Commons Sitting of 4 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Wem; Swansea; and Dunfermline; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee on Mercantile Cruisers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (WATER-TUBE BOILERS).
  Copy presented, of Report on Trials of H. M. S. "Sheldrake," H. M. S. "Seagull," H. M. S. "Espiègle," and H. M. S. "Fantôome" (with diagrams) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 1st December, 1902, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Scientific Adviser in the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the Public Service are requisite [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) RULES (JERSEY).
  Copy presented, of Rules made under The Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1898, as extended by the Elementary School Teachers Superannuation (Jersey) Act, 1900 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SPIRITS (ABERDEEN, ELGIN, AND INVERNESS).
  Return ordered, "for the collection of Aberdeen, Elgin, and Inverness, relating to spirits, giving (1) the stock of spirits in bond at the 31st day of March, 1901; (2) total spirits bonded from the 31st day of March, 1901, to the 31st day of March, 1902; (3) total spirits cleared from bond from the 31st day of March, 1901, to the 31st day of March, 1902."—(Mr. Gordon.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Rabies in Dogs brought from Abroad.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will say what were the dates of the two cases of rabies in dogs imported from the Continent since the order of 1897; from what countries the dogs were imported, and how long after their landing in this country the disease was detected, and, in the case of the dog brought back by its owner with a licence from the Board, how long the dog had been abroad; under what circumstances and in what place, the owner's house or a veterinary establishment, the disease was detected; and whether the owner attempted to conceal the disease or gave aid to the authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Hanbury.) The two cases of rabies to which the hon. Member refers occurred in December, 1898, and April, 1899, in dogs brought respectively from France and Gibraltar. In the one case nearly three months elapsed between the landing of the dog and the detection of the disease, and in

  1303
  the other there was an interval of a fortnight. The dog which has been taken abroad had remained abroad for fifteen months. In both cases the dog was detained on private premises, and in neither was there any attempt at the concealment of the disease, its existence being reported in the one case by the owner and in the other by the veterinary surgeon who had been called in.

  Island of Lewis—Water Supply.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Adocate, in view of the fact that the water available at Valtos, Uig, Ness, Coulregrein, Bragar, and the east end of Leurbost, Island of Lewis, is of an unsatisfactory character, will he say when wells with force-pumps will be supplied.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that a well with a force pump was constructed two months ago at Valtos, Uig; that samples of water taken from Ness were not considered quite satisfactory, an accordingly the District Committee are endeavouring to secure a good spring in a central spot before constructing a well; that tenders have been invited for a well at Coulregrein; and that both at Bragar and the east end of Leurbost a well is in course of construction, while another well with a force pump was constructed at the west end of Leurbost about three months ago.

  Ross-shire Roads.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the Western District Committee for Ross and Cromarty recently received a memorial from a public meeting at Applecross, Ross-shire, pointing out that, although the people of the townships of Camusheel, Ardhu, Ardbain and Coillieghillie are rated for the upkeep and maintenance of highways, no footpath of any kind exists for the connection of those townships with one another or with the main road; and, seeing that the people have offered free labour with a view to secure the construction of the required paths, will he say whether the Congested Districts Board are prepared to provide a grant in aid of the work.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Congested Districts
  1304
  Board that on 13th November they received an application from the Western District Committee of Ross for grants in aid of the construction of these paths, and that they are making the inquiries necessary to enable them to come to a decision.

  House of Commons—Alterations in News Room.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts if the First Commissioner of Works will, before the commencement of next session, consider whether the news room can be made available for the convenient accommodation of a larger number of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The First Commissioner of Works has given instructions for fitting glazed screens to the windows of this room as in the smoking room for the prevention of draughts. An additional rack for papers will be provided, also two more armchairs. The large round table will be removed.

  Provision for Aged Auxiliary Postmen.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of rural and other postmen who have spent the greater portion of their lives in post office work and are compelled to resign owing to old age; and whether, seeing that in some instances the condition of service of these men disqualifies them for any award under the Superannuation Acts, and that in some cases auxiliary postmen are thus left destitute, he will consider the question of introducing legislation with the object of providing some pension or gratuity for them.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No, Sir. The position of the postal servants referred to in the Question does not differ from that of many employees of other Departments of the States, and it is evident that the Postmaster General cannot initiate separate legislation on the subject.

  Australian Mail Service.
  MR. JOSEPH HOWARD: To ask the Postmaster General whether he can explain why the

  1305
  New Zealand and Australian mails are kept back at New york and sent by a New York line of steamers; and also whether he will make representations to the United States postal authorities of the inconvenience caused by this means to British traders, and point out the importance of sending on the mails by the first available steamer.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have no knowledge of any such detention as is described in the Question. On the contrary, the mails in question are understood to be sent on from New York by the steamer which will secure their earliest arrival in this country. During the present year the Australasian mails have been brought to this country from New York more frequently by the British steamers of the Cunard Line than by those of any other company, but they do not always reach New York in time for the Saturday despatch. There does not appear to be any case to represent to the United States Post Office.

  Pacific Cable.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will consider the advisability of arranging with the Pacific Cable Board that, in the interval before opening the Pacific cable to public traffic, or at any other early and convenient date, the consulting engineers to the Board should conduct a series of speed trials over the Vancouver to Fanning Island cable to ascertain, in the interest of scientific knowledge, how many letters per minute this cable is capable of carrying under the simplex and duplex conditions of working, and under either or both of these conditions, when an automatic curb is employed, and whether a report of such trials, together with the final tests after the laying of this cable, can be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) I am glad to be able to say that the cable has been laid in perfect condition and that the tests for insulation and conductivity are satisfactory. The consulting engineers of the Pacific Cable Board have conducted a series of speed trials over the Vancouver to Fanning section of the cable. These tests show that the cable is capable of carrying eighty-five letters a minute with
  1306
  hand working, one hundred letters a minute with automatic curb working, and, approximately, one hundred and sixty-eight letters a minute (eighty-four letters each way) with duplex and curbed automatic working. These tests exceed the anticipations of the expert witnesses who gave evidence before the Pacific Cable Committees.

  South Africa—Trade Mark Fees
  MR, PRICE: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that a manufacturer wishing to register a trade mark throughtout British South Africa would have to pay separate fees for each of the five Colonies, amounting altogether to £70 or thereabouts, and whether he will consider the advisability of consulting with the Governments of those Colonies with a view to their arriving at some joint arrangement in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) The question is one affecting the internal revenue of the several Colonies, with which His Majesty's Government are unable to interfere.

  Canadian and Australian Bounties on Beet Sugar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, does the province of Ontario, in the Dominion of Canada, grant any, and, if so, what bounties on the production or export of sugar, or of sugar products, or other analogous products containing in a notable proportion sugar artificially incorporated, and, if so, what is the rate of such bounty; does Queensland grant any such bounties, and, if so, what is the rate thereof; and do any of the other countries included in the self-governing Colonies of the British Empire grant such bounties.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Ontario grants a temporary and limited bounty for three years only on the production of beet sugar, the term of three years expiring at the end of 1903; Queensland does not grant any such

  1307
  bounties. The grant of bounties in Australia is now subject to the control of the Federal Legislature. No such bounties are granted in any other of the self-governing Colonies.

