§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was anxious to put a Question to the Chairman of Ways and Means relating to the Notice which his hon. Friend had put upon the Paper with regard to the second reading of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Water Expenses) Bill. The Question which he wished to put was, Whether, looking at the circumstances of the case, his hon. Friend could see his way to the removal of his opposition to this Bill, so that it might be considered by the House? The Notice of his hon. Friend rather implied that the Government ought to have introduced this measure on their own responsibility, but that they had not done so. He was now authorized by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whom he regretted to say was unable, from indisposition, to be present that day-—to state that, with certain Amendments which he proposed to move in Committee, and of which he would give due Notice, the Government were prepared, on their own responsibility, to support the second reading of the Bill.
§ MR. RAIKESventured to think that the Question which had just been ad- 539 dressed to him by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury offered the best justification for the course which he had taken in putting upon the Paper the Notice to which he had referred. The proposition which he desired to have affirmed was that a measure of this sort, quite apart from its merits— as to which he did not wish to say anything—that a proposal of this description was not one which would obtain the favour of the House unless it had received the sanction of the Government, who had thought that, under the special circumstances of the case, there was reason for its being brought before Parliament. Having now obtained from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury the intimation that the Bill was in that position, he had arrived at the result ho desired to secure, and he should, therefore, be very happy to withdraw the Notice which he had put upon the Paper.
§ MR. MONKdesired to ask a Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the general question arising out of this Bill—namely, Whether he could inform the House the amount for which ho asked an indemnity from Parliament.
§ SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, he might state that ho should be prepared in Committee to put down a certain sum beyond which an indemnity would not be asked; but as he had had no Notice of the Question then put to him, he hoped the House would allow him to postpone giving an exact answer. Perhaps he might be permitted to add his belief that the amount of the indemnity would be between £15,000 and £16,000 at the outside. But he would put down a sum in Committee which would cover everything.
§ MR. O'DONNELLbegged to give Notice that, as the very excellent Notice of opposition put down by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Moans had been removed, he should do what was in his power to make certain that the discussion upon this Bill should take place before half-past 12 at night, if at all, in order that ho might insure as full as possible a discussion of the very important principles contained in this Bill.