HC Deb 21 March 1899 vol 68 cc1530-49

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That this Bill be now read a second time.


This Bill is for purchasing land in Wales, by agreement or otherwise, and creating reservoirs there in order to provide for the future water supply of London. It is not intended by this Bill to substitute this water for the water—the most part at any rate—that is at present used in London; but in the opinion of many who are very well acquainted expertly with the subject the demands already sanctioned on the Thames and on the Lea, and on the wells in the neighbourhood—Hertfordshire and the like, are as great as we can well and with safety allow them to be. It may be known to the House that 150 millions of gallons are at present liable to be taken from the Thames, but that by two Bills recently passed, of the Southwark and Vauxhall Company and the Staines Reservoirs, this has been raised to a total amount of 180 million gallons.


One hundred and thirty millions.


The total amount is 185 millions now.




That is the total figure; probably the honourable Gentleman and I quite agree on the figures—185½ million gallons is now authorised to be taken from the Thames, although not at present taken and that, with something like 120 million gallons from the Lea and the wells, make up the quantity of water which is authorised to be taken by the various companies permanently from the courses immediately available in the Thames and Lea Valley, making a total, roughly speaking, of 300 million gallons, which water is recognised by those who have given evidence on the matter to be practically sufficient for the requirements of London till the year 1911 or 1912. Therefore some steps had to be taken to secure additional supplies before the year 1911 or 1912, that is to say, roughly about a dozen years hence. Those, therefore, who are interested in the water supply of London have been casting about for the source from which that additional supply should be taken, and there have, roughly speaking, been two groups of ideas. One has been that a greater quantity of water may be taken from the Thames, and the other is that that safe limit has now been reached in the numbers that I have stated, and that further water ought to be taken from some other and more distant source, such as Wales. Those who propose to take water from the Thames and Lea propose to do so by a large system of impounding that water at flood, or at any rate when the river is very full, and permitting a certain residue, which has been laid down as sufficient for the river, to flow in each river over certain weirs. Now, that residue is wholly insufficient in the case of the Lea, but that is not before us for the moment. That Bill has now gone to a Committee; we have passed the Second Reading, and that question is no longer before us. But in respect of the Thames, if what is urged by those who oppose taking a larger amount than is already agreed to be taken be correct—and I ask the House always to remember that that is considerably in excess of what is at present taken—those who oppose the taking of a larger quantity of water from the Thames do so on the ground that it cannot be done without very great expense. The enormous expense of the Staines Reservoirs will have to be multiplied very much when they take the greater quantity of water than they now take, because the House will see if you are to fix a certain minimum which is to flow over a. certain weir each day, then every multiple of that which you took before and which you use by impounding!, creates the necessity of impounding only the surplus, and therefore the getting of large areas of impounding tanks. That practically is the system proposed by the water companies, roughly speaking, and it means an extremely large expenditure, however you like to look at it, upon tanks or impounding reservoirs. And the smaller the flow of the river becomes in any year the more large, far more largo in proportion, do these impounding reservoirs need to be, because if there was only a very few gallons over the minimum then it would require enormous reservoirs to preserve sufficient to make any adequate daily supply. I apologise to the House for having to deal with such an intricate matter, but it is necessary in order to know where the great expense comes in of these reservoirs. Then there is another matter which we feel a great deal of force in, that is that the Thames is a river which has a large population upon its banks, and if you will look at the recent report laid before the London County Council, in respect of pollution, you will see there is going on, in spite of the praiseworthy efforts of the Thames Conservancy, a large amount of pollution in respect of the river.