  Colonial Bounties on Agrcultural Products.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): To ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will give a Return showing the bounties paid by the self-governing or Crown Colonies, directly or indirectly, on the production or export of agricultural products, and stating the amount of such bounty paid on each separate article in each Colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.) Yes, Sir.

  North-Eastern Railway—Haxey Level Crossing.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a level crossing of the projected Isle of Axholme Railway to be constructed by the North-Eastern Railway in that district traverses the main street of the village of Haxey; and whether, in view of the opposition of the Haxey Parish Council to the crossing, he can take any steps to have the railway diverted from the centre of the village.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The railway was authorised by an Order under the Light Railways Act in 1899, and the Order contains no provision enabling the Board of Trade to divert the railway. No opposition to the Order appears to have proceeded from the Haxey Parish Council.

  Salmon Fisheries' Commission Report.
  MR. RICHARD CAVENDISH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to introduce a Bill next session to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Salmon Fisheries' Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am afraid I am not in a position to give any undertaking in this subject.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade can he give the reference to any passage either in the Brussels Sugar Convention itself or in any of the proces-verbaux, or in any other document, showing that where any doubts exist as to the interpretation of a Clause in the Convention, reference is to be made to the proces-verbal.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) Where a Treaty is the result of a Conference the instrument is always interpreted in the light of the proces-verbaux. But I must not be understood to suggest that any doubt arises on the text of the Sugar Convention itself, that we are in any circumstances under any obligation to penalise sugar from a British self-governing Colony.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that on the 17th December, 1901, the delegate of His Majesty's Government to the Sugar Conference at Brussels declared that even if bounties on sugar were abolished the Cartels with the surtax would re-establish their inconveniences; and will he state what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to procure the abolition either of the Cartels or of the surtax.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The declaration refered to related to the operation of Cartels in the absence of any limitation of surtax. Article III. of the Convention provides for the limitation of the surtax to an amount which the Conference considered would not permit of the re-establishment of the inconveniences resulting from bounties.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Danish Minister of Finance that, in his opinion, England would be obliged, by the terms of the Sugar Convention, to levy countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugar for her self-governing Colonies and India; and what steps he proposes to take, before ratifying the Treaty, to secure that no such obligation will rest on the British Government.

  1309
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The hon. Member probably refers to the proceedings in the Dutch Second Chamber. As already stated, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government no such obligation rests upon His majesty's Government.

  Navy—Practice Ammunition—Gunnery Regulations.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the Admiralty propose to make any alteration in the gunnery regulations in the direction of authorising an increased allowance of practice ammunition, improving the conditions of prize firing, and making long range firing more efficient.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The question of the desirability of altering the gunnery regulations in these respects amongest others is under consideration, but I am not as yet in a position to say what alterations, if any, it will be decided to make in the existing regulations.

  Naval Prize Money Return.
  MR. KEARLEY): To ask the Secretary to the Admiraity if he will state the cause of delay in printing and circulating the list of persons entitled to naval prize money covering the period from 1856 to 1897, and when its issue may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The Paper in question is a voluminous one, extending to about 200 pages, and the printing has necessarily occupied a longer time than would be required for the issue of a less bulky Parliamentary Paper. There has, however, been no unnecessary delay, and I am informed that the printers hope to have the Paper ready for issue within a week.

  Bluejackets' Clothing.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state why the price of clothing to the lower deck ratings was recently raised; and whether he will take steps to fix a uniform price for the articles of clothing used by the Bluejackets.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) A full explanation of these variations in
  1310
  price will be found in the reply I gave to the honourable Member on the 15th April last. As I pointed out then, any rise or fall in the prices charged to the men is solely the result of a rise or fall in the prices paid by the Admiralty. It is not considered advisable to fix a uniform price for these articles, as such a course would sometimes involve a loss to the Crown and at other times a loss to the men

  Naval Gunnery—H. M. S. "Empress of India."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that during the recent prize firing practice of H. M. S. "Empress of India," the flagship of Rear-Admiral Jeffreys, only three shots out of 18 fired from the 13.5-inch guns, and 17 hits out of 69 shots fired from the 6 inch guns were made, he will state what steps the Lords of the Admiralty propose to adopt to prevent the recurrence of such a low average of shooting in this ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The prize firing of the "Empress of India" on this occasion cannot, as brought to the notice of the Admiralty by Admiral Jeffreys, be regarded as satisfactory. It is partially, however, accounted for by the fact that this ship has just returned from a three months refit in the dockyard, during which time the target practice could not be carried out, and many of her men were temporarily employed in other ships. The "Empress of India" now flies the flag of the Rear-Admiral of the Home Squadron and is carrying out the prescribed exercises, which will no doubt remedy the shortcomings referred to.

  Local Government Audit—Subscriptions of Metropolitan Boroughs to the Association of Municipal Corporations.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that a subscription to the Association of Municipal Corporations by a metropolitan borough was disallowed by the auditor, and that this disallowance was upheld on appeal by the Local Government Board; and whether he will take steps to make it known to the Corporations of all
  † See (4) Debates cvi., 276.

  1311
  boroughs, whether metropolitan or under the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, that such subscriptions are not properly chargeable to the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A disallowance was made in the accounts of one of the metropolitan Borough Councils of expenditure of the kind referred to on the ground that there was no statutory authority for the payment. On an appeal being made to me the legality of the auditor's decision was upheld, but the disallowance was remitted. As regards the last part of the Question, I think it probable that the Councils of metropolitan boroughs are aware of the decision in the case mentioned; but at all events the Question of my hon. friend will no doubt have the effect of making it known to them. I have no jurisdiction with regard to the matter so far as the Councils of other boroughs are concerned.

  Army and Navy Reservists in Canterbury Workhouse.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the fact that last week twenty-one Reservists just returned from South Africa were admitted to the Canterbury Workhouse, and that they were compelled to break stones before their departure each day; and whether he will provide that, in the case of men who have served in South Africa and bear high characters, the breaking of stones will be omitted form their task before leaving the workhouses.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have made inquiry on this subject, and I understand that, of the twenty-one Reservists referred to, only five had just returned from South Africa, the rest being Army and Naval Reservists and time-expired men. I am informed that none of these men asked to be excused their task of stone-breaking or stone-pounding, which is the task usually given to able-bodied males admitted to the casual wards of the Canterbury Workhouse. The Guardians are, however, now considering the advisability of admitting any bona fide cases into the workhouse until full inquiries can be made, with a view to
  1312
  employment being obtained through the East Kent Association for the employment of reserve and discharged soldiers.

  Education Bill—Liabilities of Transferred Authorities.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if the debts and liabilities of School Boards, other than those incurred on capital account, which are transferred to a County Council on the appointed day will be charged on the old School Board area or on the whole education area of the County Council.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The debts and liabilities in question will be charged on the old School Board area. The whole subject is dealt with by Section 86 of the Local Government Act, 1894, which is applied by paragraph 8 of the Second Schedule of the Bill. Under this section current liabilities are to be liquidated so far as possible before the appointed day. In case any liabilities are not so liquidated and are carried over to the new authority, machinery is provided by the same section for enabling them to be met in the same manner as before the transfer.

