HC Deb 28 February 1879 vol 243 cc1958-72

Order for Second Reading read.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG,

in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he hoped he should be allowed to allude to a few of the circumstances which had induced the Metropolitan Board of Works to undertake to deal with this very important subject. He thought it would be in the remembrance of most hon. Members of that House that in the year 1874, in the months of March and April, and again in the year 1875, some very disastrous floods occurred in the Metropolis which did a vast amount of damage, and more especially to the poorer classes of the community. The Metropolitan Board being aware of this, and fearing that a like calamity might occur again, considered it incumbent upon them to try and do their best in order to provide some adequate remedy for the evil. Although they were in themselves the local authority, they had not in their own hands the power of inducing or making either the vestries, or district boards, or individuals raise the height of the river walls, or banks, or premises abutting upon the River Thames. They carefully considered the whole matter, and in the end took what they conceived to be the most proper course. Acting under Section 69 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, they addressed themselves to the various vestries and district boards, calling their attention to the disastrous effect of previous floods, and asking them, as far as was possible, to do everything in their power to aid the Metropolitan Board in their efforts to find a remedy. Some of the persons written to intimated that they would be ready to assist the Board; but others, in the replies which they sent to the Board, stated that although Section 69 of the Act of 1855 conferred certain powers upon them, still, in consequence of their not possessing the power of entry, they could do nothing more than write, as they had no power of enforcing the execution of any work. Upon this, the Metropolitan Board had a careful survey made of the whole of the river banks. They caused notices to be sent to every one of the riparian owners, and they pointed out to all of them—whether they were large owners or only small owners—the disastrous effects which had been hitherto produced by the flooding of the river, and asked them to co-operate with the Metropolitan Board in doing everything in their power to remedy the evil in the future. About 1,000 notices, in round numbers, were sent out by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and he was glad to be able to tell the House that out of those 1,000 notices very nearly 600 had, up to the present time, complied with the requisition—or rather friendly notice—sent to them asking them to undertake the necessary works. Among the favourable replies received were many from the largest riparian owners—such as the wharfingers and the Railway Companies who had property bordering the river. It was not necessary that he should enter into this part of the question at greater length. All he would say was that the Metropolitan Board went as far as they could in the matter; but they found that still more remained to be done. They therefore introduced a Bill into Parliament in 1877. It gave rise to some discussion in the House of Commons, and was ultimately referred to a Hybrid Committee. That Committee passed a Resolution expressing an opinion that the charge ought to be distributed over the whole of the Metropolis. It was only right to say that, in the first place, a Motion was made in the Committee that the expenses should be halved; but it was lost by a majority of 2. The other Motion—that the cost should be distributed over the whole of the Metropolis—was carried, he thought, by a majority of 3—he was not quite sure whether it was 3 or 4. The Metropolitan Board wished, as far as possible, to consult the wishes of the Committee, without entirely ignoring their own views, or the views of the general inhabitants throughout the length and breadth of London—amounting to about 4,000,000, or perhaps to about 3,500,000, so far as the riverside property was concerned. Many persons were of opinion that they ought not to stir further in the matter; but in deference to the views of the Committee of the House of Commons, to which the Board thought all proper respect should be paid, the Metropolitan Board brought in and intrusted to his charge last Session a Bill in which provision was made that the works for the prevention of floods, whether upon property belonging to the district boards, to vestries, or to individuals, should be paid for by the people on the banks or the riparian owners, and that the compensation should be paid for entirely out of the general purse of the Metropolis. It appeared to him that that was a very fair mode of apportioning the expenses. That Bill was brought in by himself as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works last year; but an hon. Friend of his who objected to it immediately gave Notice of opposition, taking the somewhat unusual course of trying to prevent the Bill from even being brought in. Fortunately, at the end of the Session, his hon. Friend went away, and then he managed to get the Bill introduced. He was unable, however, to get a second reading for it, the close of the Session being so near that it was perfectly hopeless to expect to pass it through the House. He therefore took what he considered to be a proper course, and withdrew the Bill, so that the opponents of the measure should not be put to unnecessary expense. He now came to the present year. The Metropolitan Board, still feeling it their duty to do all in their power to try and induce those with whom the liability rightly rested to raise the banks of the river in order to prevent the destruction of property by the flooding of the Thames, had again intrusted the Bill to his care. But this time he had brought in the Bill as a Private Bill, and he had taken this course expressly to provide that the Bill being a Private Bill should come before the House, and that the House should give a decision upon the matter. All he could say was that if the decision of a Select Committee or of the House were adverse to the proposals now made by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Board would not be prepared to accept the responsibility of any future floods. If the House came to the conclusion that it was not right to pass the Bill, the responsibility would certainly be taken off his shoulders and would rest upon those who would not allow such a Bill, brought in as a compromise, to go as he desired it to go, and lie hoped the House would allow it to go, to a Private Bill Committee upstairs. Under all the circumstances of the case, he sincerely trusted that the House would consent to read the Bill a second time. He felt, quite sure that the House would not allow a Bill of this important character, and dealing with such an important subject, to be thrown out of the House of Commons until it had received a full and fair hearing. At the proper time evidence would be tendered to the House in support of the provisions of the measure. Already the Bill had excited considerable attention in the Metropolis, and he was not surprised at it. He held in his hand a paper containing four or five pages of reasons against the Bill. When the proper time arrived, and he had the power of replying, he should reply to any objections which might be urged against the Bill. In the meantime, he asked the House to read the Bill a second time and refer it in the usual course to a Private Bill Committee. That course had already been taken in regard to a Bill introduced by the Corporation of the City of London. It was only this very week—namely, Tuesday last—that the Bill brought in by the Corporation for the improvement of Leaden hall Market was read a second time and referred to a Select Committee in the usual way. He, representing the Metropolitan Board, now asked the House of Commons to take the same course in regard to the present measure which had been accorded to the Bill brought in by the City of London—namely, to give the Bill a second reading, and insure for it a fair and just hearing before the tribunal of a Private Bill Committee. On behalf of the Metropolitan Board he asked for a Committee of Members who would all attend the inquiry and listen to all the evidence tendered to them on the matters they would be called upon to decide. He wished to avoid, if possible, taking a decision from a tribunal composed of Members who could not hear all the evidence, and only came in at the last moment to give a vote against the Bill, with their minds prepared beforehand. Without further comment, he asked the House to read the Bill a second time in order that it might go before a Select Committee.

