon such Committee he should always do his duty. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough had talked about his interest in this matter. How could he possibly have any personal interest in it? He had never had a gas or a water share in his life. What he looked to was the public interest; and as long as he occupied the position which during 10 years he had the honour of holding, he should always endeavour in that House and out of it to protect the interests of the public and the ratepayers.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

observed, that the real point at issue was that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had committed himself to certain views which the Water Companies, at any rate, would not think wore to their advantage. The Committee had a right to ask, in his opinion, that when hon. Gentlemen met to discuss a question of this kind they should meet and discuss it on terms of equality. Now, as at present arranged, the Metropolitan Board of Works would not be merely represented by their counsel and their agent before the Committee; but they would be represented on the Committee personally by their Chairman. He did not think that was quite fair. He quite admitted the difficulty of forming a Committee in which every personal feeling should be got rid of; but as a great effort had been made that the Water Companies should not be represented on this Committee, and an hon. Member had gone so far as to ask whether every hon. Member who held water shares ought not, by the Rules of the House, to be precluded from serving, as was, of course, the case in all Private Bills, that surety ought to be followed out in regard to his hon. and gallant Friend. When they heard wild schemes talked about of bringing water by aqueduct from the West of England, it was high time that the ratepayers should look sharply into their position. He knew that there was no desire on the part of the Water Companies to put themselves forward, but that they were quite satisfied that they were allowed to state their case in a fair way, and he thought the Board of Works might be satisfied by the same concessions. If, however, the House should decide that the hon. and gallant Member should serve on the Committee, his vote, of course, would only go for what it was worth.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

thought the Committee would be very incomplete if so distinguished a Member of the House as his hon. and gallant Friend was not on it, especially as he was perfectly acquainted with all Metropolitan questions. He certainly felt that it was very desirable that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be properly represented on this Committee.

Question put. and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Baron Henry do Worms be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)

COLONEL MAKINS

pointed out that the hon. Gentleman was also proposed as a Member of another Committee which would be sitting at the same time, and he would therefore suggest that some other name should be substituted.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

replied that that Committee was not to be proposed that night, and the question had far better be raised when the hon. Gentleman's name was proposed on the second Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining names agreed to.

Ordered, That the Select Committee on London Water Supply do consist of Seventeen Members:—Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Sir RICHARD CROSS, Mr. ALDERMAN LAWRENCE, Mr. BRAND, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. CAINE, Baron HENRY DE WORMS, Mr. FIRTH, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Mr. THO- ROLD ROGERS, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. JOHN HOLMS, and Mr. PARNELL:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

And, on June 8, Mr. HUBBARD added.