HC Deb 12 March 1878 vol 238 cc1217-36

Order for Second Heading read.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

In rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, I feel that I must ask the indulgence of the House for taking up time at this late hour, and introducing a Bill which deals with one of the most important questions which can affect a large number of the inhabitants of this Metropolis—namely, a pure supply of water. I ask the House to grant me the second reading of the Bill for the purpose of referring it to a Committee, where it will be taken in conjunction with a Bill which has already passed the second reading in this House, which is a Bill for obtaining a better and a purer supply of water for the Metropolis at large. I trust that before that Com- mittee, where I hope the Bill will be sent, all the various and complex interests, involved will be carefully examined and considered. I have heard some of those who are advocates of the Water Companies, say that their antiquity is one reason why they should not be purchased by a municipal authority. With regard to that, I would simply make one quotation, which I think is applicable to the present occasion. It is from the Report of the Royal Commission of 1866, paragraph 246. It is stated— That the duty of supplying the inhabitants of a City with water has from a very early period been regarded as a peculiarly municipal function, and the supersession of the municipalities by Joint Stock Companies is a comparatively modern innovation, assuming the Now River Company to be the earliest case in point. I think that I may assume that the most essential conditions of water supply are four. One is a pure source of supply; the second is a constant supply; the third is a high pressure; and the fourth is a public control by means of a municipal authority. As regards a pure source of supply for this Metropolis, I think it has been sufficiently established by Royal Commission, and also by Committees of this House, that the sources of supply for water for the public are not of a proper or of a pure character. I mean with regard to the River Thames and the River Lea. I know that some people say that after the water has passed through a process of filtration, it is, in a certain way, pure enough for dietetic purposes—and then again the opinion of scientific people is strictly at variance with that opinion. I may quote here in proof of the statement the Sixth Report of the Rivers Pollution Commission, page 429, whore they say— We, therefore, are of opinion that the Thames should as early as possible be abandoned as a source of water for domestic use, and that the sanction of Her Majesty's Government be in future withheld from all schemes involving more capital for the supply of Thames water to London. That is the Report of the Thames River Pollution Commission; and I go further still. In the Report of the same Committee with regard to the River Lea they say— The water of the River Lea and its tributaries are polluted by town sewage, and also by refuse from manufactures. And in the Sixth Report they say— In our opinion, therefore, the Thames, indeed, ought to be abandoned as a source of Metropolitan water supply. I think these quotations sufficiently prove that the sources of water supply are not of a pure, or a proper character. Now, we go to the water after it has passed through the filtering beds, and I find there is diverse opinion upon that. There is a Government Inspector, Dr. Prank-land. He has given on many occasions most adverse criticism with regard to the purity of the water. I know that there are some who say that the water is of a proper and pure character, and they would naturally refer to some book which had been published by Dr. Tidy, and say that waters contaminated with sewage can be made pure. But I would ask the House what any hon. Member himself would do if the water supply of his own house was of an improper or impure character? Would he not take means to try and put that water in a proper and efficient condition? If that is applicable to individuals like ourselves, it is applicable to the community at large; and more especially is it applicable to a great and teeming population such as the City of London. I think that we ought to pay some sort of attention to the Report which Dr. Frankland issues month by month; and with the permission of the House—although I know they do not like to hear a speech full of quotations—I must in justice to myself give a few quotations, and trouble the House for a very short time. I can assure the House that I would not have brought the question on now if it had not been that I, as a private individual having no influence and no Government power, should have had no opportunity of any sort or kind of bringing this important question affecting the happiness and health of millions of our fellow-countrymen before the House if I had not taken advantage of the only opportunity which has been given to me on the present occasion. Now, with the permission of the House, I will read a few extracts from Dr. Frankland's Report with regard to the water which the Members of this House, with the rest of our fellow-subjects in London, have the good or the bad fortune, according to the views entertained, to drink. In the report of September, 1877, Dr. Frankland says— The water from the Thames, supplied by the Chelsea," West Middlesex, Southwark, Grand. Junction, and Lambeth Companies, was much more polluted by organic matter in September than in July or August. And then he goes on to October. Now, this is really a special thing, and marks in an unusual degree the fact that the water, though filtered, no doubt, with the greatest possible care by the Water Companies, was generally of an improper character. He says— That the River water supplied to London during the past month was of an unusually good character, while that abstracted from the Thames is fully equal to what is usually obtained from the Lea. Then the Report of December, 