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

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,

who had upon the Paper a Notice to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months, remarked that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had been illuminated by a flash of what Balzac used to call "retrospective perspicacity." He had found out this year what he ought to have found out a year ago, and had converted the measure into a Private Bill in order to get rid of opposition in its early stages. Unfortunately, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was in the position of being hoist with his own petard, because he had suggested, when the Bill was before the House two years ago, that it should be brought in as a Private Bill. It seemed that his hon. Friend had this year followed the advice which was then rendered to him. With regard to the Bill itself, he wished to point out that his hon. Friend was, no doubt unintentionally, altogether misleading the House, when he wished them to believe that the Bill was only opposed by himself (Sir Charles W. Dilke) and a few hon. Members whose constituents were in some way interested in the matter. The great majority of his constituents were interested in the contrary way to the view which he took, so that he was perfectly unprejudiced in the matter. In point of fact, a similar Bill, but not exactly the same, was brought in two years ago, and referred, as his hon. Friend (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) told them, to a Hybrid Committee. The hon. Baronet had that day laid great stress upon his desire, not only that the present Bill should be read a second time, but that it should be referred to a Private Bill Committee. In the last part of his speech the hon. Baronet four or five times over used those words. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would say at once, from a fear of being misunderstood, and for reasons which he would give directly, that he should not divide against the second reading of the Bill. He should confine himself to giving a warm support to the Motion, which he had no doubt would be made by the hon. and gallant Member for South-wark (Colonel Beresford), after the Bill should have been read a second time, that it be referred to a Hybrid Committee of the House. He thought it ought to be referred to a Committee which was not simply a Private Bill Committee, but a Hybrid Committee, which was a larger Committee, and one nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection. Such a Committee would be a perfectly impartial Committee, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Assheton Cross), whom he saw in his place, would support that proposition. The right hon. Gentleman had taken great interest in the subject in the past; and perhaps it might not be known to hon. Members of the House, who did not follow Metropolitan questions, that the right hon. Gentleman had over and over again corresponded with the Metropolitan Board of Works, and pointed out the obstinacy of a small majority of the Board in regard to this question. If the right hon. Gentleman supported the reference of the Bill to a Hybrid Committee instead of to a Private Bill Committee, he would be only following out the course which he had previously taken in the matter. He had not succeeded in gathering from his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) whether he intended to agree to the Motion for referring the Bill to a Hybrid Committee or not. If his hon. Friend did, then he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had nothing more to say. As he had already said, he should not oppose the second reading. If, on the other hand, his hon. Friend would not agree to the proposal to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, but persisted in referring it to a Private Bill Committee, then he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would state briefly why he had thought it wise to place upon the Paper a Motion against the second reading of the Bill, but why he should not divide the House upon that Motion. He should not move the rejection of the Bill, because he did not wish in any way to seem to prevent legislation. On the other hand, he did consider that it would be useless for the House to pass a Bill of this kind, when they knew perfectly well that the great majority of impartial witnesses who looked into the matter two years ago came strongly to the conclusion that the Bill ought to be cast in a wholly dif- ferent form. Then, again, it must be borne in mind that the House had no security whatever, if the Committee this year took the same view as that which was taken by the Committee two years ago, that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board would not immediately drop the Bill, as he did before. If the Committee altered the Bill in order to make it acceptable to the House, then he feared that his hon. Friend would drop the Bill, and the great expense the different localities would have been put to in opposing the Bill would be entirely lost, and they would have to come before Parliament again. The House knew very well that it would be impossible to pass any Bill that would not entail a considerable expense, and it was for that reason he had placed a Notice against the Bill upon the Paper. At the same time, he felt that if he divided against the second reading his motives might be misunderstood. Therefore, while his opinions remained really unchanged, he felt that he could not take upon himself the responsibility of dividing against the Bill. He might add that he had taken the trouble to find out whether it was possible for the House, if the Bill was altered by the Committee, and the Committee this year took the same view of the matter as the Committee took two years ago—if it would be possible for the House to carry on the Bill in the event of its being dropped by the Board of Works, and for some Member of the Committee to take charge of it, even if the hon. Baronet dropped it. One of the reasons which weighed with him (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in deciding not to divide upon the second reading, was the belief that there was one precedent for this course. He believed it would be possible, although it was not often done, for the Chairman of the Committee, or some other Member of it, to go on with the Bill, even if the Metropolitan Board retired from it. If he were right, as he believed he was, in thinking there was a precedent for this course, then, whatever his views were in regard to the Bill as it stood, he would allow it to be read a second time, in the hope that it would then be referred to a Hybrid Committee.

