§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ *(3.7.) MR. LAFONE (Southwark, Bermondsey)I beg to move, on page 3 of the preamble, to leave out lines 31 to 34 inclusive. This is an Omnibus Bill, promoted by the London County Council, and in it they seek for power to appoint five Members upon the Thames Conservancy Board. The Thames Conservancy, as at present constituted, was incorporated in the year 1857; it was further added to by an Act passed in 1867, and again by an Act of 1886. Since that year there has been no change. Bat during that time various Bills have been laid before Parliament. The late Metropolitan Board of Works sought on four occasions to have a nominee upon the Conservancy Board, but, after very careful consideration by the Committees to which those Bills were referred, their application was rejected, and they were refused a nomination, because it was considered that the then constitution of the Conservancy Board was such as to secure attention to all the interests along the waterside, and that it was not necessary for the Metropolitan Board of Works to be represented, as they had to deal with the land works, and not with the river generally. I think I am correct in saying that from the first constitution of the Conservancy Board 1052 there has been no question as to the way in which the Board has conducted the work assigned to it. It has carefully, watched over the interests of the Port of London, and there has been no complaint made against it. When the present Bill was before a Select Committee upstairs only one member of the London County. Council—Mr. Haggis—was examined, and all he had to say was that the County Council wished to be represented. There is no reason to doubt that it is a laudable ambition on the part of the County Council of London to desire-representation. It was originally proposed that the Council should have seven members, but the Committee cut down the number to five. As I have said, there was no evidence except that of Mr. Haggis, and he was obliged to confess that there had been no complaint of the way in which the Conservancy Board had executed the duties confided to them. If the present proposal is carried out it means this, that the upper portion of the River Thames will also require to be represented on the Conservancy Board, and, if five members are allotted to the London County Council, of course, the property on the banks of the river or abutting upon it would claim a proportionate representation, and the Conservancy would again become an unwieldy and unworkable body. Under its present constitution the Board is a workable Board, and no person can drive a single pile into the river without the sanction of the Board. Encroachments by that means are prevented, and very valuable work is done. The Select Committee has sanctioned a proposition that the County Council shall have five representatives, but, if that proposal is acceded to, those persons who have interests along the whole banks of the river will not long remain satisfied to be cut out from representation. It will, therefore, be necessary to make provision for a much larger representation than now exists. As I have said, there has been no complaint of the manner in which the present Board discharge their duties; the number of representatives is a workable number, it represents the whole of the area of the City of London, together with the merchandise, shipping, and other interests, of the River Thames and the Port o£ London. The London County Council, 1053 as we know, has the conduct generally of the main drainage of the Metropolitan area, and the late Metropolitan Board of Works, whose successors the London County Council are, found in the Thames Conservancy Board a most desirable check upon their proceedings. They were prevented from fouling the river, and, if the proposal now before the House to give a representation of five members of the Conservancy Board to the County Council is entertained, it means that those five members will represent the authority which has to deal with the sewage of London in the Metropolitan area generally, and who would have the power of voting for their own measures, whether they tended to preserve the purity of the Thames or not. I am afraid that the present conduct of the sewage and the management of the outflow where it is dealt with is not so satisfactory that we ought to give to the County Council increased power of voting upon any question upon which the purification of the Thames is dependent, and in addition the representatives of the Council would be both Judges, jury, and plaintiffs in their own case. That, I think, is one of the reasons why it is most inexpedient that this power should be granted to them. It is only the thin end of the wedge that is now sought to be inserted; and I trust that hon. Members will feel generally that it is not for the interest of the Port of London that this portion of the Bill of the County Council should be granted. I therefore beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 31, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "so," in line 34, both inclusive.—{Mr. Lafone.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *(3.15.) MR. STORY-MASKELYNE (Wilts, Cricklade)Hon. Members will be aware that I have had something to do with the conservancy of the Thames in the past, and I have therefore a locus standi in asking the House to listen to me for two or three minutes. I beg to second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Lafone), and I do so not 1054 altogether upon the ground upon which the hon. Gentleman relies, but really in the interest of the Thames itself, and of all who are concerned in it, whether they are County Councils or riparian owners or other persons. I am afraid that if we consent to this proposal we shall be in great danger of making this Board of Conservancy still more unwieldy than it is now. It is already a very unwieldy body, and if we are going to add five members to it we shall only make it more unwieldy still. Moreover, we cannot add these five members without accepting the demand of other County Councils up the River Thames that they also shall be represented. I, for one, desire to see all persons who are really interested represented, because I think that the best way of dealing with the many interests relating to the Thames is to have a proper representative body, but not in the unwieldy form which the Conservancy, has had from its first institution as a Board of Riparian Commissioners, nearly 200 years ago. The proposal now made involves our giving a similar unwieldy form to the representation, and I am afraid the result would be practically to constitute a little Parliament as incapable of carrying out really good measures as other Parliaments appear to be. What I feel is that the proper way of dealing with this question is not to add five Members to-day and more Members to-morrow, but to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the whole question of the Conservancy of the Thames, and the reconstitution of the Conservancy Board on a representative basis. That is certainly what we ought to do, if we really desire to carry out the objects of the several useful Acts which have been passed. I may remind the House that the Thames is one of the most ancient highways of the Kingdom, and it is also a recreation ground for a very large section of Her Majesty's subjects. The Bill which I had the honour to introduce and to carry through this House some years ago had for its object the preservation of the Thames for the public, not merely as a place for house boats and skiffs, and for every form of rough to disport upon, but as a place of enjoyment where order is to be kept and something like decency observed. That Act has, I believe, worked exceedingly well, and I 1055 am bound to say of the Conservators, that as far as they, not having the moral strength of a representative body, have been able to carry it out, they have endeavoured to do so. Furthermore, it appears that the Thames, as a highway, has been admirably preserved by the Conservators, and they deserve all the credit that can be given to them for keeping its bed and the locks in good condition. They have also done their best, at any rate, to keep it pure. Below London they have had great and difficult problems to deal with, and various Acts of Parliament have placed matters very much beyond their control; but, so far as the upper part of the Thames is concerned, they have done their work well. I feel that no body of this kind, having to deal with large public interests, can in these days effectually deal with them unless it is a representative body, and a representative body in the best sense of the word. Now that we have Local Government, I am of opinion that the best form of representative government would be for every Local Authority along the banks of the Thames, through the County Councils, to have representation upon the Conservancy Board. The proper way to secure that object is not, however, to add five Members to-day and two to-morrow, but to hind the whole matter over to a Select Committee to inquire into and to advise the House as to the best plan for managing what really is the oldest and grandest highway in this country, not merely for commerce, bat for pleasure. Therefore, I second the Amendment, because I believe tint in retarding the honourable aspirations of the London County Councils to be represented in this large way upon the Conservancy Board I am enlisting the County Council itself on my side when I prefer the request that the House will give us a Select Committee to investigate the whole subject, and endeavour to place it on a proper and satisfactory footing.