  China—Position in the Yang-tsze Valley.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will explain how the Internaitonal situation created by the circumstances set forth in the China (No. 3, 1902) Paper affects the position of this country in the Yangtsze Valley.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The views of His Majesty's Government are set forth in the Papers contained in the Parliamentary Paper, and it does not seem possible to add anything in explanation of them by way of answer to a Quesiton.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Dutch Minister of Finance stated on the 2nd December, in the Dutch Second Chamber, that Great Britain will be bound by the terms of the Brussels Sugar Convention to levy countervailing duties on

  1313
  bounty-fed sugar from her autonomous Colonies and from British India; can he state whether any, if so, which of the other States who have signed the Convention adopt a construction of its terms similar to that of the Dutch Minister of Finance; are there any other, and, if so, what points or articles in the Convention as to whcih any of the other contracting States adopt a different construction from that of His Majesty's Government, and which are those States.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second Question I have to say that it is the fact that the interpretation which I gave to the House yesterday has been called in question from other quarters. His Majesty's Government, however, are satisfied that this interpretation is correct, but until the correspondence which has arisen upon the point has been concluded it would be premature to give the information asked for. In reply to the last Question I am not aware of any points or articles upon which a construction is placed different from that adopted by ourselves.

  Ireland—Conduct of Police at Glenville.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of a sergeant and two police constables at Glenville, on Sunday, the 23rd of November, in demanding admission to an ordinary indoor meeting of the local branch of the United Irish League, and, on being refused, attempting to force an entrance, which, failing to effect, they then proceeded to fasten the door of the League room, thus preventing ingress and egress; and will the police be instructed to refrain from interference with the ordinary meetings of the United Irish League at Glenville.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The police did not seek admission to this meeting, nor did they fasten the door.

  Irish Technical Instruction—Equivalent Grant.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what decision has been arrived at by
  1314
  the Treasury in the matter of the equivalent grant for technical instruction in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It has been decided that the existing grants, amounting to £3,500, shall continue, but that a limit to their expansion should be laid down, not as a final limit, but as a future point of departure for the reconsideration of these grants in correlation with other Irish demands, whether educational or industrial, which may be disclosed, and with the resources available to meet them. The limit is fixed, provisionally in accordance with these considerations, at £7,000 a year.

  Irish School Building Grants.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the grant of tow-thirds of the cost of building new national schools in Ireland is made on an estimate of the cost of labour and materials of some thirty years ago, which estimate now barely equals one-half of the cost; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he will consider the advisability of increasing the grant to two-thirds of the actual cost, the increase to date from the commencement of 1903, so as to enable the building of new schools to be commenced immediately.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of a revision of the scale on which grants are made towards the erection of national school buildings has recently been inquired into by a Departmental Committee, which is now considering its report.

  China Operations, 1900—Medals and Clasps.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table General Dorward's despatch of November, 1901, with reference to the Chinese regiment; and will he say whether a clasp will be given for Tientsin.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The question of a clasp for Tientsin was considered by the war Office and India Office and Admiralty in consultation at the time of the grant

  1315
  of the China 1900 medal, and it was decided that only two clasps should be given, one for Taku and one for the relief of Peking. I have no copy of General Dorward's despatch in my possession, but I understand that it is not considered desirable to publish it.

  Irish Gold Ornaments Dispute.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the trial of the case of the Irish Gold Ornaments is likely to take place.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I am advised that it is expected that this case will be tried at the next sittings, commencing in January.

  Municipal Corporation Act Amendment.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that by Section 1 of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, the Council of a borough with a population of over ten thousand becomes the local education authority for the purpose of Part III. of the Act, and that the clergy and minister have in the past taken a leading part in educational affairs as members of School Boards and otherwise, he intends to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 12 of The Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, which disqualifies any person who is in holy orders or the regular minister of a dissenting congregation for being members of a municipal corporation, and to allow the clergy and ministers to be members both of County Council and of Borough Councils.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Government do not propose to introduce such a Bill.

  Solway Fishery Regulations.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: To ask th First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to alter the state of the Fishery Laws on both sides of the Solway, seeing that such remedial legislation has been recommended by the three last Royal Commissions on the Salmon Fisheries.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour). Something has been done to assimilate the
  1316
  bye-laws of the Fishery Board for Scotland with those made by the Cumberland Local Fisheries Committee relating to sea fisheries; but to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners (involving the constitution of a separate Solway authority) would require legislation, and that legislation, whether controversial or not, could evidently not be introduced at present.

(2. 15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Permit Regulations.
  Mr. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state on what ground the practice of granting permits in this country to persons desirous of proceeding to the Transvaal or Orange River Colony has been discontinued; and will he state or publish the conditions under which permits are now granted, on application to the permit office, at the port of debarkation in South Africa.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,, for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): The practice has been discontinued because of the practical difficulties of giving effect in this country to the provisions of the local laws on the subject. A notice on the subject of the issue of these permits has been published by the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Governments and will be communicated to the Press in this country.

  Soldiers' Pay in South Africa.
  MR LAMBERT (Devonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the total amount per diem, including allowances, paid to non-commissioned officers and men now serving in South Africa.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The non-commissioned officers and men of the regular army serving in South Africa receive the same pay and money allowances as elsewhere. They get in South Africa the benefit of a free grocery ration, and certain other issues

  1317
  in kind are made to them which, if at home, would have to be met out of the money allowance for messing.

  South African Blockhouses.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state approximately the cost of the blockhouses which were erected in South Africa during the war; to whom have the blockhouses been sold, and at what price; were tenders invited; and, if so, how many tenders were received.
  MR. BRODRICK: The blockhouses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies were taken over by Lord Milner at a valuation agreed upon by him with Lord Kitchener: the question of sale by open tender did not therefore arise. The accounts have not yet been forwarded to us. It is impossible, without a reference to South Africa, Which I am not prepared to make, to ascertain the cost of erection.

  Army Reserve.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the present position of the Army Reserve, and the effect on the numbers of the reserve of the new proposals for the re-engagement of time-expired men.
  MR. BRODRICK: The strength of the First-Class Army Reserve on the 1st November was estimated at 46,000. The precise number will be ascertainable when the men on gratuity furlough are re-transferred to the reserve. The number of men who have rejoined the colours is approximately 600.

  Provisional Regiment of Dragoons—Ex-Sergeant Leonard.
  *MR. GEORGE FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, in regard to ex-Sergeant Leonard's case, he can now state what measures he has determined to take consequent upon the inquiry by the General Officer commanding the York district into the state of the Provisional Regiment of Dragoons now stationed in York; what was the result of the inquiry into the allegations made by Leonard in his letter to the Secretary of State for War on the 8th
  1318
  October last, and will he say why Leonard was not called as a witness at the inquiry.
  MR. BRODRICK: The matter is at present under the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief, and I have therefore nothing to add to the statement I made on the 26th ultimo. I must point out to my hon. friend that the report of the inquiry made by the General Officer commanding to the Commander-in-Chief is strictly confidential.
  *MR. GEORGE FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?
  MR. BRODRICK: No. It was a military inquiry, and I presume that the ordinary course was pursued.

  Naval Cadets—Cost of Messing.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the cost per head of the messing of cadets in His Majesty's Navy, as well as the number and character of the meals provided.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The average cost of messing of the Naval Cadets in H. M. S. "Britannia" is 2s. 3d. a head per diem. Three meals are provided in the day, viz., breakfast, dinner, and tea. A statement of the dietary will be found on page 21 of the published regulations for H. M. S. "Britannia."

