HC Deb 13 March 1879 vol 244 cc795-816

MR. RAIKES moved to nominate the Select Committee on this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Goldney be a Member of the Select Committee."

MR. CUBITT moved that the debate be now adjourned. He said, he took that course, because he objected to the general constitution of the Committee. He saw that a Notice had been put upon the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), to substitute for the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works that of one of the Members for the County of Surrey. He thought it invidious to object to the name of any particular Member, and especially that of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who from his position had considerable interest in the matter. It seemed to him, however, that there was a great omission in the constitution of the Committee, and that was the ground upon which he ventured to oppose it. There was no person upon the Committee who represented the interests of the South side of the River Thames. He saw that the Committee included the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who represented the Northern boundary of the Thames; but none of the Members who represented the South side were to be nominated—namely, the two Members for Lambeth, the two Members for Southwark, the two Members for East Surrey, and the two Members for Mid Surrey. Under those circumstances, he moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that the composition of the Committee might be altered, and the question be taken into consideration again to-morrow. The case was a very important one to the whole of the Metropolis; and it was undesirable that one of the great districts of London should be altogether unrepresented. He did not think it was necessary that he should enforce his position by any further argument. The locality for which he appealed was a large, populous, and poor district; and he thought it would be quite clear to the House that at least one of the Members charged with the representation of that district should have a voice on the Committee. He, therefore, begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.

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

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

quite concurred with the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite; but he objected to the constitution of this Committee for other reasons, and probably more personal reasons, than the hon. Member he referred to. This question of the prevention of floods in the Thames was considered two years ago by the House of Commons by means of a Committee, who investigated the matter very carefully, and arrived at a conclusion which, he understood, was in direct opposition to the Bill which the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was now endeavouring to promote as a Private Act. He saw, by the Papers published on this question, that the Metropolitan Board of Works declined to be bound in any way on the previous occasion by the decision of the Committee of that House, a decision which, he believed, was supported by the general feeling of the House. He was further given to understand that the whole object of this Bill was to reverse the decision of that Committee, and to return to the proposals which were rejected two years ago. The hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes), whose impar- tiality he, for one, was always ready to admit, had, he thought, made a mistake on this occasion in nominating a Committee which contained the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Now, he said this without reference to any personal qualification on the part of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), because he knew the great attention which his hon. and gallant Friend devoted to all matters of public discussion to which he was able to give his time; but, in this particular case, he contended that the hon. and gallant Baronet was in an official capacity compelled to support the proposition contained in this Bill when it came before the Committee; and as the Bill asked the House of Commons to revert to the proposal which it had already rejected, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member ought to be upon the Committee, seeing that he was not an impartial person. The idea of nominating a Committee containing the name of a Gentleman who was known not to be impartial appeared to him to be entirely erroneous. As a general principle, he thought his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would agree with him in the proposition he advocated, and that was that if they were to respect the Reports and decisions of the Committees of that House, the Committees themselves should, as far as possible, be selected from persons of an impartial disposition, able to form an independent judgment upon all questions which would be brought before them. His hon. and gallant Friend, being the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, could not, of necessity, be impartial, but would feel it his duty to advocate a particular proposition. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him (Sir Julian Goldsmid) that the best plan would be to adjourn the nomination of the Committee, in order that the list of the Members of the Committee might be revised, and care taken that a more impartial tribunal should be nominated than would be the case if the name of his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works appeared upon it. With those remarks, lie would support the proposition of the lion. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. RAIKES