§ *(3.20.) SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)My hon. Friend who has just sat down states that he is opposed to this provision, because he thinks that all the representative bodies on the banks of the Thames ought to have a voice in the conservancy of the river. That is the very reason why the clause objected to was inserted in 1056 the present Bill, and if it is rejected, as my hon. Friend proposes, he will only defeat his own object, and the greatest municipality on the banks of the Thames will continue to be absolutely unrepresented. My hon. Friend says that he thinks the best mode of dealing with the question is to refer it to a Select Committee, before whom the whole of the facts can be presented, and who will present a Report to the House. But that is exactly what has been done already. The clause as it stands in the Bill is the result of the deliberations of a Committee of this House; and yet my hon. Friend suggests that the best mode of dealing with the question is to refer it to a Committee. At the same time, he refuses to endorse the decision to which a Committee has already arrived. If he succeeds in his object, London will have no voice in reference to the management of the Thames. This clause was fully discussed before the Committee upstairs, and I would submit to the House that it is a question more for the consideration of a Committee upstairs than for this House, with the great amount of work it has upon its hands. It will be remembered that the Thames passes for about 23 miles through the administrative county of the Council of London, who have the administration of the bridges and other duties to discharge in reference to the Thames. No doubt those who live in the upper part of the river have a great interest in all that concerns the Thames; but it is obvious that it is of much more importance to the residents on the lower part to control what is done in the upper part than it can to for the upper part to control the lower reaches of the river. Our interest in London, therefore, is much greater than that of those who live on the upper portion of the river. I cordially agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade (Mr. Story-Mas-kelyne) said in his speech, except in the conclusion he drew. He said that the Thames is a great recreation ground for the citizens of London. That is precisely one of the reasons why we submit to the House that the citizens of London ought, through their representatives, to have some voice in the management of the river. Can it be said that the amount of representation which 1057 is proposed is excessive? There will be 28 representatives on the Conservancy Board, and it is only proposed that five should be representatives of the London County Council. The point, however, that is now before the House is not as to the exact number. My him. Friend does not propose to reduce it to four, three, or two; but he says that the citizens of London, through the County Council, their own representatives, shall have no voice in the management of the Thames. I come next to the question of the River Lea. I am reluctant to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily. The circumstances which relate to the River Lea are mutatis mutandis, very much the same as those which relate to the Thames; but instead of asking for five representatives it is thought that two would afford adequate representation. In that proposal I entirely concur. The County Council accepts the result arrived at by the Select Committee, and I ask the House to support the Committee in the conclusions to which after careful consideration they have arrived.
§ *(3.25.) MR. MURDOCH (Reading)I must reiterate the complaint which was made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey as to the title of this Bill. It is entitled "A Bill for the improvement and alteration of a bridge over Bow Creek at Barking and for the acquisition and management of Brockwell Park."
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCKWill the hon. Member kindly read the rest of the description of the Bill?
§ *MR. MURDOCH"And to confer various further powers on the London County Council." That is exactly what I was coming to. I find nothing in the Bill about the bridge at Barking Creek; and in regard to Brockwell Park, every Member of the House will be thankful that something should be done to preserve that open space for the benefit of the Metropolis. But when the Bill goes further and attempts, and under the guise of its provisions, to appoint upon the Thames Conservancy five representatives of the London County Council, most hon. Members will feel that they have been taken by surprise, and that attention has not been properly directed to the provisions of the Bill. I need hardly remind the House that the subject of 1058 the Thames Conservancy has received consideration in this House from time to time. Two Acts have been passed—one in 1864 and the other in 1866—which settled most clearly, and I believe most satisfactorily, the constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board. By the Act of 1864, which was brought in at the instigation of the Board of Trade, and upon which Bill I find the names of Mr. Hutt and Mr. Peel, there were added to the Thames Conservancy two owners of shipping, one of steamers upon the Thames, two owners of lighters, and one representative of the dock owners. In 1866 a further Bill was introduced into Parliament, which was entitled "The Upper Navigation of the Thames Bill." That measure also was brought in at the instigation of the Board of Trade, and it has upon it the names of Mr. Milner Gibson, the President of the Board of Trade at that time, and of Mr. Monsell. By that Act four Members were added to represent the upper navigation of the Thames, it being felt that that interest had in former years been greatly neglected, while the interests of the lower river, and especially of London, had been over represented. We must remember that from time to time the Metropolitan Board of Works had endeavoured to get members placed upon the Thames Conservancy Board. Parliament always resisted their endeavours; and, I think, that when we want to know something about a Bill before Parliament it is only right that we should carefully study the statement of the promoters of the Bill. There are a few matters in the present statement which I should like to mention. The first is this: The London County Council, as the successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are anxious to have a certain share in the management of the Thames, and they say, "the County Council have extensive sewage works on the river, in connection with which considerable difficulty and costly litigation arose between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the Conservancy Board, which it is believed would have been avoided"—I particularly direct attention to these words—" had there been on the Conservancy Board a Representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works." Now, what does that mean? Does it not mean that if they had had Representa- 1059 tives the Metropolitan Board of Works would have had a paramount influence, and would have been able to overturn the decision of the members of the Conservancy Board. Further than this, the London County Council bass their claim for representation upon the Board upon the fact that they have to maintain nearly all the bridges crossing the Thames, and certain sewage works. Now, I maintain that having these bridges over the Thames, and having also sewage works which empty themselves into the river, their interests are entirely antagonistic to those of the Conservancy of the Thames, and, therefore, it is of immense importance that they should not have members upon the Conservancy Board who may act against the other interests which that Board represents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) has called attention to the fact that evidence was taken before the Select Committee in support of the claim of the County Council to have representation upon the Conservancy Board. But I wish to remind the House that only one witness was called—a prominent member of the London County Council—and that Gentleman, although he wished undoubtedly to make the best he could of his case, was not able to say, on cross-examination, that there was any reason or ground of complaint against the Thames Conservancy Board. I have the evidence before me, but I cannot now take up the time of the House by entering into it. If, however, hon. Members will read it, they will see that over and over again Mr. Haggis stated that there was no ground of complaint against the Thames Conservancy Board. And now there is one word I should like to say with regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Cricklade. The hon. Member was himself the means of passing a Bill through this House, which is known by the name of the Story-Maskelyne Act. That Act is one which gives very considerable powers. It deals with the use of the Thames for recreation purposes. It is an extremely useful Act, and it has enabled the Thames Conservancy Board to deal with one of the grounds upon which the London County Council claim the right of representation—that is the recreation ground—and the Conservancy 1060 Board have discharged their duties in that respect in a manner which has given satisfaction, not only to the riparian owners, but to those who use the Thames for recreation purposes. I trust that the House will re-affirm the decision it has given over and over again, namely, that it is against the interests of the Thames itself, and of all of ns who take a pride in the river, that certain members, representing either the London County Council or any body of that description, should be placed on the Conservancy Board at the present time.