  Mediterranean Squadron—Ranking of Inspectors of Machinery.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Fleet has laid it down that for official entertainments inspectors of machinery shall rank with commanders in command; whether, seeing that by Admiralty instructions inspectors of machinery have the relative rank of captain, this order of the Admiral embraces the Deputy Inspector of Hospitals at Malta, who also hold the relative rank of captain; will he say whether
  † See page 501.

  1319
  this order was sanctioned by the Board of Admiralty; and, if so, for what purpose.
  *Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask leave to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for North Salford as recently as Monday last, and which was as follows: "No information has reached the Admiralty to the effect stated in the hon. Member's Question, but inquiry will be made, and I shall be happy to answer a further Question on the subject when the reply has been received." Steps have been taken already to fulfil the promise then given, but I think the hon. Member will agree that it is not unreasonable to allow more than three days for an inquiry which involves communication with the Mediterranean.

  Naval Engineer Artificers.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in some of His Majesty's ships where engineer artificers are appointed in lieu of assistant engineers, the captains refuse to give to the artificers the cabin accommodation assigned to assistant engineers; and will he say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty are not aware that the facts are as stated in the Question, but if the hon. Member will send me the information on which his inquiry is based the matter will be looked into.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask if it is not the fact that the Captain of one of His Majesty's ships refused to grant a cabin to an engineer artificer who was doing duty as assistant engineer?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It will be more satisfactory if the hon. Member will send me the information.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: I will do so.

  Naval Construction—"County" Class of Cruisers.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the reasons
  1320
  which have induced the Lords of the Admiralty to alter the designs of the cruisers of the "County" class; and what alterations have been, or are to be, made in these ships.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No alterations have been made in the design of the first ten ships of the "County" class, except that in three cases Belleville boilers have given place to other types of water-tube boilers. In the case of the last six ships of the class—(1) the thickness of the armour was increased from 4 inches to 6 inches to enable them to better withstand modern projectiles. This modification involved an increase in displacement of about 500 tons. (2) The number and type of guns forming the auxiliary armament was altered, and 7.5 inch guns fore and aft. (3) Certain internal modifications have also been made to enable the ships to carry a combination of cylindrical and water-tube boilers. No other changes in the design are contemplated.

  H. M. S. "Canopus."
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state if it is the intention of the Lords of the Admiralty to shortly recall H. M. S. "Canopus" from the Mediterranean squadron; and, if so, for what reasons they are taking this step; whether the boilers, condensers, and economisers of this ship require repairing of replacement; whether he will state why, during the recent manœuvres of the Mediterranea squadron, this ship was compelled to withdraw; how many times this vessel has been in the dockyard under repair during her commission, and the longest period she remained in the dockyard on any occasion; whether it is usual to bring back battleships at the end of their first three years in the Mediterranean; and if he can state what this vessel has cost in repairs to boilers and otherwise during the period of her commission.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is intended to recall the "Canopus" from the Mediterrean, as she requires an extensive refit. Battleships requiring small refits are sentto Malta, but it is now the practice to

  1321
  bring back all battleships which require large refits at the end of three years, and to repair them in the home dockyards. The boilers and economisers of the "Canopus" are of the earliest type of their class, which have been found to be less satisfactory than the later designs. The ship was ordered not to take part in chasing in the Mediterranean manœuvres, on account, it is believed, of defects in her economisers. The "Canopus" has been under repair on eleven occasions since she was commissioned. The longest period for which she has been in dockyard hands is four months eight days. The cost of repairs to her boilers since first commissioning has been about £3,100, and the total cost of repairs £15,800.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: Is it not the fact that this battleship's economisers and boilers are practically done, and that the vessel cannot steam?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have no such information. When I have the report as to what the defects are I shall be ready to give the House the information. I shall ascertain exactly what is wrong.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Will the hon. Gentleman recommend that these boilers shall be at once placed on the scrap-heap, so that the country's money shall not be expanded on useless repairs?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The question of effective repairs must be decided by the Controller of the Navy; but the Question of the noble Lord will be brought under his notice.

  Naval Gunnery—China Squadron—Admiral Seymour's Order.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has countermanded Admiral Sir E. H. Seymour's order when Commander-in-Chief in China to the effect that the ship holding the Seymour Challenge Cup for good shooting will always take the right of the line at all parades on shore or whenever a brigade is landed.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Admiralty has given no orders with respect to this Question, which is one entirely within the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief on the Station.

  Russia and Gibraltar.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have any information to the effect that Russia has obtained the Chafarinas or Zafarinas Islands on the coast of Morocco, near to Gibraltar, as a coaling or naval station; and is he aware that the Spanish Government is preparing to fortify certain points on Spanish territory adjacent to Gibraltar, and that the Captain General of Algeciras has given notice to owners of land in the neighbourhood of that place, whether Spaniards or others, not to proceed with any buildings within the military radius.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRAN-BORNE,): No such information has been received.

  Export of Japanese Beverages from Kobe.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that beer to the value of £46,536 was exported from Kobe, Japan, during the year 1900-1901, and that beverages to the value of £21,360 were exported from that port during the same period, can he ascertain of what these beverages consisted.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: The point referred to in the Question will be brought to the notice of His Majesty's Minister at Tokio, and he will be requested to furnish the information, provided it can be readily obtained.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the fact that the Brussels Sugar Convention is incorrectly translated from the binding French text into English as regards Article X., he will arrange that the careful revision of the whole translation for the version to be inserted in the Treaty Series shall be

  1323
  made forthwith, and the revised translation laid upon the Table and circulated among Members of this House.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: Publication in the Treaty Series cannot take place until after the Treaty has been ratified. As soon as the translation for the Treaty Series is made it shall be laid before Parliament.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Was it not stated the other day that there was a difference of opinion amongst the contracting parties as to the effect of the provisions of the Convention?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: That is not the question that deals with the English translation of the French version in which my hon. friend has found a mistake.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the fact that there are other mistakes, and will the noble Lord, for the benefit of hon. Members who only understand the English language see that the House is put in possession of a correct version forth-with?
  *LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, I will do my best to hurry it forward.

  Russia and the Sugar Convention.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has received from the Russian Government a communication intimating that the imposition by Great Britain of countervailing duties on Russian sugar would be regarded as an infringement of the commercial treaty between the two Powers, and suggesting that the question should be referred to the Permanent Arbitration Court at the Hague; and, if so, will he say what reply has been made by His Majesty's Government to the Russian Government.
  *LORD CRANBORNE: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. With regard to arbitration, the Russian Government have stated that, if His Majesty's Government expressed the wish to submit the question of the bearing of countervailing duties on sugar upon the treaty to international arbitration, they themselves would find no difficulty in falling in with this desire, and would
  1324
  consider that the question should be discussed not only with regard to sugar, but generally with regard to all other descriptions of goods. The Russian Government have been informed that His Majesty's Government cannot agree that the case, even if restricted to the matter immediately at issue, is one proper to be submitted to an arbitral tribunal, but that they are willing to renew the offer made in 1899 to denounce the Treaty of Commerce of 1859.