1870, says— The water drawn from the Thames by the Chelsea, West Middlesex, Southwark, Grand Junction, and Lambeth Companies, was much polluted by organic matter, some of which was of most objectionable origin; and although it was efficiently filtered by four out of the five Companies, it was quite unfit for dietetic purposes. The water from the Grand Junction Company was slightly turbid, and contained moving organisms. The water of the Lea, as delivered after efficient filtration by the Now River and Last London Companies, was also polluted, but to a much less extent. I think I have established the position that very often, if not on every occasion, the water, although, perhaps, filtered with due care by the Water Companies, contains matters which I think a man must have a very curious feeling if he is anxious to drink much of. I may say that I was in "another place" last night, and I heard a distinguished Member of the House of Lords say, in reference to the Bill brought in in 1851, he was asked about the water, and his friend asked him what he thought he had better do, as his doctor had advised him to take water. He asked his friend if he should take water or beer, and the advice was to drink beer as the water was not good. I see that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) is looking at me with his usual keen eye; I cannot help saying that I hope I may get his support to the second reading of this Bill, so that everybody in London may be able to get good water, and to have it whenever he likes to take it. Now, I think I have established that point; and the next is a constant supply at high pressure. I will not take up the time of the House by dwelling too much on these two points, because I think it has been established to the satisfaction of this House by Royal Commissions, by Committees, and everybody, that it is necessary to have a constant supply of pure water at every house; and it is also necessary for the purpose of protection of all houses in our cities against fire that this water should be laid on under proper and efficient high pressure. I do not mean the sort of high pressure, or what is called high pressure, which is given now in London by the various Companies; because I have no doubt the House is aware that out of the eight Companies they all vary— some are bound by Act of Parliament to give one pressure, some are bound to give another. I do not wish to say anything unfair of any of the Water Companies. I believe there is one Company —the New River—which has recently established a reservoir for the purpose of giving a better and a higher pressure, so that the water may be cast by the hydrant to the highest point of any house. I believe that has been carried out to a certain extent, and also by another Company, called the East London; but I believe most of the others have not got the high pressure with the constant service which will make it thoroughly and truly efficient; and I believe that is borne out by the Reports of the Royal Commissions, and by the Pollution of Rivers Commissions, that that cannot be carried out in any shape or form unless you have thorough unity of management—and I believe that unity of management has effected great benefit in the great cities of Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow. I want to ask the House that if it is found in these great centres of commerce and industry, that it was not found convenient to have one single Company giving out a water supply, is it not ten times more applicable in London where there is a greater population, where you find not one single Company, but eight different Companies, with eight different sorts of rules and regulations, in this Metropolis? Is it not much more necessary that the Metropolis should have one consistent management, under one municipal head, where everything will be carried on in a proper and effi- cient manner? I have heard that the Metropolis has been in some way agitated upon this question. But I think it is apparent to every hon. Member of this House that if the whole of these Companies should be united together in one consistent whole, with one management, you will save an immense number of directors' fees, and secretaries, and save a number of expenses which now exist, and which must swell in a very great degree the water rates. I have got one or two quotations with regard to placing the water under municipal authority, which I will, with the permission of the House, read. The Select Committee of 1867 recommended the duty of seeing that the Companies properly fulfilled their duties; that that should be imposed upon the Metropolitan Board. The conclusions of the Royal Commissioners were— That no trading company should he permitted to levy or expend the compulsory rate; and, therefore, the future control of the water supply should be entrusted to a responsible public body, with power conferred on them for the purchase and extension of existing works, and the levying of the rates thereto. On the same Commission an eminent engineer—Mr. Bateman—gives this evidence. He states— He is so convinced of the great advantages which would result from the water supply being in the hands of a great Corporation, for the benefit of the whole Metropolis, that he would not advocate a scheme which did not include that idea. And Mr. Duncan said—page 136—that his experience most decidedly was in favour of corporate bodies in large towns having the entire charge of the water-works for the supply of the inhabitants. Sir Joseph Heron, a very great authority, also says he thinks the experience they have had in Manchester has shown most clearly that the advantages are very great of having them under municipal authority. I will not weary the House with further extracts. I wish to condense my observations as much as I possibly can, and I will point out to the House another motive for purchasing the Water Companies. We all know how London extends from North, South, East and West. Every year a fresh drinking supply is laid on to every