HC Deb 20 July 1897 vol 51 cc588-90
  1. (1.) This Act may be cited as the Metropolis Water Act 1897.
  2. (2.) This Act shall come into operation on the first clay of November next after the passing thereof.
MR. WARNER

moved to leave out "November" and to insert "September."

MR. CHAPLIN

hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed, as he was advised that some time was necessary for the new tribunal to make its preparations. If the Bill came into operation as soon as the hon. Member desired, the ordinary tribunals of the land would not be sitting.

MR. WARNER

said that this new Court was not one of the ordinary tribunals, and it would have no preparations to make. Besides, ample time for consideration would be given, because no case could come before the Court until some weeks after the passing of the Bill.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle Of Wight

said that practically nothing could be done by the new tribunal before November. It would, moreover, be necessary for the Commissioners to frame one or two rules, in order that the best and cheapest method of hearing cases might be secured. The result would be the same whether the Bill come into operation in September or in November.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

moved at the end of the clause to add,— and shall continue in force until the first day of November, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine." He thought it was desirable to mark this Measure as a temporary Measure on the face of it, in order that it might not be pleaded that the Government had taken any effective action by this Bill to solve the water question, and because, if the life of the Bill were limited, it would be an inducement to the Government to fulfil their pledges on this subject at the earliest possible moment. This little Bill ought not to affect the future solution of the water question, whether by purchase or control.

MR. CHAPLIN

was of opinion, and all the information which reached him convinced him, that the effect of this Bill would be by no means small, and in these circumstances he could not for the life of him see why they should tie their hands by accepting such an Amendment. If the Bill was to do good, as he believed it would, why should they put an end to its existence in 1899 when no human being could possibly foretell what was going to happen. At the same time the Government withdrew from no pledge they had given with regard to the water supply of the metropolis.

MR. LOUGH

felt bound to support the appeal of the right hon.. Gentleman, and asked his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

, since the Government said they did not see the faintest chance of carrying out the pledges of the Queen's Speech within two years, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. CHAPLIN

I do not admit one single word the hon. Gentleman has said in regard either to the fulfilment of pledges or the inability of the Government to carry them out.

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. He did not believe that the cause of the water supply of London was advanced by the pusillanimous tactics of so-called Radicals—[laughter]—who came from certain districts of London. As compared with Cork, the water supply of London was a disgrace. [Laughter.] This spirit of compromise was useless to the hon. Member's own side and was not appreciated on the other.

*MR. WEIR

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would pledge the Government to deal with the London water supply as a whole within the next two or three years? Once this Bill was placed on the Statute Book there it would remain.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 204.—(Division List, No. 312.)

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

MR. LIONEL HOLLAND (Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley)

moved the following new Clause: —