  Licensing Act, 1892—Translation into Welsh.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the desire in Wales for the translation of the Licensing Act, 1892, into Welsh, he will reconsider his decision upon this point, and will authorise the issue of a certain number of copies of the Act in the Welsh language.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): No, Sir! I hardly think that there is sufficient reason for taking this exceptional course. On the one hand a considerable portion of the Licensing Act is technical, and scarcely of popular interest, while on the other as regards those sections of it which have a distinct bearing on the general public they can be translated into Welsh and posted up, if thought desirable, by the police or other local authorities. If they do not do so, I will consider whether any action on my part can be taken.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the latter part of his reply. Is he aware that the precedent exists in the cases of the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Yes, I believe it is the fact that the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894 were translated, but it is not always done—for instance, the Welsh Sunday Closing Act of 1881 was not translated.

  Income Tax Returns.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether

  1325
  he is aware that certain public companies have been pressed by the local surveyors, by special official from Somerset House, and also by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, to disclose the amounts paid to their employees; where this information has been refused the returns of the employees have been surcharged and certificates demanded from the companies as to the amounts paid to the employees; and whether, seeing that people in business on their own account are their own assessors, he will give instructions to discontinue the portion of the Return relating to amount of incomes.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention has not been called to any case of the kind described. But, if the hon. and gallant Member will supply particulars of any cases that have been brought to his notice, I will cause inquiry to be made. To discontinue the portion of the Return relating to amount of income would cause, I believe, much inconvenience, not only to the Department, but also to the public.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the particulars of several cases. Meanwhile, will he not suppress that portion of the Return which has no statutory authority?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I have said that that would cause great inconvenience, but if the cases of which the hon. Member promises particulars show hardship ans just cause of complaint, I will reconsider that portion of the Return; but until I receive the particulars I can give no promise.

  Intercommunication Apparatus on Railways.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether the apparatus for the intercommunication approved by the combined railway companies has been adopted by all the railway companies in the United Kingdom; and, if not, will he state what companies have refused to adopt the system.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The correspondence with the railway companies on this
  1326
  subject is contained in a Parliamentary Paper issued in 1899, and shows that at that time practically all the important companies had decided to adopt the system of communication by means of a partial application of the continuous brake. The principal exceptions were the companies already possessing electrical systems of communication and the Great Eastern Railway Company, who were in doubt as to the best method, but have since decided to adopt the brake system.

  Mallaig Railway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state when the Annual Report as to the condition and working of the West Highland Railway to Mallaig will be presented to Parliament.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Report in question has been prepared. Is is now in the hands of the printers. and will be presented as soon as possible.

  Mail Car Contracts.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that mail car contractors have, as a result of late running of mail trains, to wait for the mails from a half-hour to two and a half hours; is he aware that this causes inconvenience and loss to these men, for which no remuneration is allowed; and can he take any steps to redress this alleged grievance.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Whenever mail trains are unpunctual it necessarily follows that mail cars working in connection with them cannot be despatched at the appointed time. In the existing forms of tender for mail car contracts it is announced that the Post Office will not make any extra payment for detentions of mail cars due to this cause, and persons tendering are warned to bear this fact in mind. But the hon. Member no doubt has some service or services specially in view; and if he will be good enough to let me have particulars, I will see whether there is any cause for further inquiry.

  Parcels Post for Agricultural Products.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will consider

  1327
  the advisability of instituting a cheap parcels post for perishable agricultural products.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question of instituting a special parcel post for agricultural products has been considered on more than one occasion; but the difficulties surrounding it are so great that it has not hitherto been found possible to adopt any such scheme. This is, however, one of the questions which I propose to examine afresh as soon as I have leisure to do so.

  Penalties for Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that the maximum penalty imposed on the masters of trawlers for trawling within the three mile limit is fixed at £100, will the Secretary for Scotland consider the expediency of taking steps to so increase the penalty as to make i deterrent.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Secretary for Scotland cannot at present come under any promise to propose legislation on the subject.

  Irish Land—Second Term Rents.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the number of second term rents fixed in the several Provinces of Ireland between the 31st March and the 31st October last, and the average reductions on the amount of the rent fixed for the first time.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The number fixed by the Land Commission in Ulster, Leinster, Connaught, and Munster, respectively, was 1,913,557, 609, and 620; the percentages of reductions were 23.1, 15.8, 20.8, and 17. In Civil Bill Courts, the number fixed by Provinces, in the same order, was 51, 17, 90, and 269; the percentages of reduction were 20.1, 17.4, 17.6, and 19.1.

  Boycotting Statistics.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Cheif Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give
  1328
  the number of families and of persons wholly or partially boycotted in the several provinces of Ireland; and how many of such cases are due to agrarian questions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The figures for the 30th November will not be available for a few days. But on the 31st October there were 42 cases, comprising 243 persons who were totally or partially boycotted throughout Ireland. The distribution, by provinces, was as follows:—Ulster, 2 cases, 4 persons; Leinster, nil; Connaught, 21 cases, 120 persons; Munster, 19 cases, 119 persons. Of these, 40 cases, affecting 229 persons, are due to causes of an agrarian nature. The latter figures include one case (11 persons) of total boycotting in Connaught, and three cases (16 persons) of total boycotting in Munster. In addition, there were, at the end of October, 150 cases of minor boycotting or attempts to boycott. affecting 673 persons. The gross totals on that date were, therefore, 192 cases and 916 persons. On the occasion of a debate in this House, on the 17th April last, I stated that there were, at that date, 318 cases of boycotting, involving some 1,500 persons.

  Ogilby Estate, Co. Tyrone.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Ogilby Estate, county Tyrone, has been in the Landed Estates Court since the year 1882, he can state whether any progress as to the sale to the tenants has been made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I called for a report on this question on Tuesday, but so far have not received it. In February last I was informed that the delay in the settlement of the rental on the estate was due solely to the action of two or three tenants who had resisted the claims of the remaining tenants to certain rights of turbary. I was also informed that a notice was about to be served on the former requiring them to state their objections, which would be adjudicated upon by the Land Judge and the settlement of the rental proceeded with.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has the court any power to compel a refractory minority on a large estate to accept terms of agreement?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think so.

  Ardglass Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. WOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to applications made to the Downpatrick Rural District Council for labourers' cottages in the district of Ardglass; and will be explain the cause of delay in the erection of these cottages.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In April the Local Government Board made a Provisional Order authorising the erection of seventeen cottages in the Downpatrick rural district, including three in the Division of Ardglass. The Order became absolute in July. Negotations between the Council and the owners and occupiers in respect to the compensation payable to the latter for their interests in the lands to be acquired have broken down in many cases, and an application is about to be made to the Board to appoint an arbitrator.

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from Rural Councils resolutions complaining of the complications in the working of the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts; and whether he intends to introduce legislation to promote their simplification.
  MR. WYNDHAM: no recent representations have been received. The extent to which the Government was prepared to go in this Session is indicated in the Amendments which I have put down to the Bill of the hon. Member for South Louth. I cannot give any under-taking in respect to next year beyond a promise of careful consideration in connection with the Land Bill I intend to introduce.

  Glasnevin Lectures on Bee-keeping.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Vice President of
  1330
  Agricultural was responsible for the appointment of Mr. J. M. Gillies as bee-instructor, and made personal inquiries into his fitness; and what action have the Department taken on the representations they have received from the Irish Bee-keepers' Association about this appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The appointment was made by the Department in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by the Act of 1899. The Department is satisfied as to the fitness of Mr. Gillies for the post. No representations have been made to it by the Association named.
  Mr. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the experts of the Bee-keepers' Association are satisfied that Mr. Gillies has no qualifications for this post?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No such representations have reached me. In a matter of this kind I am prepared to support the action of the Department.
  MR. TULLY: His only qualification is that he was on the staff of the Freeman's Journal.