thought that a rather unusual course had been taken on this occasion by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt). It was not, however, a very unusual thing to find a Motion, brought forward distinctly on one ground, supported by another hon. Member on the opposite ground. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey moved the adjournment of the debate, with the object of securing a better representation of the interests of Surrey and the South side of the river, and he was supported in his Motion by the hon. Baronet the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), because he thought the Metropolitan element ought to be omitted altogether. This showed the difficulty there was in a matter of this sort in endeavouring to steer between two extremes, in order to settle who should or who should not serve upon a Hybrid Committee. If the House were to admit the views of the hon. Member for West Surrey, they would simply take upon themselves the duty of performing functions which were performed by the Committee of Selection; and, in that case, he ventured to submit to the House there would be no use whatever in appointing a Hybrid Committee, because all the work could be effectually done by the Committee of Selection. There were, however, others who held an entirely opposite view to that held by the hon. Member for Rochester, and who thought the Committee should consist, as much as possible, of partizans; and that, therefore, the Committee of Selection should not have any part in the matter, but that it should be left entirely to the House. The object of appointing a Hybrid Committee was to have Members who were acquainted with, and took an interest in, the subject. At the same time, one particular element should not predominate; but it was desirable to have a Committee who would be entirely balanced, and who would carefully consider the two sides of the question. In selecting persons who were willing to serve upon this Committee, he thought he had arrived as far as possible at that result. He had placed upon it the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, who had charge of the Bill to be referred to the Committee, and he had placed upon it also the hon. Baronet the Mem- ber for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had given Notice of his intention to move the rejection of the second reading. He thought that if they had those two hon. Gentlemen on the Committee, they would ably represent the views, pro and con, of those interested in the Bill, and they would be posted with information which would enable them to aid counsel in eliciting important facts. He thought those two hon. Gentlemen, balancing each other, would be a sufficient representation of the antagonistic forces, and that the other four Members of the Committee should be selected from the interest they took in questions of this sort, and also from their entire indifference to the special and local interests affected by the Bill. If any hon. Member would refer to the list of the Committee, he would see that they were all Gentlemen who took an interest in questions relating to water and to rating, and on that ground they would command the confidence of the House. There was another point which must not be lost sight of, and this involved some little difficulty in the matter. It was important to boar in mind the malfeisance of the Board of Works on a former occasion, when the Board refused to act on the Report of the Committee of the House. It appeared to him that if the Board of Works was to be subjected to anything like moral pressure on the part of the House, that pressure would be stronger if the Committee did not consist of any Gentlemen who sat on the former Bill; and, that being so, he had eliminated all the names of Gentlemen who had sat before, with the single exception of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) who had charge of the Bill. He thought that was a course which would commend itself to the House. It was certainly of very great importance that if the Report arrived at in the last instance was to be re-affirmed, it should be reaffirmed by an entirely independent body, and by entirely fresh minds. If, on the other hand, the circumstances of the case were such as to induce the Committee to arrive at a different conclusion, it would be very much easier for a new Committee to take that course than a Committee who were already pledged to the former decision. That being so, he had thought it necessary to dispense with the services of several Members of the House, whose services would have been exceedingly valuable, because he thought it better, as he had already explained, to have an entirely new Committee on this occasion. The adoption of this course had deprived him of the services of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who served on the last occasion, and also of the services of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), whom he would greatly have liked to have had. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey complained that the interests of Surrey were not adequately represented on the Committee. He (Mr. Raikes) could only point out that if he placed on the Committee another Gentleman representing the interests of Surrey, who was adverse to the Bill, it would be necessary to put also upon the Committee another Gentleman who was favourable to the Bill. The result would have been that he would have had four out of the six Members of the Committee pledged to a particular view before they entered the Committee-Room, and he did not think that would be a desirable result. If, however, the hon. Member who proposed the adjournment of the debate would withdraw that Motion now, he would be quite ready to consult with him whether it would be possible to add to the Committee at a subsequent time; and if he found an opportunity of placing upon the Committee two additional names which would satisfy the parties respectively interested, he would be willing to take that course. He should be glad if the House would now so far proceed in the matter as to say that the names he had ventured to submit were proper names to be adopted. He had only one word more to say in regard to the position of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). Of course, he knew that in a Private Bill it was not in an ordinary case the rule to appoint as a Member of the Committee the Gentleman whose name was on the back of the Bill, unless it was an unopposed Bill; but in this case they were dealing with a matter more in the interest of the public than in those of private parties, and they were nominating Gentlemen to serve upon the Committee, not on the nomination of the Committee of Selection, but of the House itself. It was said that it was a thing unheard of to place the Gentleman in charge of a Bill upon the Committee appointed to consider it. The House, however, must bear in mind that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had charge of this Bill represented a very large and important public body; and he thought the Committee would be greatly open to the animadversion of the ratepayers of the Metropolis if the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was excluded from it. He hoped the suggestions he had ventured to throw out would be adopted by his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt), and that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion he had made, and allow the Committee to be formed, with a view, if possible, to adding to their numbers at a subsequent time.