§ *(3.35.) MR. H. LAWSON (St. Paneras, W.)In spite of the pride which the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House takes in the River Thames, the speech of the hon. Gentleman illustrates the hardship and inconvenience of the course which he is taking. The Bill was discussed on the Second Reading, and some of the points which were then disposed of are actually raised now as a reason for mutilating the measure as it has come down from the Committee. The hon. Member shows how we suffer in London from a lack of municipal experience, or he would hardly have told the House that it is an unfair thing to put general powers into a General Powers Bill such as is constantly presented by every great municipality in this country. Precedents were cited by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler), on the Second Reading of the Bill, to show that there is nothing unusual in bringing in a Bill under a title which includes all the objects set forth. The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Baumann) made that a point on the Second Reading, and as it was disposed of then, it ought not to have been raised again. It would require that Members should read through the evidence submitted to the Committee upstairs, to understand the Bill. It was very completely dealt with by the Committee. Previous Acts of Parliament dealing with Thames Conservancy have been referred to, but they were all adopted on the Reports of Select Committees, and I think it is most inconvenient that when a private Bill has undergone full consideration upstairs, and modified proposals are submitted to the House, general objections should be raised to the measure when it comes down to us. 1061 The hon. Member says that only one witness was called in support of this part of the Bill. Does he know why that was? It was because the Committee did not want to hear more; and not one witness was called against it. That is a specimen of the way in which the Bill is treated now. I should be loth to trouble the House with the evidence which was given, but it is quite clear that nobody is as much interested in the navigation and condition of the Thames as the people whom the London County Council represent. My hon. Friend says that they use it, and want to use it, as a great recreation ground. That was one of the arguments used by counsel in support of our claim, and it was further argued that the London County Council, as riparian owners, and as the Sanitary Authority deeply interested in the supply of pure water to the Metropolis, should have proper representation upon the Conservancy Board. The City of London is already represented. It has, I believe, no less than seven members, including the Lord Mayor. No complaint is made against the Thames Conservancy Board. The Bill is not a blow aimed at the Conservancy Board, but it is simply a claim on the part of the citizens of London for just representation in matters affecting the Metropolis. Twenty-three miles of the river go through the County of London, and at present only 1½ miles in the City of London are represented. The City with 1½ miles has seven representatives, while the County of London with 21½ miles has none. In olden times this House was content to accept the decisions arrived at by its Committees upstairs. This matter has been carefully gone into by a Select Committee, who investigated the whole question, and I believe that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Bailey), who presided over the Committee, is prepared to get up and support the decision at which the Committee arrived. Mr. Haggis, the Deputy Chairman of the County Council, stated to the Committee that there is no special grievance against the Thames Conservancy, but he pointed out that the management of the river, both above and below the Metropolis, is a matter vitally concerning the prosperity of London. That is a very sound contention, and as the Council has succeeded the body which freed or built the bridges, with the exception of the 1062 three which are within the City boundaries, there is good reason why they should have some control of the river. It is said that as the County Council are the Sewerage Authority in London, their interests are antagonistic to that of preserving the purity of the Thames, and that they might be unfairly employed if that body are allowed to be represented on the Conservancy Board. It is hardly necessary, I think, to point out that the pollution of the Upper Thames is of immense and growing importance to the inhabitants of London, and that they have a greater interest in preventing it than even the Conservancy Board. I will not trouble the House with anything further in the shape of argument. I am content to rest the case upon the evidence taken before the Committee. The simple fact that the Chairman of the Committee, who is known to hon. Members as one of the most fair minded men in the House, stated that the Committee did not wish to hear further evidence, ought, I think, to be sufficient for hon. Gentlemen opposite. The principle of representation on the Lea Conservancy Board is already admitted, because the Metropolitan Board of Works had one representative, and all the Metropolitan community who live in such districts as Hackney are vitally interested in securing that the Lea shall not be further polluted by the Tottenham Board and other Local Authorities. I trust that these clauses will be agreed to without a Division.
§ *(3.40.) MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)As the Representative of a constituency which runs for 16 miles along the River Thames, I wish to say that we feel, so far as the upper part of the Thames is concerned, that our representation, instead of being too great at the present moment, is not sufficiently large. The two Acts of 1864 and 1866 went carefully into the question of local interests, and we are certainly of opinion that if an addition is-made to the representatives of the lower part of the river we shall be much injured and our interests not properly attended to. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last spoke of the sewage upon other parts of the river. Do the London County Council propose to take charge of the river all the way up to 1063 Oxford, or what is it that they propose to do? We consider that we are quite as able to take care of the river as any gentlemen from the London County Council, who have separate and different interests from our own. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the City of London having a large representation; but it must not be forgotten that the City of London is the Port Sanitary Authority; that it pays all the expenses; and that it has given up its dues. It is, therefore, only right and natural that it should be fairly represented, so as to balance the interests of the lightermen in the river below against the riparian interests of the owners in the upper part of the Thames. I do not think there has ever been a complaint against the conduct of the Conservancy Board. Not a single Petition has been presented against them. They have done their work to the best of their ability, and have always done what they considered to be most advantageous for the river. All that is wanted is Authority to take care of the river, and I am afraid that the Thames itself is likely to be injured if it is placed under the jurisdiction of any County Council whatever. If London is to have five Members why should not Middlesex have the same or nearly as many representatives upon the Conservancy Board, seeing that nearly as many miles of the river run through it. If the constitution of the Board is to be interfered with at all, Set every interest be properly considered, and not that of the London County Council alone. If these clauses are removed from the Bill, all the other provisions that are of value may remain untouched. Hitherto the Conservancy Board has worked very well, and it would be a thousand pities to interfere with what is doing well in order to give additional representation to the London County Council. The extra power could only be sought to cheapen the disposal of the sewage, which would have the effect of making the mouth of the Thames one vast sewer, and would operate to the detriment of trade and the health of the inhabitants.