  Complaint against Dublin Police.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioner of Police has directed an inquiry into the action of the Dublin Metropolitan Police in locking up without any authority from the owners that premises situated at 39, Upper O'Connell Street, Dublin, on the 27th November; and what explanation has been offered by the police authorities to the gentleman who was affected by this action.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The culprit—if, indeed, blame attaches to anyone—was not a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but the caretaker of the premises. It was a constable, however, who procured the ladder by means of which the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal descended to the street, and who received the thanks of the latter for the trouble he had taken.

  Prison Treatment of Irish Members.
  MR. TULLy: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1331
  Ireland whether he can state if any Members of Parliament sentenced to imprisonment under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act have been obliged to perform prison tasks such as washing prison clothes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. This charge was made in an aggravated form on the 27th October by an hon. Member in this House.† It was couched in language which admitted of no interpretation other than that during my tenure of office as Chief Secretary an hon. Member had been obliged to perform a peculiarly degrading task in prison. It was so understood at the time, and could not have been understood to mean anything else, for the hon. Member who preferred it added that the Prime Minister under the old Coercion Act would have shrunk from what he called "a new way of stretching political opponents on the rack." To that charge I give an absolute and unqualified denial.
  MR. TULLY: Had the Member for Cork any authority for stating that he had to wash dirty linen in gaol or else-where?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Rock Angus Lighthouse.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will explain why the Irish Lights Board have not yet lighted the lighthouse on the Rock Angus; and whether the Lights Board has prepared any estimate of the cost of the leading lights that would be required; and, if so, to what it would amount.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I have already stated in reply to previous Questions, the Commissioners of Irish Lights have explained that they are unable to advise the lighting of Rock Angus unless an extensive system of lights to guide vessels up the Lough to the anchor-ages of Audley and Cross Roads was adopted in conjunction with it. As such a scheme of lighting would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be solely for the benefit of local trade, they are unable to
  † See (4) Debates, cxiii., 904.
  1332
  recommend that it should be carried into effect at the expense of the General Lighthouse Fund, and consequently they have not caused any estimates to be prepared.

  Water Gas in Dublin.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the deaths from gas poisoning in the City of Dublin; and can he give the percentage of water gas used in Dublin as an admixture; and what is the proportion of water gas allowed in English towns.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has not been called to any death from gas poisoning in Dublin. According to the Return made by the Alliance and Dublin Gas Consumers' Company for 1901 the maximum proportion in which carburetted water gas was supplied by that Company in admixture with coal gas during that year was 39 per cent. There is no statutory restriction on the proportion of water gas which may be supplied in any part of the United Kingdom. The proportions in which water gas is actually used in various English towns are given in the Annual Return presented to Parliament.
  MR. TULLY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the proportion in English terms?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Return, he will be able to see for himself.

  Galway as a Transatlantic Port.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations in favour of Galway being made a transatlantic port for the new ocean service between this country and Canada; and if so, what steps does he propose to take in the matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have received norepresentations in the matter to which the hon. Member refers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what the business next week will be?
  THE PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): On Monday and subsequent days we shall go on with the London Water Bill.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet been able to allocate a day for the consideration of the Shipping Combine Agreements, in pursuance of he undertaking given in his name by the President of the Board of Trade?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the necessary Papers are laid, but I will inquire.
  MR. T. W. RUSELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take Local Government (Ireland) No. 2 Bill, and when?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot fix a date. I hope some little time may be found, but I cannot give a promise.
  MR. TULLY: I thought the right hon. Gentleman fixed a date at the request of the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, who said he represented Ireland!

  BETTING.
  Ordered, That a message be sent to the Lords, to request that their Lord-ships will be pleased to communicate to this House a copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on Betting, with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, etc.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Report from the Selsct Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 387.]

  LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  [Mr. JEFFREYS[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1—
  (2.40.) MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked the Deputy-Chairman whether he would be in order in moving to report Progress, so as to give the Government an opportunity of stating their intentions as to the progress of the measure.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he should have to rule that such a Motion would be out of order under Standing Order 23, which gave to the Speaker or Chairman the right to decline to accept a Motion if he considered it an abuse of the Rules of the House.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he would like to state his reasons for desiring to make the Motion. The Bill was duly resumed at the end of a very long, exhausting and tedious session. and they were almost at the beginning of a very long, very difficult and very complicated Bill. It was a Bill exceeding in length, and in some respects not far inferior in importance, to the Education Bill on which they had been engaged for so many months. It contained fifty-two Clauses, and five or six Schedules, many of them involving questions of large importance. The Bill dealt also with property to the value of many millions sterling, and that touched very closely the interests of many millions of people.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I shall have to rule the Motion out of order under Standing Order 23.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will you please read the Rule?
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is as follows:—
  "That, if Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, shall be of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debute, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forth with put the Question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I submit that this Motion is not an abuse of the Rules of the House. Nothing is further from my intention than to be guilty of any abuse of the Rules of the House. I really do want the House to have an

  1335
  opportunity of considering whether under the extraordinary circumstances of this Bill we shall go on with it. We went to know what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the future of the Bill, and how long it is proposed to sit. I think you should hear my reasons before you decide to refuse the Motion.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Committee has already taken the Bill into consideration. It is a very unusual step to report Progress at this stage, and I must decline to accept such a Motion. I must rule it out of order. In regard to the first Amendment on the Paper, its right place is on the Schedule, and I therefore rule that out of order.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONfailed to understand why the Amendment could not be taken. It referred to the Municipal Corporations Act, and surely the question of whether the appointment should be annual or triennial could be raised on the Clause itself instead of on the Schedule. He might point out that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had himself already taken out the bulk of one Schedule and put it into the Clause, and surely it was competent for other hon. Members to follow his example.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. WALIER LONG,): What I have done has been in accordance with an arrangement made for the convenience of the House generally, in order that an opportunity might be given to debate the general question. There was a clear understanding that if, in the interests of the draftsman-ship of the Bill it was found more convenient to replace the words in the Schedule, I should be at liberty to do so. With regard to the Municipal Corporations Act, may I point out that the conditions governing elections are contained in the Schedule of the Act.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONadmitted that what had been done had been for the general convenience of the House, but his point was that it was equally in order for any hon. Member to make a similar proposal.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It could only be done by general agreement of the House and with the consent of the Chairman. As to the next Amdements, those of the hon. Members for Hoxton and Dundee are also in the wrong place. The former comes under sub-Section 5 of the Clause, and the latter belongs to the 4th Schedule. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Popular is out of place, because the Committee has already decided that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed by the Board. The first Amendment of the hon. Member for Cleveland is also a question for the 4th Schedule.
  MR. CORRIE GRANT: In the absence of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I accept that.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out 'appointed' and insert 'elected.' "—(Mr. Corrie Grant.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid he wished to propose a further Amendment to secure that the election should be made by the Councils, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would favourably consider that point. The object was to secure that membership of the Water Board should be restricted to the country constituent authorities. The list contained in the Amendment of the right hon-Gentleman embraced a great number of authorities in the suburbs of London, but a great many others were excluded, had there had been no explanation given why some were included and others were not. There were five counties interested in the Bill outside London, and each of these had its own County Council, and he thought it would be wise to leave it to those bodies to select the members of the Board.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 22, after the word 'appointed,' to insert the words 'from among their own members.'"—(Mr Lough).
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was very difficult to argue the Amendment at this