house for the purpose of providing water to the house, and the Water Companies are obliged periodically to raise fresh sums of money. What do they expect to get for these sums of money? Why, they expect, as we have heard from the various deputations to Ministers, to get 5, 6, and 7 per cent; and they are groaning because they do not get 10 per cent. We have heard complaints of the expenses. I say that the longer this necessary and inevitable measure is postponed, the more expenses will be incurred; and I think the House will agree with me that it is impossible for them to go on keeping the Metropolis supply always in the hands of private Companies. The longer this important question is postponed, the greater will be the expense to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. I do not want to say anything about the gentlemen who take care of the Water Companies. They manage their own affairs; but what I do say is this—that they look, and must look, and it is only fair that they should look, to the interests of their shareholders; whereas, a public body, responsible, as they would be, to the public interests—their business is to give a pure water, as pure as possible, to give of that water a constant supply at high pressure, and plenty of it, at the cheapest possible rate; and if any benefit should accrue from extending the limits of London, which must accrue, and does accrue year by year, to see that these benefits should be placed in the pockets of the Metropolis and not in the pockets of the shareholders of any private Company. As regards the price, I know that some have complained, and from their point of view they have justly complained, about the manner of the purchase. But in the Bill there are provisions for arrangements with every Company; arrangements for the purchase of their works on fair and equitable terms; and if the Water Companies cannot see their way to agree, supposing this Bill passes, to the fair and equitable terms of the Metropolitan Board as the Municipal Authority proposes, why the matter will go, as in every other purchase, to arbitration, and the arbitrator will take everything into consideration; and in this case, after he has given his decision, an addition of 10 per cent extra will be given, and the purchase will be completed. I do not wish to take up the time of the House further than to say that if they will allow the second reading of this Bill, and allow it to go to a Select Committee, for which I shall move, and if I get my second reading, I think that Committee will consider the other Bill with regard to the fresh supply to the Metropolis; and I hope that Committee will not only do justice to the consumer, as I am certain they will do justice also to the Water Companies of the Metropolis. I beg to move the second reading of this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)

MR. SAMUDA

I move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months. I have listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet who has just sat down, and I cannot discover a single argument for the measure that he has proposed. There are two most important Bills with which we have to deal in this matter. The one that is before us at the present moment is called the Metropolis Water Works (Purchase) Bill; but there is another Bill to which the hon. and gallant Baronet has referred, and which he desires to couple with it; and if he can succeed in getting the House to read this Bill a second time, he proposes to take them together in Committee. This second Bill is called the Metropolis Water Supply Bill; and we have this most extraordinary proposal to deal with—that the Metropolitan Board of Works come down and ask us to allow them to absorb the Water Companies, who are performing the duties for which they have obtained the sanction of Parliament; and, at the same moment that he asks us to allow the Metropolitan Board of Works to absorb the Water Companies, he appears before us in the character of another Company seeking to compete with them, and to lay down fresh water-mains all over the Metropolis. I will deal with the second scheme presently; but I will first pass in review the scheme which we have before us at the present moment. By this scheme, as I have said, he asks us to allow the Metropolitan Board of Works to purchase the whole of the water-works of the Metropolis. Now, first let me point out what that involves. The Metropolitan Board of Works have, at the present time, jurisdiction over an area of 120 square miles, and he asks us to sanction their becoming the proprietors of, and having a jurisdiction over, the whole of these water-works, which reach over an area of 520 square miles; so that it is not only the water-works of the Companies that, on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he asks power to acquire; but that that body should have jurisdiction outside the Metropolis over four times the extent of the area over which they now exercise jurisdiction. In addition to that, there is another body—namely, the Corporation of London, which is within the area which he wants to absorb; and he asks that the City should get water from the works which would be under the management of the Metropolitan Board, instead of getting it through the New River Company. Now, the hon. and gallant Baronet has called the attention of the House to what he terms the state of the water; but I think I can satisfy the House that the quotations which he has made require a great deal of correction. And, first, I would observe that the Water Companies, as they exist at the present moment, are by no means what might be termed independent bodies, for under the Acts of 1852 and 1871, they have become amenable to Government control. They are under the control of the Local Government Board. There has been appointed under those Acts a Water Examiner, whose business it is continually to keep a record of the state of the water, and the quantity of water that is being supplied. There are also Auditors appointed, who