§ On the Order for Second Reading
§ MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved, that the Second Reading of the Bill be postponed until May 3, then to be further adjourned if the two similar Water Bills now referred to a Select Committee were still under consideration.
§ *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDcontended that, if these Bills were to be proceeded with at all, the understanding was that they were all to be proceeded with at once. If the object of the County Council were to obtain the two Bills now before the Committee for the purpose of working them against the other Companies, the House ought to know it.
§ MR. STUARTsaid, his proposal was in accordance with an arragement in the House last week. The Bills at present before the Committee would not enable the County Council to do what was suggested.
§ *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsubmitted, that under the Bills the London County Council had a right to go into other districts if they liked. The arrangement made in the Lobby was that the Bills were to be put off until Thursday.
§ MR. STUARTsaid, he must ask the House to defer the Bills, and not to raise the whole question and bring them all 1448 down to the House on Thursday next for the reconsideration of this matter, but to put the Bills off until some day when they might reasonably expect that the condition would be fulfilled upon which they had agreed. It would be much better to put them off till the 3rd of May.
§ *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, hon. Members would have to be brought up again, because the hon. Gentleman was going to move the Instructions upon the Bills on Thursday.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)said, it was quite obvious that hon. Members must come down again on Thursday. On Friday he moved an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading of the London Water Bills, and on a Division they had been beaten by a majority of 38. But 26 of the London Members had voted for the Amendment, and only 16 against, and of the Members representing the Home Counties, 26 voted for the Amendment, and only three against. They had been swamped, however, by 87 votes of Scotch, Irish, and Welsh Members, who had nothing to do with the matter. Under these circumstances his hon. Friend could not complain if the question were debated again on Thursday.
§ CAPTAIN H. F. BOWLES (Middlesex, Enfield)repudiated the suggestion that there was any arrangement come to between those representing the Water Companies in the House and those representing the County Council.
§ MR. J. W. BENN (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)said, the hon. Member for Shoreditch distinctly stated, in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Southwark and Vauxhall Water Bill, that this course would be taken. Moreover, a Motion then before the House that the Bills should be taken together was negatived or not proceeded with.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)thought the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of London was a reasonable one.
§ MR. C. DIAMOND (Monaghan, N.)said, he was surprised that an hon. Member should have said that he represented the Water Companies. He understood that he was representing his constituents; but if the hon. Member was representing the Water Companies, surely he, as a ratepayer of London, could vote upon the matter.
§ *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he was not interested in the Water Companies.
§ *SIR J. LENG (Dundee)was very much surprised to hear a distinguished Unionist Member announce such Separatist views to the House of Commons. He recollected that the right hon. Gentleman strongly objected to their having a purely Scotch Committee upon purely Scotch questions; but he was now putting forward the view that only Members representing London and the surrounding district were interested in London Water Bills.
§ MR. J. STUARTsaid, that, if there was a desire on the part of the House that this matter should be deferred until Thursday, he should certainly fall in with it; but he must again say that the agreement come to within the House was such as he had stated.
§ [Motion postponed until 28 February.]