A large amount of pollution, which must increase, and which the honourable Gentleman must admit must take place at the time of flood water; and unless these reservoirs take the water at the time of flood water they will have to reduce the quantity of water that flows over the weirs at the minimum. There conies the exact point of extreme importance in respect of the whole of this great scheme for the supply of London with water in future—that in order to avoid the taking of flood water you must be driven to reduce the minimum flow of the Thames lower than what it is just now; and whereas the minimum flow was held to be, and is well defended by the honourable Gentleman, if he will allow me to compliment him, the minimum flow of the Thames as it has been laid down, yet the evidence that has been given more recently, particularly by the water companies, shows that it is quite obvious that what these companies have in view is that a very much smaller flow over the weir of the Thames is adequate, and that they ought to be allowed to reduce that minimum flow. Now, what I want to point out is this: If you find, by taking water from the Thames only in that way, and not taking it at times of high flood, that you cannot get enough water, then it is inevitable that you will be driven to reducing the minimum flow of the Thames until you get it in much the same condition below the intakes as the River Lea is at present, which, as any honourable Member who chooses to go to the East End of London will see to be a very unsatisfactory condition. Those are some of the points with respect to the in advisability of taking the future increase of London water to a larger extent than has now been agreed upon from the Thames and the Lea. Now, the London County Council has had this matter under very careful consideration for a long time, and it has not been without a proper authority that we have had to consider this question. We have been instructed to do it. Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee in 1891 reported that powers should be granted to the London County Council to expend such further sums as may be reasonably necessary in order that they may examine for themselves, as the responsible municipal authority of London, the whole position of the metropolitan water supply, and come to a conclusion as to the policy which, for financial and other reasons, it is desirable to adopt. We have done that. We have done that over a series of years, and we have had two main lines of resolution. The first is that the water companies ought to be purchased by the London County Council, under circumstances laid down in Bills to be introduced, and the second is that the future supply for London ought to be got from a certain district in Wales which is indicated in the Bill to which I am now alluding. That latter part of our programme, so to speak, has taken a longer period to mature because of the great investigations that we required on the rainfall and other matters, and the quality of the water, and so on. But the London County Council—being empowered by Parliament, as it was after this report of Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee in the direction I have just read—has now, this Session, brought before Parliament a complete scheme—an absolutely complete scheme for the future of the London water supply. You may find fault with the scheme or not, but it is a complete scheme. It is a scheme whereby we propose, in a certain Bill before the House, to purchase the water companies under certain circumstances and under certain terms; the other part is that we should continue to take the water supply from the Thames and the Lea so far as it is satisfactory and authorised; and that we should go for additional water in the way described in this Bill, bringing it from Wales by an aqueduct, as provided in a subsequent Bill that will be laid before this House. That is our scheme. It is a coherent scheme. It is a scheme that does not deal with the water supply of to-morrow; it deals with the future water supply of London. I think I may point out that had our Purchase Bill been carried we should have been immediately empowered, and we should have been under the obligation to have done the very thing which the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has endeavoured to do by no less than three Bills sent to two different Committees but, however that may be, we should, if our scheme had been carried out this year, have been able to do all that his scheme proposes. However that may be, his Bill may be regarded as meeting the immediate points, and the future of the London water supply is dealt with in the comprehensive scheme which I have just suggested to the House. The first portion of the scheme comes before the House to-day in the Bill the Second Reading of which I have just moved. That is a Bill, as I have said, for securing the land and for making the reservoirs. I have already stated in the House that the Motion which the honourable Gentleman on the other side (Mr. Whitmore) intends to make against this Bill, that it should be hung up until after the Report of the Royal Commission, is beside the mark, because the Royal Commission has no instruction whatever to report upon the question of getting water from Wales. It has no such reference. It has certainly taken a great deal of evidence about that; but it is obvious you can see why it has done so—to secure some knowledge of what should be the future sum necessary to be expended by whoever should be the water authority for London; and it has seemed that that sum will not be very different in amount one way or the other whichever of the two schemes be carried out. Having got that sum, that is what the Royal Commission needs to know. It has certainly taken evidence on the matter a considerable time ago, but that evidence is finished; and although the Commission has not reported, that evidence can go before the Committee on that Bill; and, therefore, all that need be done, all the effect of the Royal Commission upon the judgment of the House upon this Bill is such that it neither influences whether this Bill should be read a second time or not on this occasion. If you postpone this Bill till after the Report of the Royal Commission, you are practically preventing the Committee, which has before it one system of dealing with the future supply of London, from considering another system for dealing with the supply of London. There is no ground whatever for postponing this Bill until the Royal Commission has reported; and therefore what we do is to ask the House to read it now, inasmuch as it is a Bill seriously affecting the future method of dealing with the water supply of London. You can see that this Bill should go forward at this time, and, anxious as we are, we realise that it might be said that the passing of this Bill would prejudge the question of the future water authority of London, because it may be said that the London County Council are securing an area for the supply of water, and that in that way they are in some surreptitious manner becoming the authority for the water supply of London. All I can say is this: having investigated this matter for many years, having gone into it very fully, we are so impressed with the terrible evil of going along the Thames line only to supply London—the Thames and the Lea lines—and not adopting a Welsh system, such as this, that we feel it is necessary to proceed with it now in the face of these Bills, and we are perfectly prepared, if this Bill is granted to us, to hold the area in trust for whoever should be the future responsible water authority for London. If that is so, where is the ground for throwing out this Bill because the Royal Commission has not reported? There is no ground, and I ask the Government, who are extremely anxious, as I can imagine, that there should be a reasonable opportunity of securing a good future supply to London, are they or are they not to allow this Bill to pass now? Because they can allow it to pass if the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will stand up and say he is prepared to do so. Are they or are they not going to allow this Bill to pass now? If they pass the Bill which is to secure water by enormous reservoirs from the already exhausted and unsanitary sources of the river Lea—("No!") Whatever may be your view upon that, at any rate they passed a Bill which involves the expenditure of 1½ millions of money by the other method of supplying water for London than that from Wales. That is passed by the assistance and with the approval of the Government, and, I say, are they now going to throw out this particular Bill that I bring before the House, and thereby allow the Committee only to consider the one method and not to consider the two methods? We should be committed to the one method of necessity, probably because the argument may be urged that London requires more water within five or six years. If that is so, I do not think we should be committed to this particular method of dealing with the matter, and it will be a whole year before we can bring up this Welsh scheme again, which will then be rendered practically impossible, having passed the other Bill which we have passed to-day. I do appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to be fair all round in this matter—to let these two Bills go before the Committee, and if he does not, on behalf of the Government and on behalf of himself, he takes a very serious and a very heavy responsibility.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, ' it is inexpedient that the Bill be read a second time before the Royal Commission on London Water Supply has presented its Report,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Whit-more.)


