§
Motion made and Question proposed,
That any County Council and any of the London Water Companies be entitled to be heard before the Select Committee on the above Bill on any Petitions praying to be heard by Counsel, presented by them on or before 14th March next, and that such Petitions be referred to the said Committee."—(Mr. James stuart.)
§ MR. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)thought, the 4th of March would not give sufficient time for the County Councils to meet. He suggested that a later date should be fixed, for it was necessary that the Councils should get the Common Seal affixed to their Petitions.
§ Amendment proposed, after the word "County," to insert the words "or District."—(Mr. Byrne.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Debate arising—Debate adjourned till Monday next.
§ MR. J. STUARTrecognised the propriety of the request of the hon. Member, and said that the object of the County Council was to afford public bodies directly interested all reasonable opportunity of petitioning and presenting their case. He had reason to believe that if the date in the Motion were extended to the 14th of March it would meet the circumstances of the case, and he would move that that date be substituted for the 4th of March.
§ MR. E. W. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)pointed out that there were District Councils very deeply interested in the matter. In the constituency he represented in Essex were two District Councils affecting populations of 78,000 and 60,000 respectively, that would be largely affected by the Bill, and he thought their interests ought to be safe guarded, as well as those of County Councils. He, therefore, moved as an Amendment that District Councils be inserted in the Motion.
§ MR. STUARTsaid, the Amendment raised a wide and difficult question. There would already be a large number of petitioners, and it might be inconvenient to extend their number. Still, the County Council would be ready to Consider the claims to a hearing of any persons or bodies who could show that they were reasonably entitled to it by their interests being directly affected. The Amendment, however, had been Drought to his notice only 10 minutes ago, and he could not assent to it at the moment, but might say that if the hon. Member would confer with him on the matter something might be done at a later stage to meet his views.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)said, it would be found that the number of District Councils that desired to be represented were not many; but there were several which were greatly concerned in the matter, and it would be very unfair that they should be shut out.
§ SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)said, West Kent was more interested in the question than East or Mid Kent, and that it was more important that West Kent should be represented than Kent as a whole.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said, the proposal of the hon. Member for Shoreditch was a fair one, for he had said that the County Council were anxious that all direct interests should be fairly represented before the Committee. The Committee did not meet until after Easter, and possibly if the point were postponed for a few days the Council might in the meantime be able to do something to meet the wishes of hon. Members with regard to the District Councils, of which, it appeared only a certain number were affected. No prejudice would ensue if the matter were postponed for a few days.
§ MR. J. STUARTsaid, he believed the County Council would have no objection to the representation of a District Council in regard to any particular Bill by which it was directly interested.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)moved, that the Debate be adjourned until Monday.
§ Motion agreed to.