COLONEL BERESFORD

said, he had placed a Notice on the Paper of his intention to move the omission of the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Worts, in order to substitute that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney). He thought the attention of the House ought to be drawn to the mode in which this important Committee had been constituted on the present occasion. On former occasions there had been two or three Committees appointed, in which the Metropolitan Board of Works were the promoters, or were otherwise deeply interested. In the present instance, there was not a single Metropolitan Member nominated on the Committee, with the exception of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). If they went back to the year 1862, when the Thames Embankment Committee was appointed, they would find upon it Sir John Shelley and Sir Samuel Morton Peto, both of them Metropolitan Representatives. In the year following, 1863, another Metropolitan Committee was appointed, and two of the Members of that were Mr. Cox and Mr. Doulton, both of them Metropolitan Representatives. Since then Committees had been appointed to inquire into the Toll Bridges Bill, which affected the Metropolis, and there were appointed upon it three Metropolitan Members from the North side of London, and two Members from the South side. Under these circumstances, he felt it was right now that some Metropolitan Members should be placed upon this Committee. The question had now been in agitation for something like a fortnight; and he thought the House must have been taken by surprise yesterday morning when they saw the names placed upon the Paper by his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Raikes). He (Colonel Beresford) had been under the impression that, as his proposal to refer the Bill to a Select Committee had been accepted by the Government, he would have been entitled to nominate three of the Committee. He believed, at all events, it had been usual to accede to some of the names proposed by an hon. Member in his position. He strongly objected to the name of the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think it right that any paid member of the Metropolitan Board should be a Member of the Committee. He did not know what the rules were in circumstances of this kind; but he certainly objected to the Committee on that ground. He had received a letter from a firm of solicitors, asking him to bring the matter before the House, and a large number of Petitions had been presented against the Bill from the South side of the Thames. The Petitioners strongly objected to the Bill in the shape in which it had been pressed forward; and, for these reasons, he should support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey.