I beg, Sir, to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch has made a very interesting, but not, I think, a very convincing speech. The whole burden of it is that there are two alternative methods of meeting the demand of London with regard to water. That is not so. As regards the immediate future, we must go to the Thames, and the water companies, by the Bills we have just read a second time, will give us every security that London will be safe in the immediate future from any danger whatever of a recurrence of a water famine. When you come to the larger future and the more distant future, I think there is much to be said for the view of the honourable Gentleman. Certainly, in moving this Amendment, I do not wish to be understood for a moment as committing myself to the proposition that some other 60urce of supply than the Thames may not at some future time be required for London. I think that is very likely the case. It may be the case that these particular sources of supply in Wales are about the best that can be obtained, and for my part I do not think that London ought to be slow to secure some such site—not perhaps immediately to construct aqueducts and connections between those new sources of supply and London. But without doubt, there will be a race between all the great populations of England to secure for themselves an ample supply in the future, and it will be well that London should not be behindhand in that competition. But what we have got to face to-day is the statement of the honourable Gentleman himself. He says that the London County Council has got a complete, a coherent scheme, which is brought before Parliament. The essential part of that scheme is its Purchase Bill—the Purchase Bill by which the County Council proposes to acquire the water companies, and to become itself the water authority for London. That is part of the coherent and complete scheme. But the honourable Gentleman himself has postponed the second reading of that Bill in the hope that the Royal Commission may report on this matter before he brings the Second Beading before the House. If this scheme is a complete and coherent scheme, surely it is necessary also to postpone this component part of the whole scheme.