  1337
  stage of the Bill, and the moving of it was not an altogether fair acceptance of the arrangement he entered into for the convenience of the Committee and of hon. Members on both sides, to bring out of the Schedule the words that now stood in his name, so that they might at once approach the consideration of the important question of the method of appointing the new Board. The hon. Member had not advanced any arguments on behalf of his Amendment, because he was reserving them for the debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts. But if the Amendment were adopted it would dispose of the whole question at once, by destroying the scheme of the Bill. He should follow the example of the hon. Member and reserve his arguments also for the real Amendment on which, by common consent, it had been agreed to discuss this very important point.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he had only moved because other Amendments had been ruled out of order, and he wanted to protect himself. He was quite prepared to discuss the whole point on the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts, and begged leave, therefore, to withdraw his own Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WALTER LONGthen said he would move the Amendment standing in his name without comment, except to say that it had undergone one slight change since it first appeared on the Paper, in as much as the district of Foot's Cray, which was a rural district when the Bill was introduced, had since been made an urban district. As it had been agreed that the question should be discussed on the Amendment of which the hon. Member for North-West Wilts had given notice, he would defer stating the reasons of the Government for the proposal.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words from the word 'appointed,' to end of sub-section, and insert the words 'as follows:— 'Ten by the London County Council; two by the Common Council of the City; two by the Council of each of the Metropolitan Boroughs of Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, St. Pancras, Stepney, and Westminster; one by the Council of each of the other Metropolitan
  1338
  Boroughs; one by the County Council of Essex; two by the Council of the Borough of West Ham; one by the Council of the Urban District of East Ham; one by the Council of the Urban District of Leyton; one by the Council of the Urban District of Walthamstow; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford; one by the County Council of Kent; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Beckenham, Bromley, Chislehurst, and Penge; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Foot's Cray; one by the County Council of Middlesex; one by the Council of the Urban District of Tottenham; one by the Council of the Urban District of Willesden; one by the Council of the Borough of Ealing and the Councils of the Urban Districts of Acton and Chiswick; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Brentford, Hampton, Hampton Wick, Hanwell, Heston and Isleworth, Sunbury, Teddington, and Twickenham; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Edmonton, Enfield, and Southgate; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Hornsey and Wood Green; one by the County Council of Surrey; one by the Council of the Borough of Kingston and the Councils of the Urban Districts of East and West Molesey, Esher and the Dittons, Ham and Surbiton; one by the Councils of the Urban Districts of Barnes, the Maldens and Coombe, and Wimbledon; one by the County Council of Hertfordshire; three by the Conservators of the River Thames; one by the Lee Conservancy Board.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONexpressed surprise at the action on the right hon. Gentleman in not giving the reasons of the Government for their proposal.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was distinctly a part of the understanding to which the hon. Gentleman was a party, that he should put his Amendment down to afford an opportunity of discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he could not agree with that. The agreement they came to was this. It was quite obvious that it was desirable to have at once a general discussion on what was after all the main part of the Bill, instead of deferring it until the schedule was reached. He did not see why under the circumstances the debate should be confined to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-West Wilts. Surely they were

  1339
  entitled to discuss the general proposals of the right hon. Gentleman before they dealt with particular Amendments which would very much restrict the field of debate. Why dad not the right hon. Gentleman explained the reasons for their proposal?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I gave my reasons at full length on the Motion for the Second Reading.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had read the speeches, but could find no argument in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. Seeing that six months had elapsed since the matter was last discussed, it would have been only courteous to the Committee to recapitulate some of the arguments in favour of this extraordinary proposal. He rose chiefly, however, to protest against any attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to confine the Committee to a particular alternative proposal to the general scheme. Surely that scheme could stand or fall on its merits, if it had any, but to confine the discussion to a particular proposal was not treating the Committee fairly.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought some reply should be made to his hon. friend. London Members had a right to arrange their own affairs, and he interposed simply as amicus curice. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to an understanding, butan understanding between individual groups on Members did not bind the Committee.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that with his long experience the right hon. Gentleman would doubtless agree that an understanding arrived at across the floor of the House by the Minister responsible for and the opponents of a Bill was binding. He could have declined to give the Committee the opportunity they now had of discussing the proposal—he could have adhered to the Bill as drafted, but in order to meet the convenience of hon. Gentleman opposite, and the Committee generally, he undertook to bring these words out of the schedule and put them into Clause 1, on the understanding that the debate should arise on his hon. friend's Amendment.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANagreed that the transference of the proposal from the schedule to Clause 1 was a
  1340
  great improvement for the purposes of regular and reasonable debate. But the question then arose whether, the scheme having been thus brought forward in order that it might be fully discussed, the Committee were not entitled to debate that scheme at large with all possible alternatives to it. Were they to wait until a particular Amendment had been moved, and then be confined to the alternative between the Government proposal and that of the Amendment? Outsiders like himself were entitled to hear the general question stated and discussed. There were a host of alternatives to the Government plan, such as that a Government department should manage the whole business, and therefore it was most important that the Committee should be given a reasonable opportunity of discussing the general question. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should re-state to the House, as no one was more capable of doing, the reasons for his scheme, and allow the Committee to argue the point to their satisfaction.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman had been present when the question was before discussed he would have understood the reason which led him to adopt the course he had taken. According to Hansard, he used the following words:
  "The Committee must clearly understand that if I adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, there should not be a debate on this question over and over again."
  It was a matter of perfect indifference to him whether he stated the general reasons in favour of the Government scheme now or on the Amendment, when the first direct attack was made. He would have to state those reasons either now or later; he was prepared to defend his scheme at the proper time; and it was solely in the interest of the Committee that he thought it would have been better to make his speech on the Amendment rather than have to say, in reply to the mover of the Amendment—"I have already made my speech, and have nothing left to say. Having endeavoured to justify my scheme, I have only to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment." To adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would be to delay the progress of the Bill, and that