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

hoped the Chairman of Ways and Means would not yield to the appeal which had been made, and add to the number of interested Members on this Committee. He thought it was a matter which the House might consider with advantage, whether the very best method was adopted in the appointment of Hybrid Committees, especially in regard to Committees appointed to deal with Metropolitan questions. He believed that Committees dealing with other questions of a hybrid character, and appointed in the same manner as the present Committee, were not constituted as these Metropolitan Hybrid Committees were. For instance, the Committee upon the Manchester Corporation Water Bill, upon which he had served last year, was a Hybrid Committee, and it was appointed by the House in precisely the same way as the Committee now appointed; yet upon that Committee neither of the Members for Manchester was placed, nor was there any Member for Westmoreland, or Cumberland, nor any other Member interested or committed to any particular view in the matter which had to come before the Committee. If they could get a jury of Members utterly unprejudiced, instead of having a Committee prejudiced by preconceived opinions, it would be a great advantage. The House had just nominated a Committee which he would refer to, though the House had been pleased to place his name upon it. He alluded to the Committee on the Liverpool Lighting Bill, in which the question of electric lighting was to be raised. No Member interested in electric lighting, or personally interested in gas, had been placed upon that Committee; and he had no doubt that if any Member had been proposed who was so interested he would have been objected to. A different view seemed to prevail, however, in the case of a Metropolitan Bill. He admitted that something might be said for placing the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon a Committee of this description. But, at the same time, he was bound to say there was much force in the objection of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Beresford), although he did not for a moment Bay this on personal, but solely on public grounds. It did seem to him open to question whether it was desirable to place on a Committee of this kind a Member who went there with preconceived opinions, whose vote upon every question that would arise upon the Committee would not be given upon the evidence, but according to the opinions of the Board of Works, which were well known and had been expressed in that House over and over again. He had not risen on this occasion for the purpose of objecting to the inclusion of his hon. and gallant Friend's name upon the Committee, but simply for the purpose of urgently requesting the House and his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means not to add to the Committee any more names of interested Members—he meant Metropolitan Members, or others officially connected with the Bill, or officially opposed to it—or of any Member whose opinions could be foretold, and whose votes could also be foretold; but to make the Committee, as far as possible, an impartial one—a jury, in point of fact, that would impartially consider the merits of the Bill.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he represented a portion of the Metropolis which was very much interested in the questions which were brought before the Committee, and he thought they ought to be represented upon the Committee when it was proposed they should be subjected to compulsory taxation. This Bill contained provisions for imposing general taxation, and yet the interests of the people who were to be taxed appeared to be ignored on the Committee altogether. He could assure the House that the people of the Metropolis had no desire to be ignored in matters of this kind. If it were a Scotch Committee, upon a Scotch subject, he presumed Scotchmen would be placed upon the Committee; and if it were an Irish Committee, would the Irish Members rest contented if no Irish Members were placed upon it? He had no desire to be put upon the Committee himself. He was upon the one that had been previously appointed; but he thought that, in regard to the present Committee, there ought to be more Metropolitan Members upon it, seeing that the Metropolis was as large, as fur as its population was concerned, as the whole of Scotland, and that the principle of compulsory taxation was involved in the Bill. He told the Chairman of Ways and Means that if he did not give the Metropolis the fair share of representation which it deserved, he should certainly oppose the Committee.

MR. RODWELL

said, the subject was one upon which he was able to speak with some experience, and he wished to correct a misapprehension on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), and his hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth). The hon. Member for Rochester seemed to think that a Hybrid Committee was one that was an impartial Committee. Now, his (Mr. Rodwell's) experience was totally the reverse. It had almost always been the practice of the House to appoint upon Hybrid Committees Gentlemen of pronounced opinions, and of extreme opinions, who acted often as advocates, and very able advocates, for the particular views they desired to press upon the Committee. It would be seen, in the divisions which took place, that certain Members voted throughout one against another, and were seldom unanimous upon any of the points raised. He thought that in this particular case, considering the position of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that it would be impossible to select a more fit person to represent the views of the Metropolitan Board. He understood the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was to be upon the Committee; and as the hon. Baronet moved the rejection of the Bill, it seemed to him (Mr. Rodwell) that between these two hon. Members they would have a good opportunity of eliciting the truth, which, to hon. Members who were acting in a different sense, might be difficult, if not impossible.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

was desirous of saying a few words before the discussion closed. Objection was taken to the nomination upon the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg). The Chairman of Ways and Means had, however, pointed out that this was not an ordinary Private Bill, but that it partook of the nature of a public measure. [An hon. Member: No, no.] At any rate, that was his (Mr. J. G. Talbot's) opinion; and, if that were so, everyone would admit that both sides of the question should be fairly elicited. Any public question referred to a Select Committee should have represented upon the Committee those who took a strong view on both sides of the subject. In the present instance, it was proposed to place upon the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, who had charge of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had moved its rejection; and if the question partook of a public character, it would be admitted that the lion, and gallant Member for Truro was the very person who ought to be upon the Committee. The hon. Member for Chelsea, who opposed the Bill on the second reading, was also named upon the Committee, so that neither side should be unduly represented. His hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt) had, he thought, been somewhat misrepresented—unintentionally, of course—by the Chairman of Ways and Menus. What his hon. Friend wanted was to secure a fair representation of Surrey Members who had a real interest in the question. But the Chairman of Ways and Means had met his hon. Friend very fairly, and said—"If you consent to withdraw your proposal to-day, I will do my best to put two more Members on the Committee." His advice to his hon. Friend—if his hon. Friend would take advice from him—was that he would withdraw his Motion, and allow the Committee to be nominated, as it had been proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He was quite certain that if that course were taken, a conference between the hon. Member for West Surrey and the Chairman of Ways and Means would result in the Committee being constituted in a perfectly fair manner.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