It does not follow that part of a coherent scheme is itself bad.


Not bad, but what applies to one part of a coherent scheme applies to another part of it. I am not arguing that it is bad, but as part of the scheme has been, at the instigation of the honourable Gentleman himself, postponed, it would be' wise also to have this part postponed until the Committee has reported. I cannot conceive myself how any honourable Gentleman really thinks that a Select Committee of this House could give its sanction to the acquisition of a great tract of country and the construction of reservoirs without being certain that the body which undertakes this great task was certain to be the water authority for London. How would the Select Committee know whether that is to be the case with regard to London? It may be so, or it may not be so—we do not know. Surely it is only right, it is only reasonable, that the authority which is to be created after the Report of the Royal Commission, without doubt by the Government, or by Parliament, should have the responsibility from the very beginning for the future water supply of London. In my judgment it is just as futile to ask a Select Committee of this House at the present moment to pass an opinion as to the wisdom of the London Count}' Council in acquiring these new sources of supply, as it is, on the admission of the honourable Gentleman himself, to ask the Committee to sanction the purchase of the water supply. I don't for a moment wish to put off the question of this great water problem of London. The present uncertainty is hard upon the water companies. It is demoralising the County Council and—


The Motion to bring forward the Bill was passed unanimously.


This uncertainty is expensive to the ratepayers of London, and unfair to the consumers. But we cannot remove the uncertainty, we cannot obtain the desired settlement, until the Royal Commission has presented its Report. I beg to move the Amendment.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

formally seconded the Amendment.


I agree to a very large extent with the views expressed by the honourable Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore). The whole question of the future supply must be considered at an early date. The honourable Member also thinks it is very important that some area of a possible future supply ought to be secured at as early a date as possible. He said he did not wish to urge a dilatory plea, but it seemed to me that his argument tended that way. It is quite certain that whatever the Report of the Royal Commission is, Parliament will not be able to deal with the matter for some time to come. Then the authority will have to be stated, and it is quite certain that it will be at least two or three years before the question of purchase has been carried to such completion as to satisfy my honourable Friend. He also submitted that it was necessary, for fear of it getting into other hands, for London to get a good source of supply, and that he would like to see the question settled, because it gave rise to disputes. At all events, we are not sure these disputes will not continue for another three or four years. Now, what I want to ask the President of the Local Government Board is this—whether he is going to treat the question of this supply in a different way to what he has treated the question of supplies in other quarters, as discussed earlier in the afternoon? Already large sums of money have been spent in increasing the supply, and it will certainly take 10 or 11 years to bring this new supply to London. As regards the question of purchase, that does not come in one way or the other in this Bill. I hope the right honourable Gentleman will take into account the points raised, which ore of such serious moment to the metropolis at large.


We do not think that if this Bill is passed it will bring up the question of the full scheme. We ought to have the Welsh supply and this all brought up together, because if the matter is prejudiced by allowing the London County Council to obtain the Welsh supply they will then have the power, if they please, to make an alternative system of water supply to that provided by the water companies, and that would interfere with the counties at present supplied by these companies, which are not at all under the control of the county councils. In Middlesex we object to the London County Council having any rights within our borders, and we should not be prepared to go for a supply in that county from the London County Council. I am told that every other county round London objects in exactly the same way. The honourable Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) spoke of the action of the Thames Conservancy. I can assure the House that they have taken a good deal of trouble. A report which was presented only last week shows that only 113 cases of pollution at the present moment exist, and that water has been purified to such an extent that 500,000 people who in 1884 had polluted water have now pure water. We do hope that the salmon trout which we propose to put into the river this year will have the effect of making the Thames a salmon-producing river. If that is done, it will show that the Thames water is as good a water as people can have to drink.