§ *(3.45.) SIR C. RUSSELL (Hackney, S.)I submit to the House that the examination which it is possible to give to the Bill here is not sufficient to justify us in assenting to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bermondsey, and setting aside the de- 1064 cision of the Select Committee. It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) has stated, that only one witness was called before the Select Committee in support of the claims of the London County Council, but a complete answer to that objection has been given by the hon. Member for St. Paneras (Mr. W. H. Lawson), that answer being first that the Committee expressed themselves satisfied with the grounds on which the general claim of the County Council was put forward; secondly, that no evidence against that claim was offered: and next, on the ground that the Council are supposed to represent the interests of the Metropolis, on whose behalf the claim was made. It seems to me that this fallacy runs through the whole of the arguments which have been advanced by the opponents of the measure:—They have been arguing the question as if in this matter the County Council have an interest opposed to the general interests of the community. [Mr. DIXON-HARTLAND: Hear, hear!] Apparently the hon. Member who has just sat down maintains that position, and is of opinion that the London County Council have interests in the matter which are opposed to the general interests of the community. Now, what are they? The County Council are the largest Representative Body in London; they are directly elected by the inhabitants of the Metropolis; they have jurisdiction over a frontage of 23 miles on each side of the river, and at this moment they have no direct representation on the Conservancy Board, while the City of London, with a frontage of only one and a half miles, is represented by seven Members. I will not stop to consider whether the representation of the City of London is excessive or only the proper amount of representation, but I would ask, that being the state of the case, upon what ground it can be said that the London County Council, representing such extensive interests, and charged with the responsibility of representing the wants and wishes of such a large portion of the community, can probably run counter to the general interests of the Metropolis. So far as the Metropolitan Sewage Scheme is concerned, as it at present exists, it has received the sanction of Parliament, and 1065 the sewage itself is discharged into the Thames very much below the part of the river which we are considering now. I submit that the claim which the London County Council has preferred to having an increased representation of five members upon the Conservancy Board is simply a proper or fair recognition of the position they occupy. As regards the River Lea their claim is, in my judgment, even much stronger. I do not know a more disgraceful history than the history of the pollution of the River Lea, and I am satisfied that if the Council had had a share in the control of the river, and possessed representatives who were directly interested in maintaining the purity of the Lea, it would not have been reduced to the shocking position which it has occupied of late years in the lower parts of the river. I submit that the claim of the London County Council to have five seats on the Conservancy Board is moderate, just, and proper, and as they have no interests which are in conflict with those of the general public they ought not to be excluded from it.
§ *(3.50.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)I desire to speak without prejudice in regard to the London County Council. I am glad that Parliament has entrusted to them the power they now enjoy, and I have no jealousy whatever of them. As far as I am concerned, I should be glad to see their interests fully represented on the Conservancy Board, but I cannot agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir C. Russell). In the first place I eannot admit that this question has been fairly considered, if by that term is meant the kind of consideration which Parliament in former years bestowed upon it. I can remember being a Member of a Select Committee on the Thames which considered the Bill of 1866, carried through this House by Mr. Milner-Gibson. Before the passing of the Act of 1864, a Select Committee of this House was appointed to consider how the matter could best be dealt with, and, in 1864, a Bill was brought in, I think, by the Government of the day. At any rate, it was a Hybrid Bill, and was considered by a Hybrid Committee, before whom all the interests affected were adequately heard; the same course being 1066 taken in 1866, and again two years ago, when a Select Committee, appointed at the instance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade, considered the reform of the traffic on the Thames, and in the following year the conclusions of this. Committee were embodied in a Hybrid Bill, and considered by a Hybrid Committee. Thus Parliament has determined, in dealing with the Thames, to treat it as a public matter, and not as one to be dealt with in a Private Bill. What has happened in this case? The London County Council, in the exercise of their judgment and discretion, have considered that they are injuriously affected by having no direct representative on the Board of Conservancy, and, therefore, in a private Bill ostensibly relating to very different subjects, they have introduced a clause to give them that representation. This was to be done by an ordinary Private Bill, by a Committee before whom only one witness was examined, and not a single word was heard from the rival interests of the Upper Thames, which possibly did not even know that the matter was being dealt with by Parliament. I myself have no fault to find with the Thames Conservancy, as at present constituted. I believe that it does its duty very well, but, on the other hand, I quite admit that there may be just arguments for the more direct representation of the inhabitants of London on that Board. At present, seven members are sent by the City, and four by certain trading interests, so that London has altogether a representation of 11 out of 23. This Bill proposes to extend the metropolitan representation to 16 out of 28. I confess that it appears to me that the proposal is not fair to the interests of the Upper Thames. What reason can there be for the representation of the London County Council upon this Board that does not equally extend to the Councils of other counties which border on the Thames? Essex, Surrey, Kent, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Wilts, and Gloucestershire. I think that in these circumstances the wisest course will be for the House to decline to adopt the proposal contained in this Bill relating to this matter, and next year to appoint a Select Committee to consider the whole question of the conservancy of the Thames In that way the House would have all the riparian and other interests fully 1067 awake to the necessity of taking care of themselves; complete evidence would be given in regard to the whole subject, and it would be able to arrive at a fair conclusion on a subject which has hitherto been treated as a public matter, and one which ought not to be dealt with toy a private Bill.
§ *(3.55.) SIR J. BAILEY (Hereford)As Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, I wish to say a word in the first place as to the title of the Bill. When it came before the Committee it was a Bill "For the improvement and alteration of the Bridge over Bow Creek and Barking and to confer other powers." The Committee cut out of the Bill the question of a bridge between the London County Council and a neighbouring area, on finding that the County Council had not agreed with the neighbouring area. The title of a Bill, however, cannot, I believe, be changed when it has once come before the House. I certainly cannot altogether agree with the remarks which have fallen from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade as to what he says Parliament has done in regard to the Thames Conservancy, as I find that the original Conservancy Act was one of the few Acts concerning the Metropolis which was introduced as a private and not as a public Bill. In 1857 the Thames Conservancy Bill was introduced as a private Bill, and Sir E. May, in his chapter on private Bills, has pointed out that in 1874–5–6–7 Bills to give further powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works were passed as private Bills. With regard to the fact of only one witness having been examined, I may say that there had been another Bill before us, relating to the Conservancy, and we felt that we did not require much more evidence than that which had been given before that Committee. Therefore, when this Bill came before us we had no desire to hear many witnesses. The Thames Conservancy has been undergoing a perpetual change since it was first established. At first the Trinity House regulated the lower reaches, and the Corporation went up as far as Staines, while above that there was a heterogeneous body, consisting of all the authorities of the riparian counties, including Berkshire and Oxfordshire. An Act was then 1068 passed appointing 12 Conservators, seven representing the City of London, and five the Trinity House, the Lord High Admiral, and other interests, while, by a subsequent Act, representation was given to certain traders. When, by a later Act, representation was given to the traders, wharf owners and occupiers, ship proprietors, and so on, the control of the Upper Thames was united with that of the Thames below Teddington Lock, and four representatives were given to the upper portions of the river. An hon. Member sitting below me has spoken of the Board of Trade in this matter, and I should like to show what the opinion of the Board of Trade was. In 1867, when this matter was before the House of Commons, the Board of Trade wrote a letter in which they stated that it appeared to them to be desirable that the Metropolitan Board of Works—of which the London County Council is the successor—should be connected with and represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. That was the opinion of the Board of Trade in 1867. Since then, in the year 1888, the conservancy of rivers has been given to County Councils, and it seems to me absurd that this great municipality of London should be the only County Council not having some power of control over its own river. An hon. Member has said it is absurd to suppose that the London County Council can look after the river at Oxford, and in the upper reaches of the Thames. Then why should four Members from Oxford and Berkshire take part in the management of the tidal stream? Since the opinion of the Board of Trade was given in 1867, the Metropolitan Board of Works and their successors the London County Council have done an enormous amount of work in the valley of the Thames. They have control of the metropolitan bridges and embankments, which cost £22,000 or £23,000 a year, and upon which £2,500,000 have been spent. Most of the drinking water of London is derived from the Thames and the Lea, and surely the body which has the right to look after the health of the Metropolis should be represented on the Thames Conservancy. They have exclusive jurisdiction over a frontage of 21½ miles of the river, and I must say that I do not think any Committee upstairs could have come to any other conclusion 1069 than that a body having that enormous authority over the banks of the Thames are entitled to have some share in the management of that river.