have to take the greatest care that the accounts of the Companies are carefully made out and accurately furnished, and that their dividends are not in excess. By the Act of 1871, so much care has been taken of the public that it is enacted that, wherever it is required, a constant supply shall be given by these Companies, and that hydrants shall be supplied by them where they are required by the local authorities. I may mention that a great deal of obstruction has been thrown by the Metropolitan Board in the way of these hydrants being supplied. But, passing that by, I may remark that, in addition to this, there are exceedingly heavy penalties, amounting to as much as £200 per week, to be imposed upon the Companies if they fail to comply with the duties and obligations they have incurred under the statutory obligations imposed upon them. They have been called upon, from time to time, materially to improve the sources from which they take the water for the Metropolis, and. they have improved them to the extent that, instead of being, as the hon. and gallant Baronet would represent to the House, liable to be blamed for their neglect, they should be praised. By the Act of 1852, all the Companies who drew their water from the Thames were required to improve their sources of supply by taking the water from points higher up the river. That has been done. In 1867 there was a Public Committee, presided over by a late Colleague of mine, Mr. Ayrton, a very painstaking man; and I think the present President of the Local Government Board was a Member of that Committee; and, therefore, there were men on the Committee who were well able to thoroughly investigate the matter, and in whom this House would have confidence. This is one of the Committees from whose Report the hon. and gallant Baronet, who moved the second reading of this Bill, quoted extracts, in order to show that the water was not that which it should be; but the Committee say— We are satisfied that both the quantity and the quality of the water supplied from the Thames are so far satisfactory, that there is no ground for disturbing the arrangement made by the Metropolitan Water Works Act of 1852, and any attempt to do so will only end in a waste of capital, and unnecessary charges on the owners and occupiers of property in the Metropolis. That, I should submit, is a proper answer to the hon. and gallant Baronet. But, in 1869, there was a Royal Commission, presided over by the Duke of Richmond, and they say in their Report that— After examining the schemes for the supply of water in the Metropolis, there is no evidence to lead us to believe that the water now supplied is not generally good and wholesome. Then, in 1871, there was another Parliamentary Inquiry, which resulted in the passing of the Act by which an Examiner and Auditors were to be appointed. Well, now, by virtue of these Acts, not only have the Government authority over the Companies, but the Medical Officers of Health have to report from time to time, and I have in my hand a Report of Dr. Tidy's for a period of 10 years. After referring to previous analyses, which justified the Report of the Commissioners, he says— Let me, however, submit that the question is simply this—Is the present water supply to London pure and wholesome? Now, that is the very thing we have to consider. Here we have an outside authority coming in and speaking on this point. After making some other observations, he says— And here I venture to state very broadly, that the analyses justify me in the assertion that the water supplied to London—the healthiest City in the world—is as excellent in quality as it is liberal in quantity. Now, I do not think, after such a statement as this, that the Water Companies can be fairly charged with not having fulfilled the duties imposed upon them. Let me say a word with regard to the Companies themselves, and then I will deal with the other questions. The Companies are in this position. Many of them have been formed for 100 years and upwards, and the returns during the early periods of their existence were of the most miserable description. To give one single instance, which I know better than the rest—that of the Kent Water Works Company, who have been established about 70 years. In the first 40 of these 70 years, the dividend averaged only a trifle more than 1 per cent — it did not amount to 1½. It has since risen, and I think it is now 8 per cent. That is a representative case; and if you take all the Companies through, I believe that their average earnings at the present moment are less than 8 per cent, though, by the Acts of Parliament, they may divide as much as 10 per cent. But the hon. and gallant Baronet comes down and wants to purchase these Companies when they have turned the corner, and, after great difficulties, have arrived at an ordinary amount of earnings. Then the hon. and gallant Baronet deals with the question of economy, and asks the House to believe that the transference of these Companies to his Board would result in economy to the consumers. Nothing of the sort. I think I can satisfy the House that it would result in exactly the opposite. In the first place, I would point out that the income of the whole of the Companies is £1,200,000 a-year —I mean in round numbers. Of that, £750,000 goes for dividends, and £450,000 for expenses. Well now, to purchase these Companies—to purchase them fairly and properly, even the hon. and gallant Baronet will not deny, will take at least £25,000,000. It cannot be otherwise; £12,000,000 of money has been spent by these Companies, and the market value of that £12,000,000 represents the sum I am speaking of— £25,000,000. The plan of the hon. and gallant Baronet is an extremely ingenious one. He proposes first to compete with them, and reduce their dividends, and then buy them up. But I am quite sure he will not get Parliament to sanction that. But this is not all the money he wants. According to his own account, he must spent £5,000,000 more on the works