*MR. A. C. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)

I desire to say a few words with reference to the case of the small Welsh farmers whose lands will be submerged by the operation of this Bill. Although the valleys are sparsely populated, they still contain many inhabitants who will be compelled to seek other habitations. Now, the class of people who hold these farms are for the most part small holders, who generally work their farms with only the labour of their own families. Well, now, we know it is a certain fact that the demand for farms in Welsh speaking districts is exceedingly great. I do not suppose that in the whole of these counties there is a single farm vacant for want of tenants. What then is to become of the farmers who are in this position? It might be contended that the clause which provides for the rehousing of persons of the working classes which appears in the Bill would be sufficient to provide for them. I think, however, that looking at the definition part of the clause, it will be seen that this definition does not cover the case of the small farmers working their own land. It meets the case of the town artizan. No doubt this clause was framed with the view of meeting the case of persons of the artizan classes who are ejected in consequence of railways being made or other clearances in the suburbs of large towns. Now, Sir, I think the ideal way of dealing with this would be to alter the definition clause so as to make it clear that it should be the duty of the Council to provide other farms for those whose holdings are thus taken from them. I understand, however, that as this is what is known as a Model Clause there will be considerable difficulty with the authorities in the House in getting such an alteration as that. Then there is the other alternative, of course—that of compensation. Now, here is another difficulty. These tenant farmers have been on their farms from generation to generation; yet legally they only hold their tenancy from year to year. They have, therefore, if they go for compensation under the Land Clauses Acts, next to no claim. I think this raises a very strong claim upon the London County Council to take a generous view of the position of these small farmers. I believe they arc ready to do so. I am bound to say that, though I am glad there is a possibility of that being done, yet I cannot regard that as really satisfactory. I do not wish to oppose the Bill on this ground. The Kill is of far too great importance to the metropolis of London for us to obstruct it and oppose it. Indeed, we shall be, for many reasons, glad to welcome the London County Council in Wales. At the same time, I hope I may be able to receive from my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) some statement as to the intention of the Council to provide as fully as they possibly can, for the small Welsh farmers whom their operations will displace.

MR. W. JONES (Carnarvon)

Mr. Speaker, I understand that this Welsh scheme will affect two or three schools in this neighbourhood which are to come down, and I hope my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Stuart) will be able to give us an assurance that the London County Council is prepared to replace them in the interests both of scholars and teachers.

MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)

Mr. Speaker, I won't trouble the House with more than two or three observations in support of the case put forward by my honourable Friend the honourable Member for Montgomeryshire. I quite agree with the observations he has made as to the unfortunate position in which a very considerable number of small Welsh farmers on the hills will be placed when the London County Council proceed to construct reservoirs, if this Bill becomes law. It seems to me, as far as I can gather, that this Bill would have been petitioned against but for the very short time given for the presentation of petitions, because it was thought that the Bill would have been thrown out owing to non-compliance with the Standing Orders. The Bill, as it stands, so far as small farms are concerned, seems to me to be unsatisfactory, because—unless we have some distinct understanding as to the manner in which they will be dealt with when the honourable Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch replies to the questions put to him by my honourable Friend—this clause deals with various classes of people, but it does not deal with the small occupying tenant farmer. The landowner will receive very substantial compensation; the leaseholder will also receive substantial, and, perhaps, very great compensation; the small shopkeeper will be looked after, but there is one class which, under this Bill, will receive no consideration at all, and that is the class entitled to the most consideration, in my opinion, and that is the small occupying farmer in the Welsh counties. Unless we have from my honourable Friend the Member for Shoreditch some satisfaction that they will receive not. only fair, but reasonable and liberal compensation, I shall have to consider the attitude which I take in reference to the Bill. But I feel sure that my honourable Friend will make a statement which will give us satisfaction, and make it impossible for us to oppose this Bill.


Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I will just answer that question as to the clause with respect to the displacement of persons. The labouring clause is, of course, the ordinary model clause which would refer to all agricultural labourers, but not to the occupiers of small farms, who have no lease whatever, but which they hold entirely at the word of the landlord or landlady. Many of these small occupying tenants had not only held their farms for many years, but their ancestors for many years had held the same farms. They do not come under the labour clause. On the question of compensation, the London County Council has met some representatives of these bodies, and, having heard the circumstances from them—one member of the deputation said he would rather have the word of Mrs. So-and-So than the mention of his landlord and a written document from anybody else—all I have got to say is, that the London County Council has given them assurances, and I give the assurance to the House, that the fact that it is the customary condition in the country that they have no lease will not be regarded as a bar to their receiving compensation. We shall deal with each case on its merits. As to the schools, if it is quite clear that a population is moved, the schools must be created again.


Mr. Speaker, I hope it will be possible for me to follow the example of those who have aready spoken, and to delay the House for only a few moments. My honourable Friend opposite asked mo why a distinction should be made between the two Bills dealing with this subject. The answer, I think, is an extremely simple one. The House has already heard something which I said a few moments ago on the other Bill—that it was not calculated to prejudice in any way the number of precedents which have been submitted to the Royal Commission. The present Bill prejudices nearly all the questions which are at this moment before the consideration of the Royal Commission. The House must remember that the Bill raises a number of questions of the first importance. One is, whether the present sources of water supply to the East of London are so insufficient and so precarious as to render it absolutely necessary in the interests of London to acquire others within the shortest possible space of time. The second question is, whether that necessity has been proved, and whether the urgency is pressing. The honourable Member said— Why wait for the decision of the Royal Commission on this point? They have nothing whatever in their reference entitling them to inquire into the question as to the supply from Wales. They have no direct reference, that is true; but unquestionably, under one aspect of the case, it must come within their consideration. The very first thing they would require to know was whether, having regard to financial considerations, the present and prospective requirements with regard to water supply could be in the interests of the ratepayers. Incidentally, also, the Bill refers to other questions. It raises the question who is to be the new authority, and it also raises the whole question of the policy of purchase. But, as everybody knows, these are questions which are before the Royal Commission at the present moment. I am quite aware that my honourable Friend said the County Council, if this Bill was carried, are quite prepared to hold the new property in trust. Yet I think everybody will agree with me in this, if the London County Council acquire the property they are seeking to acquire that practically settles the question of who is to be the new authority, and whether purchase is to be undertaken or not, because it is perfectly obvious that the two systems could not run in competition side by side. Well, then, the only ground that the honourable Member is pressing the Bill is the ground of extreme urgency. He says there is not a moment to lose, and this question must be dealt with during the present Session, and he entered into an elaborate argument to show that although there would be within a certain number of years a provision of 300 million gallons a day for the use of the inhalbitants of London, still he said that by the year 1912 the population of London would have assumed such enormous proportions that it was absolutely necessary to proceed without a moment's delay, because the works necessary to be carried out by the County Council to bring water from Wales would occupy practically the whole of the intervening time. The honourable Member has made a mistake in his calculations. Unless I am totally misinformed, and I am entitled to think I am correctly informed, it will not be until the year 1917 that the population will reach the extent which will require more than that amount of water for their consumption. I am very sorry indeed that it unfortunately appears always to be falling to my lot, speaking as the representative of the Local Government Board, to oppose the Bills and wishes of this great authority, but I feel that in a case of this kind I have no alternative. The Government made themselves responsible for this Commission and the questions submitted to them, and a number of those questions they have already reported upon, and I have every reason to believe that they are now at this moment entering upon the completion of their labours. The honourable Member has practically admitted there is great force in these contentions, and that he and his friends have adopted a very unusual and very exceptional, if not unprecedented, course in endeavouring to seek the decision of Parliament upon questions which in a very few weeks the Commission must report. It will be remembered that the honourable Member himself put down a Motion postponing the Second Reading of the Council's Purchase Bill in order that the Commission might have reported before the House assents to the Second Reading.


I did not propose to postpone the Bill in order that the Commission might report, but that it might have an opportunity of reporting.