(4.0.) EARL COMPTON (York, W.R., Barnsley)After the remarks which have been made by the hon. Baronet opposite, I think that very little further need be said on the subject. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a minute or two. On the part of the County Council of London, I think I may say that they will hear with pleasure the promise which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade that there will be a Select Committee on the whole question next year. I think it would be of the greatest advantage to all concerned that the matter should be thoroughly threshed out and determined. In the meantime, however, I think it would be necessary to pass the measure now before the House, in order that the London County Council may be properly represented on this particular Board. As I understand the question, the only argument against giving representation to the London County Council is that if it is granted some evil must happen to the Thames. Now, no evil can possibly come of appointing five members out of 28, and the views of the London County Council would then be properly laid before the Board.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDThe City of London already possesses seven representatives.
EARL COMPTONI am only speaking about what is asked for in this Bill. All that is claimed is that the London County Council should have five representatives upon the Board. The hon. Member appears to foresee danger from the appointment of five Members, but I would ask what possible evil effect a small minority of five could have among 28. What harm to the river or the interests of the riparian owners could such a minority do? The only effect of acceding to the claim of the Council would be to secure that the views of the Council would be properly placed before the Board, and I cannot see why the Conservancy Board should be so very anxious not to have those views placed before them. There is one question I would like to ask, namely, whether Her Majesty's Government are unanimous in their opposition to this provision of the 1070 Bill? I have been given to understand that the President of the Local Government Board is distinctly in favour of it. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at this moment, but I hope that before the discussion closes we shall have the advantage of hearing his views. At present only one Member of the Government has spoken; he has opposed the Bill; not altogether, on its merits, but in order that a Select Committee may be appointed next year. Are we to understand, from the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Government wish their supporters to vote against the Bill, if it goes to a Division? As I believe that the President of the Local Government Board is favourable to the Bill, I think that he ought to give expression to his opinion, so that the Division may not be considered in any way a Party one. At the same time I know that a Whip has been issued to Members on the other side of the House, with a view of opposing this particular clause and certain other clauses which are about to be discusssd. The supporters of the Bill have had no Whip of any kind. They think the justice of the case ought to be quite sufficient to secure a large majority in favour of the Bill, of those who have listened to the Debate after the plain and clear statement of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I think that no hon. Member who heard him can have the slightest hesitation in supporting the clauses which propose to give a representation to the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy Board.
§ *(4.7.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE, Tower Hamlets, St. George's)As the noble Lord has referred to me, I feel bound to say just one word upon the subject. The noble Lord is perfectly accurate in saying that I am distinctly in favour of the London County Council being represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. Having constituted a great body like the London County Council, it ought to have something to say with regard to a river which runs through so large a portion of its district; but as to whether or not the representation proposed in this Bill is too large—whether it is adequate or inadequate I do not express any opinion, and on that question I desire to withhold my opinion. 1071 I think the course suggested by my right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks Beach) is the right and proper course. It is quite clear that if the London County Council are to be represented on the Board there will be claims for representation on the part of other County Councils through whose district the river runs; and that they also should have representation given to them. That, I take it, would be the view of the London County Council also; and that being so, I should deprecate the London County Council proceeding with these clauses this year, looking to the fact that the matter, by their own admission, is one that ought to be carefully considered by a Select Committee, with a view of settling the representation of the various interests concerned.
§ (4.10.) SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)I am glad, at all events, that we have had the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that London has some interest in the River Thames, and that Representatives of London should have a voice in its management. I am very glad to find that one right hon. Gentleman sitting on that Bench holds that opinion.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHI said so, too.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThen I am glad to find that two Members of the Government have declared in favour of such representation. The question we have to vote upon now is whether we should upset the decision of the Committee which has sat upstairs. That is a very grave thing for the House to do. We hear a great deal as to the desirability of the process of delegation; but if we delegate duties of this kind, and then upset the decision arrived at, I am afraid we shall give the House more work to do than we shall escape by the delegation. On what ground is it proposed to reverse the decision of the Select Committee? I have heard none, except that the matter can be taken into consideration next year. I think it would be most inconvenient to appoint Committees and then to dispose of the result of their deliberations in this manner: The Chairman of the Committee in his business-like speech gave the reasons for the decision which the Committee has arrived at, and I have heard no arguments from the other side of the 1072 House which should induce us to upset that decision. Why, then, are we to overthrow the decision of the Committee? The President of the Local Government Board has alleged none. He has said, and said truly, that what this clause does, namely, to give a representation to the London County Council upon the Conservancy Board, is a proper thing. The acceptance of the representation of London proposed by the Bill does not exclude the representation hereafter of other County Councils on that Board. Nor is there any reason why we should delay doing justice to the Metropolis in the matter, because there is not yet a proposal before the House to give representation to other County Councils. It is perfectly possible to give representation to London—and London, after all, is the first interest so far as the Thames is concerned, both in regard to its trade its water supply, and its population—and to take other claims into consideration hereafter. No doubt there are other important claims, but the claim of London ought not to be postponed until other bodies make theirs. There is nothing whatever in the present proposal to exclude Parliament, if it thinks fit, from giving representation to other bodies; but the first and primary claim is that of the County Council of London, and I hope that it will be affirmed by the House.
§ (4.12.) MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S. E.)I desire to oppose the claim of that august body, the County Council of London, in the interests of my constituents, the sailors and fishermen who ply their calling between Erith and the North Sea. They believe that their interests will be seriously affected by the adoption of Clause 22 of the Bill, and I should like to call attention to the circumstances which already exist, and of which they now complain. The London County Council, as the apostolic successors of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are responsible for the gigantic nuisance caused by the sewage work at Crossness, Barking. Sir Robert Rawlinson has stated that 150,000,000 gallons of sewage affluent are thrown into the River Thames daily. That, as was said by Lord Rosebery in his valedictory address to the County Council on the 23rd of April, was considered absolutely intolerable by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and they ordered the construction of two 1073 steamers to remove the sewage sludge to the Nore. It is now in process of removal, not to the Nore, but to the fishing ground of my constituents 15 miles further down. Two schemes are before the Main Drainage Committee, both of which have the utmost terror for my constituents. One, is that Canvey Island should be filled to the brim with sewage, and the other that a canal 46 miles long should be constructed through the County of Essex to take the sewage out to Foulness and Shoebury, thereby entirely destroying the oyster fisheries of the Crouch, and also probably destroying one of the few flourishing towns of Essex, namely, Southend. I do not mean to say that the County Council are not right from their point of view; and choosing the line where they are likely to meet with the least possible resistance, they propose to go to Essex. My constituents, however, are determined to oppose this portion of the Bill to the full extent of their power.