was of opinion that the Chairman of Ways and Means had acted rightly in the matter. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), and the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), both stated that persons interested in a Bill were frequently placed upon the Hybrid Committee to which it was referred. These Members, of course, went into the Committee with preconceived notions, and it was true that in every Division it might be predicted beforehand how these Members would vote. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire had had great experience of these Hybrid Committees upstairs, and could speak with much authority on the subject; and he confirmed the hon. Member for Rochester as to the preconceived opinions formed by Members of a Committee, and the want of influence produced upon them by the evidence. What, then, it might be asked, was the good of nominating upon the Committee an equal number of hon. Members who were prejudiced either one way or the other? In such a case the whole decision rested with the odd Member, probably the Chairman, who would be unprejudiced. But what had the Chairman of Ways and Means done? He simply proposed to place on the present Committee no prejudiced Member, except two. And who were those two? First, the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, who had charge of the Bill; and if he were not included in the Committee he (Lord Robert Montagu) would like to know how the business of the Committee was to be conducted? In the event of certain evidence being brought before the Committee which rendered a compromise necessary, if the hon. and gallant Baronet was not present, who was to make the compromise? If, however, the hon. and gallant Baronet were sitting on the Committee, he would be authorized in such a case to say that as the evidence was different from what he had anticipated he would accept the compromise, and agree to it on behalf of the Metropolitan Board. That question would, consequently, be finished; the difficulty would be disposed of, and the Committee would be able to go on to the next point; but, as the Chairman of Ways and Means had told the House, if they placed the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board on the Committee, they must, in order to put the different interests upon a footing of equality, also place upon it the hon. Member who was the most decided opponent of the Bill; and no more decided or able opponent could be selected than the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) who, on the second reading of the measure, had placed a Notice on the Paper for the rejection of the Bill. It seemed, therefore, that the Chairman of Ways and Means had taken the only course which he could have taken as Chairman of Committees. He suggested that the House should agree to the names placed on the Paper by the Chairman of Ways and Means until they came to his (Lord Robert Montagu's) name. That name might be omitted, and the further consideration of the matter left open until to-morrow, when the Chairman of Ways and Means would be able to bring forward two or three names to complete the composition of the Committee. He thought that was a course which would suit all parties, and he hoped that it would be followed.