to be constructed, in order to enable him to compete with the Companies. Four per cent on £30,000,000 — and I do not think he is likely to get the money for less— will require £1,200,000 a-year for the interest, which will absorb all the present income at once, and there is nothing for the expenses, so that the Metropolis would have to pay the whole of the working expenses in addition to the present rates that are now charged. At the present moment the expenses of the Companies amount to nearly £500,000 a-year; and, if he is going to lay down an additional entire set of pipes, he cannot do it for the present expense, but will have to add half as much more; so that the annual outlay will be £750,000. And when I tell you—and I am sure the House is prepared to expect it—that the works which he proposes to carry out, instead of costing £5,000,000, will cost probably not less than £10,000,000—it will turn out that the Metropolis will be mulcted to the extent of twice the amount that at the present moment it pays to the Water Companies, whose functions he desires to supersede, but of whose business he really knows nothing. He attempts to justify his proposal by pointing to what has taken place in handing over the provincial Water Companies to provincial municipalities. But this is a case so totally different, that you cannot compare the two things. Take a very large provincial municipality—take Manchester, for instance. Why, that represents in the whole about one of these eight Companies; and, therefore, you cannot compare these es- tablishments with those of provincial towns; and when an establishment has grown to the size that some of these Companies have, it must be fully maintained, and any interference with it will not result in economy of establishment, or in substituting any management nearly so good as that now existing, and, instead of doing good, will do harm. But I cannot leave this subject without referring to what is of considerably more importance, and that is their new works scheme. Now, a more crude, undigested, and impracticable scheme has never been put before the public. I will endeavour to explain what this scheme is. It is a proposal that the Metropolitan Board of Works should be empowered to go into every water-works district, to invade those districts, and to rob them of their customers. Under the guise of philanthropy to the public, they are asked to throw themselves into the hands of the hon. and gallant Baronet and his Board, that they may deal with them in any way they may think fit. Now, the Kent Water Works differ from the other Water Works, in that they draw the whole of their supply from chalk wells. They have a large district, and they have several pumping-stations. They have a district for which they require 11,000,000 gallons a-day; and if the population of their district goes on increasing at the same rate that it has done—and it is probable it will not be less, but greater —in 10 years or so they will require not 11,000,000, but 16,000,000 of gallons a-day. Now, the proposal of the hon. and gallant Baronet is to draw from these wells 16,000,000 of gallons a-day for the supply of the Metropolis. I will show how absurd that proposal is. They propose to get 6,000,000 on the North side and 10,000,000 on the other; at Grays, the wells are known to be in conjunction with the river, and from increased pumping alone, the water will be so contaminated that it will not be fit for use. But, dealing with the case only on the South side, where they propose to obtain 10,000,000, the Kent Water Company will shortly require 16,000,000. The whole of their collecting wells only yield, at the present moment, 20,000,000; and therefore it follows that, if you take the water at all, you must rob the Kent Water Company. But that is not the only difficulty that you have. When the hon. and gallant Baronet has obtained this quantity of water, he proposes to supply the houses of the Metropolis with a double service of water. One of the supplies is to provide for drinking and for extinguishing fires, and the other is for anything else. I should like to know who has the management of his house in that state of control that he could restrict his servants as to which tap they should take the water from? As they are requiring and using at the present moment 35 gallons a-head a-day, and as 16,000,000 gallons would only be two gallons a-day for every person, it follows that, instead of 16,000,000, he would require an enormous deal more than he has provided; and, as I have shown, he has not the means of getting even the modest amount that he speaks of getting, it follows that his scheme is impracticable and unworkable; and as this scheme is the only scheme on which the proposal for purchase rests, it follows that if the one falls the other must fall with it. But I would urge that there are reasons altogether apart why we should not pass this Bill. It does not appear to me that the Metropolitan Board of Works are the right body to be entrusted with this authority. Part of my argument is that these waterworks should not be purchased by any local authority; but, apart from that, I say that the Metropolitan Board of Works were established for a totally different purpose, and that no justification for the course that is proposed has been shown. I recollect that in just the same way it was asked to be allowed to raise another £35,000,000 to buy up the Gas Companies. On that occasion—I hope I may have now the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as I had then—on that occasion the Metropolitan Board opposed a Bill to get some additional capital for a large Gas Company at the East End, and spoke of it as if it was almost their property. Well, I appealed to my right hon. Friend opposite, and the answer I got from him was practically this—the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Government had in no way and in no sense committed themselves to the Metropolitan Board as the right authority for taking the Gas Companies over. I maintain that they have no justification for making this proposal either, seeing that they were appointed for a different purpose. Lastly, I would urge upon the House, that if it should ever become necessary from the increase of London, to seek for an additional supply of water, that their plan proposed is futile and that we shall have to bring the water from one of the Lake districts. Under such circumstances, I can imagine that the House would entrust that undertaking to some large central municipal authority, which may by that time be created; but, giving the authority asked for to the Metropolitan Board now, would only increase the difficulty of dealing with the question satisfactorily then. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will reject this Bill. I do not want to go further. I wish to avoid wearying the House; but my anxious desire is that the House should reject this Bill on the second reading; because, as I have endeavoured to show, and I hope I have shown, that the Metropolitan Board of Works are not the right body to have this matter entrusted to them, and they have made out no case on which they can show that a public benefit would result. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.

MR. ALDERMAN COTTON

seconded the Amendment. At that very late hour he would add nothing to the exhaustive speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda), except to say that he quite agreed with him that the Metropolitan Board of Works was a very ambitious body, constantly endeavouring to assume to itself all kinds of functions and move its neighbours' landmarks, and who consequently were not the right body to have the control of the water supply of the Metropolis. Instead of sinking wells in the chalk formation all round London, he would advise them to leave well alone, and confine themselves to the purposes for which they were appointed.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Samuda.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. CHARLEY

said, the Bill was one of great magnitude, and it was impossible to discuss it at that hour. Therefore, he moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—{Mr. Charley.)

MR. GOSCHEN

trusted if the debate were adjourned the matter would not be brought up again, unless there was sufficient time to discuss it. The speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) showed that this was no trifling Bill, which could be discussed in the course of half-an-hour, between 12 and 1 in the morning; but a measure of very great importance indeed.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

said, he thought, in justification to himself, he should ask the House to recollect he was only a private Member, and as such he had great difficulty in bringing on the subject, and therefore he must take what opportunities offered to him. He acknowledged that was a great question, and he hoped for that reason the Government would take the Bill into their favourable consideration, and give him a day in which to discuss it.

MR. FAWCETT

said, he thought his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) was somewhat hard in his observations. He blamed the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works for bringing on the Bill at so late an hour. The right hon. Gentleman had great experience of the Forms of that House; and he would ask him to give the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board the benefit of his experience, and suggest to him how he could have had a more favourable opportunity, unless he got the assistance of the Government. He (Mr. Fawcett) had not formed a strong opinion at all on this Bill; in fact, he had not told his constituents, and not one of them knew in the least degree how he should vote; and, he might add, that he had not the slightest interest in any Water Company. But the real question just now was this—This matter was left entirely in the hands of a private Member, because, although the Chairman of the Board of Works was the Representative of a great Corporation who were responsible for the government of the Metropolis—["No, no!"and "Yes!"]—yes, as far as Water Bills were concerned, were responsible for the government of the Metropolis—["No, no!"]—then what other municipal body was? It was perfectly well known that all great works in the Metropolis were committed to the Metropolitan Board of Works. He thought that that body might be much amended in its constitution; but, practically, all great public works in London had been carried on by them during the last 10 years; and if the Chairman of that Board, or some other body, did not take up questions of this kind, what would be the position in which the Metropolis would be placed with regard to its future supply of water? They all knew the cogent resistance that was offered to every Water Bill, or anything attempted to be done in the interest of the ratepayers in the Metropolis. They all knew perfectly well that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board had not one whit more influence or power to bring his Bill on than the most insignificant Member of the House. They all knew perfectly well the kind of resistance offered to Bills by private interests that considered themselves affected; and he trusted, therefore, that if the debate were adjourned, it would not be without some understanding with the Government that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board should be afforded facilities for bringing on the Bill again. Every Wednesday to the end of the Session was fully taken up, and there was no chance whatever of its being brought on on a Wednesday, and very little chance on a Tuesday. Monday, Thursday, and Friday were Government nights, and, therefore, this measure could not he brought on on any of those nights. He admitted that a measure of this importance could not be discussed at 1 o'clock in the morning; and yet it ought to be discussed. It was a matter of vital importance, affecting the health