(4.15.) MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.), who was indistinctly heard owing to loud calls for a Division, saidI think it may expedite matters if I make now the remarks I intended to make upon another clause of this Bill. Parliament has decided, after great care and deliberation, to provide a Board of Conservancy for the River Thames, and I do not think that the recommendation of a Committee, who only examined one witness, ought to be adopted. The witness who was called on behalf of the County Council—Mr. Haggis—was' cross-examined by Mr. Littler, and being questioned as to whether the Council were not proposing mere theoretical legislation, he said he thought the river was more likely to be kept clear and pure by having the people of London represented on the Board than by excluding them. But with regard to the representation of the people of London, it is a well-known fact that the interests of the County Council and of the Thames Conservancy are sometimes diametrically opposed. It is said that the County Council have the management of the bridges. No doubt; but in constructing new ones and maintaining the existing bridges, it is often necessary to drive piles into the river, and the Thames Conservancy acts as a great check at present in preventing obstruc- 1074 tion. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Essex (Major Rasch), the sewage of London is, to a great extent, under the control of the County Council, and if they neglect to do their duty the Conservancy Board is able to bring pressure to bear upon them. If, however, you give the Council five representatives upon the Board, you will have men who will be able to act as judges in their own case. In my opinion, the best mode of dealing with the subject will be to relegate it to a Select Committee for examination next year, as suggested by the President of the Board of Trade. The House will then be in a position to legislate carefully for all the various interests at stake.
§ (4.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 191.—(Div. List, No. 176.)
(4.33.) MR. WEBSTERAfter the decision of the House which has just been expressed as to the further representation of the County Council on the Thames Conservancy Board, I think it is unnecessary for me to enter at any length into the arguments which can be adduced against the Council having further representation on the Conservancy Board of the River Lea. I think the whole of the question of representation on the Thames and Lea Conservancy Boards should be considered, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Cricklade, by a Select Committee of the House, and therefore I do not propose to speak at any length on the point. I fully acknowledge that the state of the River Lea is, and has been, unsatisfactory for some years past, but how the presence of another representative of the County Council upon the Conservancy Board could effect any great change in the condition of the river I fail to understand. I beg to move the rejection of that part of the Preamble which relates to the Lea, and I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "increased," in line 8, both inclusive.—(Mr. Webster.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
1075§ *(4.34.) SIR J. LUBBOCKI must confess that I am surprised by the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. By the reply the Government gave to the deputation which waited upon them the other day, we understood they were prepared to support these clauses. Last night I had an interview with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, and I certainly understood from him that, although he was going to move for a Committee, the Motion would not interfere with his support of the clauses we have just been discussing. Had we known that the Government were going in the opposite Lobby and going to take their supporters with them, we should have thought it necessary to issue a whip, too. The clause, however, with reference to the Lea stands in a very different position to that which relates to the Thames, and I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government propose to do in regard to it? If they are going to include an inquiry into the Lea in the reference to the Committee they have proposed—[Cries of "No!"]—I am only expressing my own opinion—it would be useless to occupy the time of the House by going to a Division on the question of the Lea. I should imagine, however, that the Committee which is to inquire into the Thames will have quite enough to do, and I can hardly think Her Majesty's Government would propose to include the inquiry into the management of the Lea. If that is the case, I hope the President of the Local Government Board will support the London County Council and will resist the present Amendment. This is a large question, and the Bill has been very carefully inquired into by a Committee upstairs. The Bill is now in the form in which it left the Committee, and I hope that, notwithstanding the Division just taken, the majority of the House will support the decision of their own Committee.
§ *(4.36.) MR. RITCHIEI am bound to say the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Lubbock) has hardly dealt fairly with us as to what took place between himself and myself last night. The right hon. Baronet says that in the interview I had with him last night I conveyed to him an intimation that the Government were going to support the clause with re- 1076 gard to the Thames Conservancy. I went to see the right hon. Baronet with the view of expressing to him the contrary, and I told the right hon. Baronet that, after the interview I had had with the deputation from the London County Council, I thought it right he should know that it was extremely probable that the clause with regard to the Thames Conservancy would be opposed. I thought the right hon. Baronet understood that the object of the interview was to convey that, because he expressed his thanks to me for the intimation which I had given to him to that effect. The interview I had with the deputation of the London County Council was with reference to all the opposed clauses of the Bill. It is perfectly true I allowed the County Council deputation to infer or to believe that I was in favour of the representation of the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy Board, but I certainly did not commit myself or my right hon. Friend, with whose Department this question more particularly lies, to an approval of the exact proposal made in the Bill. The only intimation I made was that I was in favour of that representation. This particular question, however, stands on a different footing. Something has been said about the water supply of London. If there is one river which the London people are more concerned about with regard to its purity than any other it is the River Lea. The London County Council have already got a representation upon the Conservancy Board of the Lea—a representation of one—and looking to the fact that a Committee of the House of Commons has considered that that representation ought to be increased from one to two, I shall certainly support the clause.
§ *(4.39.) SIR J. LUBBOCKI only wish to say I am sorry I did not understand my right hon. Friend. I understood that the clause would be opposed, but not that it would be opposed by the Government. However, my main object was not to make any complaint, but to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the course which he proposed to take.
§ (4.40.) SIR W. HARCOURTI do not propose to enter at all into the misunderstanding which appears to have arisen between the Government and their supporters on this side of the 1077 House, but I want to thoroughly understand the attitude of the Government on the whole question, because it is one which deeply affects the people of the Metropolis, and one which, no doubt, they will follow with a very attentive eye. By the last Division the Government and their supporters resolved that London, through her County Council, shall not have a voice on the Thames Conservancy. [Cries of "No, no!"] That is what the Vote means. Now comes the question whether the Council shall have a voice in the management of the Lea, and the President of the Local Government Board says, "Oh, yes; they shall have a voice on the Lea, but not on the Thames"
§ *MR. RITCHIEI did not vote.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIf he did not, the whole force of the Government was used in the last Division—[cries of"No!"]—and the result of the Division was received with cheers by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a Party triumph. ["Who were the Tellers?"] I am stating that which is an undoubted fact.
§ An hon. MEMBER: A lot of the Members for London voted against the Amendment.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTYes 5 and it is not merely the Government on that side, but the Government on this side who voted against it. It was really a good Unionist Division. I saw it myself. I saw that it was a question whether the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale was to be told in the Lobby against the Amendment. ["Oh!"] I have a perfect right to refer to the fact; I have a right to state that I noticed it was a question whether the noble Lord should be polled in the Division against giving London, through the County Council, a voice upon the management of the Thames. Under these circumstances, and by these influences, London has been, for the present at least, refused that voice. Whether it will ever get it in the future we do not know. Whether there will be a combination to overthrow the decision of the Committee remains to he seen. What is the use of promising A Committee if you whip up a majority to overthrow the Committee's decision? What is the use of promising a Committee on this subject if you mean to treat the decision of the Committee with the contempt with which you have 1078 treated the decision of the present Committee? Now, having decided against the London County Council in regard to the Thames, on what ground does the right hon. Gentleman say London is entitled to a voice as regards the Lea? If you are to postpone the question as to London till next year, why not postpone the question as to the Lea as well? He says London is not dependent upon the Thames for its water supply. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is right; but I thought a very great part—I even believed the greater part—of the water supplied to London is taken from the Thames above Kingston. I cannot understand, and it will be for the people of London to endeavour to understand, what is the ground that actuates the Government in refusing to London's representative body to-day a voice in the management of the Thames, and then coming forward and saying they are entitled to that voice in the case of the Lea.