MR. BAIKES

observed, that as the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) did not propose to proceed with the Motion of which he had given Notice, he did not think it was necessary to take up much further the time of the House in considering the matter. The observations which had just been made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea were exceedingly moderate. He had expressed the views of those who considered themselves somewhat aggrieved by the course taken by the Metropolitan Board of Works in promoting the Bill this year in its present form. The House had heard from the two hon. Members who had already spoken what the object of the Bill was. The House were also aware that a Bill similar to the present one was introduced two years ago by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that upon that occasion it was referred to a Hybrid Committee. That Committee, which was presided over by the hon. Member for Elgin, took a great deal of evidence upon the whole question, and the result of their labours was very largely to modify the character of the Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works, being dissatisfied with the finding of the Committee, ultimately withdrew the Bill, In the course of last year the Bill was introduced again as a Public Bill; but as it did not comply with the requirements of the Committee, opposition was offered to it in its earliest stage. This year, the hon. Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Grarel-Hogg) had taken care to introduce the Bill as a Private Bill, and not as a Public Bill, and had therefore secured for it a discussion on a very early day. Objection, however, had been taken in some quarters to that course. A Petition had been presented by the Lambeth Vestry, who were largely affected by the Bill, and who stated in it that they represented the opinion, not merely of Lambeth, but of Fulham and other parts of the district. They objected to the Bill being treated as a Private Bill, because they were of opinion that it came under Standing Order 194, which required that all Bills promoted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, which proposed to raise money, should be treated as Public Bills. He thought that the view taken by the Petitioners was a mistake in this particular instance; because, although the Bill brought in last Session did contain borrowing powers, the Bill brought in this Session did not contain such borrowing powers. All the financial portion of the Bill was confined to temporary advances by the Metropolitan Board of Works to persons who might require aid in carrying out the works necessary for raising the river banks. It did not in any way require any permanent advance to be made, and it made no addition to the debt of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Therefore, he thought the Bill stood clear of the objection which was taken to it under the Standing Orders, and was properly entitled to be introduced into the House as a Private Bill. Having said so much in justification of the course taken by his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Grarel-Hogg) in introducing the Bill in that form, he felt bound, at the same time, to point out that his hon. Friend could not object to the Bill being treated as part of a public question, inasmuch as the Metropolitan Board themselves had twice endeavoured to deal with it as a Public Bill. It was not open, therefore, to the Metropolitan Board to object to any course taken by the House in referring the Bill to a Hybrid Committee, because in this particular instance it happened to make its appearance on the Paper in the shape of a Private Bill. He did not wish at this stage of the Bill to go into questions pro and con that were likely to be raised before a Committee upstairs. The House would probably be aware that the main issue to be tried was whether the incidence of the taxation for the purpose of protecting the river banks from floods was to fall mainly upon the river population, or was to be spread over the larger area of the Metropolis generally? That was a very large and important question, and was one that was gone into by the Committee of 1877. He thought the Motion which had been placed on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member for South-wark (Colonel Beresford) appeared to be well calculated to meet the difficulties of the case, and, with the permission of the House, he would for a moment call attention to it. The hon. and gallant Member proposed that the Bill be committed To a Select Committee of Eleven Members; and that the Report of the Select Committee of 1877 be referred to the said Committee; that all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee, and that such Petitioners as pray to be heard by them- selves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners. That the Committee have powers to alter and modify the Bill as regards the incidence of taxation for the works proposed to be authorised by the Bill. Perhaps it would not be out of place to refer the House to the instruction given to the Committee of 1877. That Committee consisted also of 11 Members, six of whom were nominated by the House and the remainder by the Committee of Selection. The instruction given to them was