I don't see the distinction. I suppose the honourable Member took that course because he thought it would be a great advantage to have the views of the Commission before us. The honourable Gentleman, therefore, does admit the force of the contention I am submitting to the House. I don't think it is necessary to say anything further upon this point. There is a very great volume of opinion in the House that the County Council is ill-advised in pressing further this Motion just at the present time, and, much as I regret being in constant opposition to that body, I have no alternative.

Question put— That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes. 206.—(Division List No. 66.)

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.) Fenwick, Charles Maddison, Fred.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Fergusson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Mappin, Sir Frederick T.
Allen, W.(Newc.-under-Lyme) Fitzmaurice, Lord Fdmond Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand
Allison, Robert Andrew Flynn, Jas. Christopher Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)
Ambrose, Robert Gladstone Rt. Hon. Herbt, J Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)
Ashton, Thomas Gair Goddard, Daniel Ford Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)
Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire) Gold, Charles Moulton, John Fletcher
Austin, M. (Limerick, W.) Gordon, Hon. J. Edw. Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.
Baker, Sir John Grey, Sir Edw. (Berwick) O'Brien, J. F. X. (Cork)
Barlow, John Emmott Gurdon, Sir William Brampton O'Connor, T. P, (Liverpool)
Barley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Haldane, Richard Burdon Paulton, James Mellor
Billson, Alfred Hayne, Rt. hon. C. Seale- Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Birrell, Augustine Hazell, Walter Pickard, Benjamin
Blake, Edward Hedderwick, T. C. H. Pirie, Duncan V.
Broadhurst, Henry Hoare, Samuel (Northwich) Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Holland, W. H.(York, W. R.) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.
Buchanan, T. Ryburn Horriman, Frederick J. Reid, Sir Robert Threshie
Burns, John Humphreys-Owen, A. C. Rickett, J. Compton
Burt, Thomas Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) Roberts, J. H. (Denbighs.)
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Caldwell, James Jameson, Major J. Eustace Roche, Hon. J. (East Kerry)
Cameron, Sir C. (Glasgow) Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Campbell-Bannerman, SirH. Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHnSirU. Schwann, Charles E.
Carmichad, Sir T.D. Gibson - Kearley, Hudson E. Scott, C. Prestwick (Leigh)
Causton, Richard Knight Kilbride, Denis Shaw, Chas. E. (Stafford)
Cawley, Frederick Kitson, Sir James Shaw, Thos. (Hawick R.)
Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh) Lambert, George Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire).
Colville, John Langley, Batty Smith, Samuel (Flint)
Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow) Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Crombie, John William Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington) Souttar, Robinson
Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) Leng, Sir John Spicer, Albert
Curran, T. B. (Donegal) Lewis, John Herbert Steadman, William Charles
Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.) Lloyd-George, David Strachey, Edward
Dillon, John Logan, John William Sullivan, D. (Westmeath)
Donelan, captain A. Lough, Thomas Tennant, Harold John
Douglas, C. M. (Lanark) Lowles, John Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. Macaleese, Daniel Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas MacDonell, D. M. A. (Queen'sC Ure, Alexander
Ellis, T. W. (Merionethsh.) M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert M'Leod, John Wallace, Robert (Perth)
Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds,S.) Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Weaderburn, Sir William Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.) Mr. James Stuart and Mr.
Weir, James Galloway Wilson, John (Govan) Dickersgill.
Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.) Woods, Samuel
Wills, Sir William Henry Yoxall, James Henry
Aird, John Fergusson, RtHnSirJ. (Manc'r Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. H.
Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne Middlemore, J. Throgmorton
Anstruther, H. T. Fisher, William Hayes Milbank, Sir Powlett C. J.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Fison, Frederick William Milward, Colonel Victor
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- Monckton, Edward Philip
Bailey, James (Walworth) Flower, Ernest Monk, Charles James
Baird, J. G. A. Folkestone, Viscount Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Baldwin, Alfred Fry, Lewis More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)
Balfour Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manch'r Garfit, William Morrell, George Herbert
Balfour, Rt, Hh. G. W.(Leeds) Gedge, Sydney Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptf 'd)