§ *(4.45.) SIR M. HICKS BEACHI do not think it would be easy to get into the space of time occupied by the right hon. Gentleman's speech a graver or a more absurd amount of Party misrepresentation. In the first place, this was not a Party Division. Two Members of the Government voted in the opposite Lobby to myself. Some Members of the Government did not vote at all. One of the Tellers for the minority was a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London, and the Chairman of Committees, both leading Unionists, were in the opposite Lobby to us. Secondly, we do not oppose the principle of the representation of the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy. What we con tended for was that, before the principle was adopted by the House, the whole question of the representation of the other riparian County Councils should be considered as well. That I think the right hon. Gentleman will see, if he reflects for a moment, is the only reasonable and just course. It is not merely a matter of opinion. It is a course which the House has adopted for the last 25 years in dealing with the question of the government of the Thames. If such a Committee is moved for next Session my impression is that it is probable 1079 that the Conservancy Body will be so re-modelled as to include the representation of the London County Council and the other County Councils, affected as well. But of one thing I am quite sure; if this Bill had been passed this year, as it has been passed by the Select Committee, a larger representation would have been given to the Metropolitan interest out of the whole number than is likely to be given after full and impartial consideration. I have only to say now I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend in considering that the question of the conservancy of the Lea stands as it has always been regarded by Parliament on an entirely different basis to that of the conservancy of the Thames. I therefore trust that my hon. Friend behind me will not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
§ *(4.50.) MR. LAWSONWe do not know what the next Session may bring forth, and I should like to challenge the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of his supporters on that side did not vote against the principle of the representation of the London Council on the Thames Conservancy Board. They struck out words in the Preamble, and, therefore, under this Bill there can be no representation of the London Council on that Board for the next year, or until the House has accepted the decision of the Committee in favour of such representation which may or may not be made. The course pursued by the Government, and I speak from the view of the County Council, and not from a Party standpoint, has been rather tortuous as well as unfortunate. The President of the Local Government Board told the deputation who waited upon him that ho was in favour of all the clauses except that which dealt with juries, as to the desirability of which he was not quite certain. At the last moment, at the eleventh hour, when the Parliamentary Agent understood the Bill would not meet with opposition from the Government, or from the prominent Members of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman turns round and declares against the Bill on the ground put forward by the President of the Board of Trade. I do not know who the two Members of the Government were who voted in our Lobby, but I do not think they saw many 1080 of their supporters there. I am glad to think that my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Howard. Vincent) was a sufficiently staunch-County Councillor not only not to repudiate the Council in this House, but to tell in favour of the Bill, and I regret that the other Conservative Members of the County Council were not present to take part in the Division.
§ *(4.52.) MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)I propose to speak to the Amendment, and not to address myself to the question of the Division that has just taken place. There are a number of very delicate interests connected with the River Lea and in 1868 a Royal Commission, which considered the whole question, nicely balanced all these interests and apportioned the proper number of members on the Lea Conservancy Board to each. The number of members was fixed at 13, and care was taken to provide that no interest should be over-represented. This was confirmed by the Act under which the Lea Conservancy Board was constituted. It is possible that by lapse of time the arrangement then made may be properly disturbed, but, if so, it should only be after such a full inquiry as took place in 1868. Several times the Metropolitan Board of Works endeavoured to increase their representation on the Lea Conservancy Board, and several times Parliament refused to let them do so. We are now asked to disturb the present basis of representation merely because a Committee of four upstairs voted in favour of it. With all respect to the hon. Baronet who was Chairman of that Committee, those of us who are experienced in Committee work know that such decisions are often arrived at merely by the vote of the Chairman. The only reason that is given for the proposed change is that the representative of the County Council may be unwell or unable to be present. The same reasoning would apply to the other bodies that are represented, and there can be no more reason for giving the County Council two members instead of one than for giving the other bodies two instead of one.
§ *(4.54.) SIR C. RUSSELLThe right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) affirmed that he was in 1081 favour of the principle of the representation of the County Council, and did not express even a personal opinion that the representation claimed by the present Bill was an excessive or improper amount of representation. Yet the right hon. Gentleman did not vote in the Division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) has now made it very clear what is the real attitude of the Government on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has informed the Committee that he looks forward to the diminution, and not the increase, in the future of the representation.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHIncluding the remainder.
§ *SIR C. RUSSELLBut he holds to the opinion that that would be too large a representation of the London County Council. So far as the representation of the other bodies is concerned, there is no division of opinion on this side of the House. We ask that all the interests concerned in the River Thames shall be represented upon the Board; but how can this question of re-modelling the Conservancy Board be injuriously affected in any way by the acceptance of the just claim now made by the County Council? As regards the question of the River Lea, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke for the Government or not. It is desirable to know whether he did or did not. If he did, I will not prolong the discussion. Of course, if he was not justified in speaking in the name of the Government it will be necessary to justify the view taken by the Committee upstairs; but, for the present, assuming that he was representing the views of the Government, I do not propose to trouble the House further.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe omission was only moved up to line 8.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. SPEAKERI must observe that lines 14 to 18 embrace matters of very wide divergence. They include the 1082 building powers of the County Council, and the powers relative to the supply of water and to the markets of London.
(4 58.) MR. R. G. WEBSTERThen, with the permission of the House, I will move the omission of lines 13 to 15 inclusive. My remarks on this Amendment shall be very brief. It appears, Sir, that by these lines various changes will be made in the Building Acts of London. Some of these changes are very desirable, and if they become law will be very useful. My objection to them is that they should be introduced by means of a Private Bill. I think it is quite contrary to the practice of Parliament that such provisions should be inserted in Private Bills, and I would point out the great difficulty that will be caused to architects, surveyors, and other persons interested in buildings in London if we allow the London County Council to introduce various changes in the Building Acts through the instrumentality of a private measure. At present there is before a Committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan), a public Bill introduced by the London County Council. I think it would be a very proper thing if these provisions were removed from this Bill, with which they have practically nothing to do, and put into the public Bill, so that they may be discussed in all their bearings. It is an extremely inconvenient thing to have these Bills shot into the House of Commons by the County Council, with provisions in them which, if adopted, would make the legislation of this House very confusing indeed. I therefore ask that these provisions should be taken out of this Bill and referred to the Committee on the Public Buildings of the Metropolis.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "forth," in line 15, both inclusive.—(Mr. Webster.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. RITCHIEI hope that the House will not assent to the proposal which has just been made. I think the object of my hon. Friend in moving the omission of these lines is to cut down a Bill 1083 which will give the London County Council some controlling power with regard to the manner in which public buildings in the Metropolis shall be erected. I have gone carefully through all these clauses, and I have had them examined by my professional adviser; and though perhaps they may be open to some improvement, yet on the authority of the information I have received I say that every one of them is a great advance on the existing law, and I therefore hope that the House will not cut them out.