that they should have power to inquire into and report upon the most equitable mode of charging and meeting the expenses to be incurred under the Bill. It would be seen, therefore, that the Motion about to be proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for South wark (Colonel Beresford) would have practically the same effect as the instruction given to the Committee of 1877, and the Committee to whom this Bill might be referred would have the additional advantage of being enlightened by the Report of that Committee. The Committee themselves took more than ordinary pains in investigating the question, and arrived at a clear decision in regard to it. But the hon and gallant Member for Southwark did not, he (Mr. Raikes) thought, fully grasp the importance of dealing with the matter by a Hybrid Committee. He had put his Resolution, perhaps very excusably, from a want of acquaintance with the technical Forms of the House, in a shape that would imply there should be a Public Committee. Now, that he (Mr. Raikes) did not think would be a desirable course. They all knew that the attendance of hon. Members on a Public Committee was not as regular as that which was secured on a Private Bill Committee, and it was exceedingly desirable that the tribunal to whom this Bill was to be referred should be one that should sit upon it as far as possible de die in diem. They might, he thought, expect more from a Hybrid Committee than from an ordinary Select Committee. Of course, hon. Members were aware that, in appointing a Select Committee on an occasion of this sort, they expected the Committee more to hear evidence than to enter into the general question; and it was almost impossible to appoint Members upon the Committee who would give the daily attendance which was obtained from a Committee nominated by the Committee of Selection. He would, therefore, suggest to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark that he should so far modify his proposal, when it came before the House, as to make his reference one to a Hybrid Committee, and not to a Select Committee. He ventured to think, after the statements which had now been made to the House, that the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark might, without much further discussion, find himself in a position to agree to that Motion; and if he did, it should be with a thorough understanding with the Metropolitan Board of Works that, if the Bill was to be read a second time and then referred to a Hybrid Committee, in the event of the Committee coming to a decision which they did not like, the House of Commons should not be treated in the same manner as they had been treated before by the Metropolitan Board of Works. It should be understood that if any change in the provisions of the Bill, however important, was arrived at as the deliberate conclusion of the Committee, it should be accepted by the Metropolitan Board. The House would certainly expect that that course would be taken, and that they should not be called upon again to sanction an inquiry which the Metropolitan Board would decline to accept. He hoped the Bill would now be read a second time, so that the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark might have an opportunity of submitting his proposition to the House.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

was anxious to say a word or two, as his name had been mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). For some time he had taken considerable interest in this question, and he thought it would be unwise for the House to reject the second reading of the Bill. The matter was one that required the immediate attention of Parliament; but after the Report of the Committee of 1877, he did not think they ought to read the Bill a second time without coming to a clear understanding that, in the first place, it should be carefully considered by a Committee upstairs, and, in his opinion, by a Hybrid Committee instead of an ordinary Private Bill Committee, and that the conclusion arrived at by the Committee should be acquiesced in by the Metropolitan Board of Works. He would not detain the House further. He entirely agreed, as far as the formation of the Committee was concerned, with every word that had fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). He should like to add one word more, and it was this. It was a matter of vital importance, and almost essential to the well-being of the inhabitants of London, that the question should be settled. It was absolutely necessary, for the protection of the life and health of the people in the low-lying districts bordering the Thames, that the matter should be at once taken in hand. Therefore, he hoped the House would fairly understand that if the Bill was considered by a Hybrid Committee upstairs, and they came to a decision upon it, whatever that decision might be, when the Committee had arrived at a decision, the House would, at all events, insist on the Bill being gone on with and passed into law. With these few observations, he trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time, and at once proceed to the consideration of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), modified as suggested by his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes).