Banbury, Fredk. George Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City Lond.) Mount, William George
Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor) Goldsworthy, Major-General Muntz, Philip A.
Barton, Dunbar Plunket Gorst, Rt, hon. Sir J. Eldon Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj. Goulding, Edward Alfred Myers, William Henry-
Beach, RtHnSir M. H.(Bristol) Graham, Henry Robert Nicholson, William Graham
Beckett, Ernest William Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Begg, Ferdinand Faithful Green, W. D. (Wednesbury) O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)
Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe Gretton, John Orr-Ewing, Chas. Lindsay
Bethell, Commander Greville, Hon. Ronald Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Gull, Sir Cameron Penn, John
Biddulph, Michael Gunter, Colonel Percy, Earl
Bigwood, James Halsey, Thomas Frederick Pierpoint, Robert
Bill, Charles Hamilton, Rt, Hon. Lord G. Pilkington, Richard
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Bond Edward Hanson, Sir Reginald Powell, Sir Francis Sharpe
Boulnois, Edmund Hare, Thomas Leigh Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edm.)
Bowles, Capt. H.F.(Middlesex) Heath James Purvis, Robert
Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) Heaton, John Henniker Rankin, Sir James
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Helder, Augustus Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson
Brown, Alexander H. Henderson, Alexander Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.) Rothschild, Hn. Lionel W.
Butcher, John George Hill, Sir Edw. Stock (Bristol) Royds, Clement Molyneux
Carson, Rt. Hon. Edw. Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampstead) Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt' ham)
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) Holland, Hon. L. R. (Bow) Russell, 'J*. W. (Tyrone) Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh. Hornby, Sir Wm. Henry
Cecil, E. (Hertford, E.) Houldsworth, Sir W. Henry Sassoon, Sir Ed. Albert
Cecil, Lord H. (Greenwich) Howard, Joseph Savory Sir Joseph
Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. Hozier, Hon. J. Henry Cecil Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone,W.)
Chamberlain, J. A. (Wore'r) Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn Sharpe, William Ed. T.
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Hudson, George Bickersteth Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbyshire)
Charrington, Spencer Hughes, Colonel Edwin Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth) Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice- Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Clough, Walter Owen Jessel, Capt. Herbt, Merton Smith, Abel H. (Christch.)
Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. Kenyon, James Smith, Hn. W.F.D. (Strand)
Coddington, Sir William Kimber, Henry Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool) Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry) Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford) Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Stewart, Sir Mark J.M' Taggart
Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W. Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset) Stock, James Henry
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Cruddas, Wm. Donaldson Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverpool) Strutt, Hon. C. Hedley
Curzon, Viscount Lopes, Henry Yarde Butler Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh Lowe, Francis William Thornton, Percy M.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lowther, Rt, Hon. J. (Kent) Tomlinson, W. E. Murray
Davenport, W. Bromley- Lloyd, Archie Kirkman Tritton, Charles Ernest
Denny, Colonel Lucas-Shadwell, William Valentia, Viscount
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Macartney, W. G. Ellison Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H.
Doughty, George Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt Hn Sir Wm. H.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Maclure, Sir John William Wanklyn, James Leslie
Doxford, William Theodore M' Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) Warr, Augustus Frederick
Drage, Geoffrey Malcolm, Ian Webster, R.G. (St. Far-eras)
Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart Maple, Sir John Blundell Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Maxwell, Rt, Hon. Sir H. E. Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.
Fardell, Sir T. George Mellor, Col. (Lancashire) Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd
Whiteley, Goo. (Stockport) Wodehouse. Rt Hn E R (Bath) Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Williams, J. Powell (Birm.) Wortley, Rt. Hn. C.B. Stuart
Willox, Sir J Archibald Wylie, Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Wilson, John (Falkirk) Wyvil, Marmaduke D'Arcy Mr. Whitmore and Mr. Cohen

Resolution agreed to.

Words added.

Resolved, That it is inexpedient that the Bill be read a second time before the Royal Commission on London Water Supply has presented its Report.

Forward to