MR. WATNEY

remarked, that as his name had been placed on the Paper by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southwark (Colonel Beresford), he wished to make an explanation in order to prevent a misconception. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark had put down his name without having consulted him, and he had no wish that his name should remain in opposition to the name of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. With regard to the Bill itself, he certainly wished that either himself or some other Member representing the interests of Surrey should be upon the Committee. It was, however, a mistake to suppose that the inhabitants of Surrey desired to oppose the Bill; on the contrary, they were anxious to have it. Surrey, especially Lambeth, had been flooded over and over again, and the people living on the banks of the Thames were anxious to have some Bill which, in future, would prevent the damage which had so often been done. Considering the large amount of property in Surrey that was affected by the flooding of the Thames, and the heavy rating which the inhabitants had to pay, he thought it was not unfair to ask that some Member representing a Surrey constituency should be appointed upon the Committee, as Middlesex was represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. If the Chairman of Ways and Means would consent to add two additional Members to the Committee, one of whom should be a Surrey Member, he thought that would go very far towards meeting the merits of the case.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thought there was a very strong objection to the proposal of the Chairman of Ways and Means to place the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works upon the Committee. The hon. and gallant Baronet was, in point of fact, a personally interested party. The Board of Works were the promoters of the original Bill, and the promoters also of the present measure. They could not divest themselves of their interest in the matter; and it appeared to him that full effect would be given to the demand of the Metropolitan Board if the Chairman of the Board were examined as a witness. If the hon. and gallant Baronet were placed upon the Committee, he would assume the twofold character of a witness and one of the jury. That, he thought, would be contrary to all judicial principles, and even to common sense. Questions would arise in considering the Bill as to taxation, as to who were the parties to be taxed, and to what extent and degree taxation was to be borne by the district, or whether it was to fall upon the Metropolitan Board of I Works? Under such circumstances, the one man who ought not to be upon the Committee, in order to pronounce the judgment of the Committee, was the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, who would find it impossible to divest himself of the interest which he had in the measure as Representative of the Board. In that capacity, of course, the hon. and gallant Baronet would have a direct interest in saving the revenues of the Board. No doubt, the revenues of the Board ought to be saved and economized as much as possible; but the Chairman of the Board was not, as between the Board and other contributaries, the best judge of the economy that ought to be exercised. His proper position in regard to a Bill of this kind was to be examined as a witness. The Committee itself should be composed of independent Members, who had no interest whatever in the measure, and whose only object would be to do that which was right.

MR. MARK STEWART

was certainly of opinion that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) ought to be upon the Committee. He (Mr. M. Stewart) had had the honour of serving upon the Select Committee which sat two years ago upon this very question. Although his views did not altogether agree with those of his hon. and gallant Friend, he had had great satisfaction in hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman named upon the Committee. Upon the previous Committee the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works certainly knew more about the question than anybody associated with him; and he was therefore able to give the Committee, not only good and valuable information, but to ask many useful questions. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Stewart) should support the proposition that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro should be upon the Committee.

MR. CUBITT

said, he was willing to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, on the distinct understanding that his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means would propose two additional Members of the Committee, one of whom should be a Representative of the Metropolitan part of the County of Surrey. He hoped, upon that understanding, that he would be allowed to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON, and Sir CHARLES W. DILKE nominated other Members of the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir James M'Garel-Hogg be a Member of the Select Committee."

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, he felt bound to move, as an Amendment, that the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro be omitted. It was not from any personal feeling in regard to his hon. and gallant Friend that he took this step, but because this was a Private Bill, and he did not think that the principal promoter of it should be asked to serve upon the Committee which was to inquire into its merits. He knew that he would be met by the argument that this, although introduced as a Private Bill, was more in the nature of a public measure. Nevertheless, it was a Private Bill, introduced into the House in the ordinary form of a Private Bill; and he could not call to mind a single instance in which the promoters of a contested Private Bill had been placed upon the Committee to which the Bill was referred in order to report to the House upon its merits. The noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) said that it would be of advantage to have the hon. and gallant Member for Truro upon the Committee, in order that he might be present to accept any compromise that might be offered. He (Sir Julian Goldsmid) wished to point out that that statement was altogether inaccurate, because the hon. and gallant Member for Truro had stated some time ago, in his place in the House, that he would be prepared, on the part of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to accept any decision the Committee might arrive at. At the same time, it was only right to say that he (Sir Julian Goldsmid) understood the Metropolitan Board had repudiated that promise made by the hon. and gallant Member, and had said that he had no authority to bind them to do what they thought was not desirable in this manner. It would, there- fore, be much more preferable that the hon. and gallant Baronet should appear before the Committee as a witness, and not as a Member of the Committee itself. The Chairman of Ways and Means had himself used an argument which went against the nomination of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro. He said that it was desirable to have persons upon the Committee with impartial, unbiased minds. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means at once proceeded to nominate upon the Committee the one person who was the least impartial person who could be selected. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mark Stewart) also told the House that he was glad the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was to be upon the Committee, because he knew more about the matter than anybody else. It was exactly because the hon. and gallant Member for Truro did know more of the matter than anybody else that he ought to appear before the Committee as a witness, and not as one of the judges. Under these circumstances, he deemed it right, in the interests of the public, to oppose the nomination upon the Committee of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro.