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, that as it appeared probable the Bill would be referred to a Committee, he wished to express a hope that the Members appointed upon the Committee would have no interest in the questions to be considered. The last Committee appointed in 1877 consisted of 10 Members, and five of them had a direct interest in the question in one way or the other. He did not think it proper that a question of this importance should be referred to a Committee largely composed of those who had a direct interest in the question.

COLONEL BERESFORD

intimated that he entirely fell in with the views which had been expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes).

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

thought he might, perhaps, be allowed to say that, having brought the Bill in, having heard the views expressed by hon. Members who had taken part in the debate, and being very unwilling on all occasions to take up unnecessary time in a fruitless discussion, he would be very happy to accept the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). He was quite ready to accept the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford) to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee; but, under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the Chairman of Ways and Means would not object to an addition to the Motion, requiring that all Petitions against the Bill should be presented on or before the 6th of March. He believed that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark was perfectly willing to accept an Amendment to that effect; and it was a matter of great convenience, as well as of importance, that, in regard to a Bill of this kind, all Petitions against it should be deposited early. It would be hardly fair to those who took a great interest in the matter that any lengthened period should be allowed for the presentation of Petitions. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would have no objection to this suggestion, and on that understanding he would propose to amend the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark, by inserting after the word "Petitions" in the fourth line, the words "presented against the Bill be presented before the 6th of March." If that were done, he should be quite ready to accept the Motion. He might add, in conclusion, that as far as he had any influence as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, he would take care and use that influence to insure that, whatever decision was come to by the Committee, should be thoroughly and entirely acquiesced in. He would certainly do his best to see that the views of the Committee were carried out, because he thought the time had now arrived when something should be done to prevent the terrible calamities which resulted from the overflowing of the river.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was ready to come to an understanding in regard to the decision of the Committee; but he objected to the proposal to curtail the period allowed for the presentation of Petitions against the Bill. Ten days after the second reading of a Bill was the usual time allowed to anyone who had a locus standi against a Private Bill to enter an opposition. Even ten days was a very short time; but in this case the hon. Baronet wished to shorten it, and proposed the 6th of March—which would only allow six days, one of them being a Sunday. He thought, when the Bill had passed a second reading, that they should not encumber it with any such proposition. He would expect the time for entering opposition to be extended.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

COLONEL BERESFORD moved— That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eleven Members, and that the Report of the Select Committee of 1877 be referred to the said Committee:—That all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee, and that such Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, he heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners:—That the Committee have power to alter and modify the Bill as regards the incidence of taxation for the works proposed to be authorized by the Bill. He had no objection to the proposal of his hon. Friend (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg),that all Petitions against the Bill should be presented on or before the 8th of March.

MR. SPEAKER

I wish to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark that when a Committee of this character is appointed it is usual to state how many are to be appointed by the House and how many by the Committee of Selection.

COLONEL BERESFORD

proposed that six should be appointed by the House, and five by the Committee of Selection.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

asked if this was the proper time to move his Amendment?

MR. SPEAKER

It will come afterwards.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eleven Members, Six to be appointed by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection, and that the Report of the Select Committee of 1877 be referred to the said Committee:—That all Petitions against the Bill be referred to the Committee, and that such Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners:—That the Committee have power to alter and modify the Bill as regards the incidence of taxation for the works proposed to be authorized by the Bill.

MR. RAIKES

was glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had adopted the suggestion made to him as to making the Committee a Hybrid Committee, and agreeing that six Members should be nominated by the House and the remaining five by the Committee of Selection. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works had pleaded for a somewhat shorter time than usual for Petitions to be lodged against the Bill, and had suggested the 6th of March. He understood that there would be no objection to accept the 8th of March, and he thought that would be a solution of the difficulty which the House would accede to. It gave a clear week from to-morrow for Petitions to be sent in; and it must be borne in mind that, in promoting the Bill, the Metropolitan Board of Works were acting as a public body in the performance of a public duty, and that it was not desirable to give extended facilities, which would only result in adding to their trouble and expense. It was desirable that a day should be named beyond which Petitions should not be allowed to be deposited, and he did not think that the 8th of March would be either too late or too early a day. He thought if the hon. Baronet would make this proposition, the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark would accede to it.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

then moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 5, after the word "Bill," to insert the words "presented on or before the 8th day of March."—(Sir James M'Ganl-Hogg.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL BERESFORD

expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eleven Members, Six to be appointed by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection, and that the Report of the Select Committee of 1877 be referred to the said Committee:—That all Petitions against the Bill presented on or before the 8th day of March be referred to the Committee, and that such Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard upon their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill against such Petitioners:—That the Committee have power to alter and modify the Bill as regards the incidence of taxation for the works proposed to be authorized by the Bill.

Forward to