of the Metropolis; and if the debate were adjourned that evening without the Government giving an undertaking to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board that they would assist him to bring on this important Bill on some other occasion, the people of the Metropolis would be virtually told that this subject had been shelved for this Session. Exactly the same fate would await every Bill of the kind that might be brought in for the next 10 years; and, therefore, there would be no chance of this important question affecting their health, and, consequently, their happiness, being considered—the question whether the water supply should be left in the hands of the present Companies, or whether it should be entrusted to some representative body of the ratepayers of London? Of course, it was impossible that they could decide on the merits of this Bill after such a discussion as they had had, and he had no doubt that the debate would be adjourned; but he strongly urged the Government, and he thought he had a right to press it, as representing one of the most populous Metropolitan constituencies, to give some undertaking to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that this great and important subject should not be shelved; but that they would render him some assistance in bringing it on again, so that a matter so important to the population of the Metropolis should receive due consideration.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, as his right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) could not speak again, he wished, on his behalf, to assure the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that he was quite aware of the difficulty, and, indeed, the almost impossibility of bringing on a measure of this kind without the assistance of Government; and his right hon. Friend wished to say that he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have the assistance of Government in bringing it on again at a time when it could be thoroughly discussed. For his own part, he was distinctly favourable to this measure. He believed it would be for the interests of the public that the Water Works should be put under one representative body. Whether that body should be the Metropolitan Board of Works was another matter. He thought that was a question that might fairly be discussed in Committee; but the principle of the Bill, that the water supply should be in the hands of a public representative body, he thought should be affirmed. These were his views, and he should like to state them at greater length—when the Bill came on again; but he would now press on the Government the importance of naming some not very distant day for the discussion of this measure, and that they should give to the House some indication of what their own opinion was. Looking at the importance of the question, he thought that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was entitled to ask the Government to give him a day on which he could bring on the Bill again, as without that assistance he would be totally unable to do so.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had heard it sometimes said that the public had an idea that the Consolidated Fund might be drawn upon to any extent, and that its resources were illimitable; and something of the kind seemed to prevail with regard to the amount of time that the Government had at their disposal. Now, he must protest on behalf of the Government that the time at their disposal by the Rules of the House was by no means too large, indeed, was not large enough for the work they had to accomplish, with Supply to get on with, and the Bills they had introduced, they had not such a preponderance of days that they could afford to find one for the discussion. They had already had to promise days for one or more measures, and they would now have the greatest possible difficulty in giving a day for the discussion of any Bill not a Government Bill. No doubt, this measure was a very large and important one, and deserved full consideration. Of course, if the Government undertook to bring in a measure dealing with the subject, they would have to find time for it; but they were not at present able to undertake the responsibility for this measure. If the Bill went on, the Government at the proper time would express their views of the difficulties in the way of the proposal; but, as the matter now stood, they could not hold out a hope that they would be able to find a day for it.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had received but scant justice that night for the labour he had undergone in bringing forward that large and most important measure. The supply of water to the Metropolis was a question well worthy the attention of the House; but his hon. and respected Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) seemed to treat the inhabitants of London unworthily, as if they were sheep and cattle to be bought and sold. His hon. Friend wished to continue the monopoly of the Water Companies, who dealt out water as they pleased, would not let them get it for themselves, and charged them what they chose, treating the people of the Metropolis, in fact, as if they were their property. He objected to that altogether, and thought the Metropolitan Board of Works was taking a very wise course in introducing this Bill at the present time. The first great drought, when they would find the present sources of supply fail them, would teach them the necessity for measures of precaution like this; and show that they must make further provision for the supply of water to the 5,000,000 people in the Metropolis. The longer it was delayed, the worse it would be, and it was the duty of Parliament to consider the serious position they were in. The hon. and gallant Member for Truro only asked that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee in order that it might be dealt with there, and he thought that ought to be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.