§ (5.1.) SIR W. HARCOURTI am extremely glad to hear the language held by the right hon. Gentleman. It is language too rare on the other side of the House. Public attention is a good deal occupied at present with the question as to how the time of the House of Commons is being spent. I hope it will be noted what is the subject to which Her Majesty's Government and their supporters have devoted this afternoon. There has been an attempt to overthrow, clause by clause, the decision of a Committee upstairs upon a private Bill. That is the sort of occupation which they think most fit for the House of Commons. The object is apparent. It is to cut down as much as possible—of course, I am not speaking of the right hon. Gentleman, because that has never been the spirit in which he has spoken or acted—and to refuse to the County Council, as representing the City of London, the only possible power and authority which affects the interests of the inhabitants of London. Everybody knows that that is the spirit of the opposition to this Bill. That is the spirit which dictated the Division just taken, the object of which was either to refuse the power altogether or, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said, at least to cut down the number of the County Council representatives on this body.
§ *SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but that is not what I said. I pointed out that there were already seven Members sent by the City to the Conservancy Board, and I suggested the proposed increase of members from the County Council in addition to those members was hardly fair in the interests of the Upper Thames.
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I hope the House will not stray from the Amendment before it, which relates to further provisions for buildings.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIf hon. Members choose to have these Debates they must not object if we take part in them. It is not we who raised this discussion. We should have been extremely glad to have assented to the decision of the Committee. We have-asked you to abide by it; but clause by clause, and section by section, hon. Members opposite have tried to defeat it. A great deal of time has already been spent on this matter. I hope that now hon. Members opposite will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and allow the House to come to a decision on it.
§ (5.5.) MR. BAUMANN (Camberwell, Peckham)I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman in the somewhat acrimonious line of debate he has adopted; but I think that the President of the Local Government Board has entirely misunderstood the intentions of the proposer of the Amendment. His intention is not to cause certain clauses relating to buildings in the Metropolis to disappear altogether, but it is to cut them out of this Bill, for the purpose of tacking them on to a Public Bill called the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Bill. I submit that Clauses 33 and 34, which are governed by this part of the Preamble which it is now proposed to omit, might be very appropriately transferred to the Bill I have mentioned, because it deals with practically the same subject—it deals with kindred matters. I think that for the public-convenience, for the convenience of those who have to follow these Acts of Parliament, and for the simplification of the law, it would be a very desirable thing indeed to have; these clauses relating to buildings in London—which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, really have no proper place in this Bill—taken out of it and moved in the form of a new clause in the Public Bill standing in the name of the right hon. Baronet opposite. I have reason to know that some of the authorities of the House are in favour of the transposition of these clauses as suggested; and I therefore hope that the House will give a candid and impartial consideration to the change, which I, for 1085 one, certainly advocate in no spirit of hostility or obstruction, but merely for the convenience of the public and the simplification of our Statute Law. If the Amendment is carried, I shall put down the clauses thus cut out as new clauses to the Public Bill.
§ *(5.8.) SIR J. LUBBOCKThe hon. Member said he wished the clauses to be referred to the Committee sitting upstairs on the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Bill; But there is no Committee sitting on that Bill. The Committee has reported the Bill to the House. I do not deny that there might be some convenience if the clauses could be incorporated in that Bill; but I am not encouraged to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member, because he himself blocked that Bill last night.
§ MR. BAUMANNI hope the right hon. Baronet will allow me to explain that I blocked the Bill in order to await the result of this discussion. If these clauses are cut out of this Bill I shall put down a Motion to re-commit the public Bill for the purpose of tacking them on to it.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCKIf the hon. Member really wishes that these clauses should be inserted in that Bill, surely his course last night should have been to move the re-committal of the Bill. But, exercising his rights as a private Member, he simply blocked the Bill when it came on after 12 o'clock. I am afraid that if I were to adopt his suggestion now these clauses, which everybody admit to be valuable ones, would be lost altogether. Under these circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment.
§ *(5.12.) MR. H. LAWSONI am afraid that the zeal of the hon. Member for the simplification of the law will only lead to blocking Metropolitan business. If his suggestion were adopted, the probability is that these clauses would not pass into law this Session at all. I originally moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was impossible to negotiate with hon. Members opposite, who refused to allow the Committee stage to be taken. But now the state of public business is such that it is highly improbable the enemies of the London County Council in this House will allow it to pass a further stage. It 1086 would therefore be unwise to excise these clauses from the Bill now before us, in order to get them inserted in the other Bill.
§ *(5.13.) MR. MURDOCHI think that in the interests of builders, surveyors, architects, and others, it would be well to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, as it would simplify matters very much if all clauses relating to buildings in the Metropolis were to be found in one Bill. We are now discussing the London County Council Bill, but there is nothing in the title which will enable surveyors, architects, builders, and others to know that it contains clauses which affect their business. It would be far better to have all these provisions in one Bill.
§ *(5.14.) MR. RITCHIEI have on hand at the present time a Bill consolidating the law with regard to all these matters in London, and I hope soon, by means of it, to place in the hands of all concerned a complete list of the provisions affecting them.
§ (5.15.) MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)I am very pleased to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to consolidating the Bill with regard to buildings in London. I rose for the very purpose of making such a suggestion. I think at the present time, if hon. Members believe these clauses are of importance, the best plan will be to allow them to pass. To agree to such an Amendment as this when we are approaching the middle of July, and to attempt to transfer them from one Bill to another, as to which there is a strong probability that it will not pass into law, will not certainly be a wise course to pursue. It is, I think, a very ingenious mode of getting rid of the clauses altogether. Those who have a deep interest in the welfare of the Bill have nothing to gain by this proposed transference.
*MR. R. G. WEBSTERAfter the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. ["No, no."]
§ Question put, and agreed to.
*(5.16.) MR. R. G. WEBSTERWith regard to Clause 32, which exempts members of the County Council from jury service, I certainly could not imagine any men better qualified to sit on juries. It is also slightly anomalous that in one 1087 and the same Bill, amongst its multifarious contents, are found the County Council asking for fresh duties in one clause, and in the next exemption from those duties which, in common with the vast majority of citizens, they are occasionally called on to perform. As I understand, however, the contention is that their public duties are already very onerous, I will not propose my Amendment for the omission of that clause.
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe decision just come to by the House negativing the proposal to omit lines 13 to 15 in the Preamble gives the sanction to Clauses 33 and 34, which will therefore stand part of the Bill. It is not competent, therefore, to move their omission.
§ Another Amendment made.
§ Bill to be read the third time.