MR. RAIKES

thought he might fairly appeal to the House to support him in his endeavour to secure a sufficient representation of those who took a lively public interest in the matter, without allowing the Committee to degenerate into an arena for partizan warfare. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who was just as much opposed to the Bill as the hon. and gallant Member for Truro was in its favour, was already upon the Committee, his name having been agreed to. These two Gentlemen had been placed upon the Committee, on the understanding that the views of one would counterbalance those of the other. Neither of them were interested in the matter in any sense that could be called private interest; but the interest they took in the question was altogether in a public capacity. The hon. and gallant Member for Truro was nominated because, as Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he had charge of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Chelsea was nominated because he had moved the rejection of the Bill. It would, therefore, be an unfair proceeding to strike off the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, now that they had already confirmed the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea.

MR. LOCKE

strongly objected to the appointment upon the Committee of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, and wished to call attention to what was done on a former occasion. Some time ago, a Committee was appointed upon this very question. He did not know who the Members of the Committee were, except that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro was one of them. Well, that Committee arrived at a certain decision, and what was then done by the hon. and gallant Member opposite? He stopped the further progress of the Bill altogether. Nothing more was done in the matter; and his hon. and gallant Friend was allowed to do precisely what he liked. The state of things which it was the object of the previous Bill to remedy had since been allowed to go on for a considerable time, and he failed to see what was to be the end. He did not know what the opinions of his hon. and gallant Friend were; but it appeared to be the fact that Parliament was able to do nothing, if the Metropolitan Board of Works chose to stop the way. What was the position of the question, and what was the former attempt to settle it? It was held that as both sides of the river would be benefited by preventing the overflow of the Thames, and that great damage to property which periodical floods occasioned—it was held that both sides of the river should contribute equally to the cost of the necessary works. But what did the body say, which was represented by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite? They said—"We will not contribute any of our money," notwithstanding the fact that both sides of the river would receive advantage. His hon. and gallant Friend contended that, although this was undoubtedly the case, the parts benefited should be called upon to bear the expense. The result was that the matter had remained unsettled, and the House was called upon to consider a scheme precisely similar to that which was inquired into, and reported upon, some years ago. If it had not been for his hon. and gallant Friend, and some others, who endeavoured to keep their money in their pockets, all that was necessary would now have been carried out. He must say that, in his opinion, his hon. and gallant Friend was one of the last men who ought to be allowed to sit upon the Committee. He was at the head of the Board who were promoting the Bill, and, in that capacity, he might again feel it right to do that which was opposed to the interests of everybody else. If anybody was to be eliminated from the Committee, it was certainly the hon. and gallant Member the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

remarked that his name had been so prominently brought forward in the course of the discussion, almost by every speaker, that he felt it impossible to sit entirely quiet. He should not, however, have risen to address the House, if it had not been for the numerous mistakes the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid) had made in the two speeches he had addressed to the House. The only excuse that could be made for the hon. Member was his ignorance, which was abundantly manifested in the two statements he had made. The hon. Member said that the Metropolitan Board declined to accept the decision of the previous Committee of the House. That statement was somewhat inaccurate, and it was proved by the present Bill, which was brought in in order to meet the views of the Committee. The Bill, it was true, did not cast the whole cost over the Metropolis, a particular portion of it being thrown upon the riparian owners; but the other portion—namely, that for compensations—fell upon the Metropolitan Board. He therefore contended that the Metropolitan Board had shown a deference to the views of the Committee. Then, again, the hon. Member said that when he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) brought in the Bill the other day, he promised that the Board should acquiesce in any decision the Committee might arrive at. Now, what he said was that, as far as he had any influence with his Colleagues, he would do everything he could to induce them to accept the decision of the Committee. Of course, he would be glad to have an impartial Committee; and it would be in the recollection of the House that when he brought in the Bill he asked for an impartial tribunal that should inquire into the merits of the Bill, although it was only a Private Bill, as if they were a jury. When the House expressed an opinion that there should be a different tribunal from that to which Private Bills were usually referred, he at once bowed to its decision. The hon. Member for Rochester was now kind enough to inform him and the House that the Metropolitan Board had repudiated what he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had said. The hon. Member was entirely incorrect. The Board had said nothing upon the matter. He had not asked his Colleagues their opinion on the subject, and the Board had not attached any blame to him. He would advise his hon. Friend, before he again got up to make statements to the House, to be quite sure that the statements he was about to make were accurate.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he was not usually the champion of all the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, on this occasion, he thought the objection taken to the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works was altogether unjustifiable and without foundation. It would almost seem, from the conversation which had taken place, that there was no part of London, except that part of it which was bounded by the Thames. He begged to remind the House that a large portion of London had really very little interest in the question of the embankment of the river, but had a great deal of interest in the question how the expense was to be spread over the Metropolis. At present, what was their position? In the names already appointed upon the Committee was that of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had already expressed his views as to how the mode of payment should be adjusted over the Metropolis; and the hon. Baronet, therefore, could not be said to be altogether an unprejudiced Member of the Committee. Then they had an offer made, and accepted, as he understood, that an hon. Member should be placed on the Committee who represented Surrey. They would thus have on the Committee the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, who directly represented the interests of a water-side constituency and was interested in having the cost spread over the whole of the Metropolis, and they would have a Member for Surrey, who would also have a direct interest in having the cost spread over the whole of London, and not confined to the localities which would derive most advantage from the Bill. What was proposed now? Simply that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro should be put on the Committee. His hon. and gallant Friend had charge of the Bill, and was also the mouthpiece of a body which consisted of Representatives from every part of London, so that he might be said to represent a large district which might probably be called upon to contribute to the cost without participating directly in the benefit. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Ritchie) that if they did not place upon the Committee the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, or some Representative of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Committee would be unfairly constituted. For his own part, he should be glad that neither the hon. Member for Chelsea, nor the hon. and gallant Member for Truro, nor a Member for Surrey, should be put on the Committee, and that the whole question should be submitted to the investigation and decision of a thoroughly impartial tribunal. But if they were going to have two Members on the Committee who were directly interested in having the expense of the works spread over the whole of London, they ought at least to have one Representative who, from his position, would be able to speak for the other parts of the Metropolis. Upon these grounds, he should vote for the nomination of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

hoped he might be allowed to say a word in explanation. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro said the statement he had made was totally inaccurate. He begged to say that he was informed, on the best authority, that a Member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Board of Works, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was Chairman, did find fault with his hon. and gallant Friend's conduct in the matter. He believed he would be confirmed in this statement by the very best authority, however much the hon. and gallant Gentleman might deny it.

SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG

trusted he might be allowed to give the strongest possible denial to every word the hon. Member had uttered.

COLONEL BERESFORD

remarked, that in 1877 the proposal of the Board of Works was treated as a Public Bill; but this year it was brought in as a Private Bill, in order that it might be pushed forward. So far as he was personally concerned in the matter, he believed that he had taken a right course. His hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means had put his name down as one of the Members to be nominated upon the Committee; but he had declined to act, on the ground that he was a riparian Member. Yet the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Truro came forward as the proposer of the scheme which was rejected in 1877, and he did not think his name should be placed on the present Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Lord Robert Montagu be a Member of the Committee."

Motion agreed to.

Forward to