  1341
  he was not prepared to do. He had nothing to add to his remarks on the Second Reading. As he then stated, the scheme of representation adopted by the Government included the London County Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs, the adjoining County Councils, and the Urban District Councils. The Rural District Councils were not included, but were given power to receive and a right to obtain water. They were given no representation and no obligation with regard to rating was laid upon them. The Government had selected the Metropolitan Boroughs because they were the sanitary authorities of London; the Urban District Councils, because they were the sanitary authorities of districts surrounding London; the London county council, because it was the central body of London, and had long taken an interest in the question; and the Councils of the adjoining counties, because there were rural district which had a right to some representation which they did not get through the Urban District councils, and because in some of the surrounding districts were to be found the sources which supplied London. There ought to be on the governing body a general representation of all the interests concerned. The whole case had been put with admirable clearness by his hon. friend the Member for Exeter, who, as a member of the Joint Committee, in addressing the House, stated that—
  "The principle of the scheme is the representation on the governing body of all the interests concerned."
  This was the only proposal for dealing with the London water question which had ever found general acceptance among the people concerned. When five or six months ago he referred to the Metropolitan Boroughs as being favour able to the scheme, he was speaking of what he knew only by general report, but he knew it more authoritatively now. The Municipalities valued the representation given them because they took an active interest, not only in London as a whole, but in their individual boroughs, and because they found in the scheme a recognition of their rights as representing the citizens of metropolitan boroughs, and London generally.
  1342
  As to the objection that the body was too large, he had stated it would be impossible to carry out the principle he had laid down if the number were reduced. He had tried in vain every method for reducing the size in the belief that it might be better if the body were somewhat smaller— although he fully thought there would be plenty of work for all the members to do. He started on the principle that London, though not necessarily the London County Council, should have a majority on the new body, and London found its representation in the London County Council and the Metropolitan Borough Councils. The moment that principle was departed from either the superiority of London on the body would be destroyed, or the proportion between London and the outside areas interfered with. Under the scheme of the Government, London had a majority on the governing body, while at the same time what he believed was a fair and strict proportion of representation was given to the surrounding districts. The scheme embodied in the Bill was, in his opinion, not only the best, but the only practicable scheme which could be carried into law, because any attempt to force through a scheme against the will of a great majority of the people of London and the surrounding areas would fail. These were the grounds on which the scheme had been put into the Bill. He had given these reasons on the Second Reading of the measure, and had proposed to state them on his hon. friend's Amendment, but in deference to the wish of the Leader of the Opposition he now repeated them. That being so, he hoped he would not be aging accused of want of courtesy if, when dealing with various amendments, he declared that he had already stated the grounds on which the proposal of the Bill was made and the reasons why he thought it should be supported.
  *(3.15.)MR. LOUGHsaid that with the greatest deference to the right hon. Gentleman he must bear with them at this stage. The President of the Local Government Board had repeated the reasons he put forward upon the Second Reading for proposing this extraordinary body, but he thought

  1343
  they were most inadequate. The Committee ought not to be treated in this way, because hon. Members could not remember what was said upon the Second Reading. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his attitude and give some stronger reasons for this proposal or else leave it to the Committee to decide whether such an extraordinary body as was now proposed ought to be accepted or not. The principle adopted in this proposal was that certain bodies outside and inside London should be represented, and having adopted the principle the right hon. Gentleman said it could not be carried out except by such an Amendment as he had moved. The body suggested was both impracticable and unworkable, and he should have liked to have heard some further reasons for its number and special construction. It consisted of seventy-three members, fifteen to be appointed by the various county Council, ten by the London County Council, and five by the others. One of the boroughs was to have two members, certain urban districts five, and the Borough Councils of London thirty-six. Then certain urban districts which worked jointly appointed nine, and the Thames and Lea conservancies four members, making a total of seventy-one. That was the body as contained in the Bill when it left the Committee. They had since added a Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and so they arrived at seventy-three.
  The first thing he suggested was that this body was far too numerous to do its work properly. The right hon. Gentleman treated this question as if it had never been thought of before, and as if Parliament and Royal Commissions had never dealt with it. It had been examined carefully by Royal Commissions and Committees, and it had been discussed frequently during the last ten or twelve years. His complaint was that for twelve years certain principles had been accepted by every Committee and Commission, and by the House of Commons, and now the right hon. Gentleman suddenly brought forward a new proposal which had no authority behind it, and which was entirely different to anything
  1344
  they had had before, and the Government were trying to thrust it down the throat of the House of Commons. In 1891 they had the Report of the Commission presided over by Lord Ridley, and it recommended a Committee or thirty or thirty-five members. Commissions and Committees had sat since on this question and they all agreed that the body should be about half the size of the one now proposed. Where did the right hon. Gentleman get hold of this plan for placing the number at seventy-three? Those who opposed this proposal got their principle from the results of careful examinations and recommendations made by Committees and Royal Commissions and the House of Commons itself. When this proposal to make the number seventy-three went to the Joint Committee which had considered this Bill, they treated it with contempt and scorn. By a majority of six to three the Committee sent this Bill back, and told the right hon. Gentleman to bring up a working body of about thirty or thirty-five members.
  What did the right hon. Gentleman do? He caused a communication to be made to the Committee to the effect that the Government had received the decision with profound regret. Surely that was an extraordinary course to take. Why did the Government refuse to adopt the decision of the Committee? The principle of the Bill would not be involved by reducing the size of the body. The object of the Bill was to buy out the water companies and entrust the water supply to a suitable body to manage. Many representatives of the water companies sat opposite, and they could not be interested in the number of this body, although they were interested in getting a fair price fixed for the undertakings before they were taken over. The right hon. Gentleman said there was great difficulty about altering the constitution of the Water Board now, because it had been accepted by those bodies who were interested in it. The Kent authorities had askedssss that they might be struck out of the Bill, and already many outside counties had made a similar request. The same demand had been made on behalf of Middlesex,

  1345
  Essex, and Hertfordshire. The constitution of the Water Board had not been accepted at all unanimously.
  He thought it was an extraordinary statement to say that this proposal had been received with universal favour. The only favourable evidence before the Committee was that given by two gentlemen from the Local Government Board, but they had not much weight against some of the authorities who gave evidence against this scheme. Witnesses came before the Committee from all the great cities, including Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, and Edinburgh, and they all expressed the opinion that it was extremely undesirable to have such a large body if they wanted the work well done. Nearly all the evidence went to show that they ought not to have a body of the size now proposed. It would not be difficult to give a smaller representation. Instead of thirty-six members for the metropolitan boroughs there might be eight or ten, and this result could be arrived at by grouping them. If the Committee thought that this body was unwieldy and represented divergent interests, then the Committee should not hesitate to press upon the Government the desirability of modifying the number even now. There was another feature, which was even worse. The proposed board would consist not only of a great number of people, but of the representatives of a great number of bodies. It would represent the County Councils and Borough Councils inside and outside of London. It was perfectly clear that those bodies would have no common interest. Any experience which the House have had of such bodies was against the setting up on another. The indirect representation given to London was merely the resurrection of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and nobody would say that board worked well when it existed. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that the Government should propose to practically set up again a body which had been so discredited as that board was. The fact that an Amendment had already been passed placing the new Board practically under the control of the Local Government Board, and giving the power to appoint the first Chairman to the Local
  1346
  Government Board showed the respect with which the right hon. Gentleman felt disposed to treat the body himself. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were to be sent in from outside. The result would be that there would be two officials at the head of the body, and the other members would not have a proper sense of responsibility for the great duties they would have to perform on behalf of the citizens of London. They would be mere tools in the hands of these two gentlemen. That was an extraordinary proposal. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House with much respect in the way he had brought forward this proposal. He hoped the House would take the opportunity which the Amendment would give of considering the matter, and if it did so he felt sure it would arrive at the conclusion that the proposed body was not one that ought to be appointed.
  MR. COHENsaid the hon. Member who had just spoken had not told them anything which they had not heard before. He thought the Committee would be addressing themselves to a more business-like solution of the problem now before them if they proceeded as speedily as possible to the consideration of the Amendment of which the hon. Member for North-West Wilts had given notice.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that one of the things which he did not like about the proposal of the Government was that the number of the Board would be so great that the influence of the individual representative would be infinitesimal unless he was something very much superior to the ordinary representative sent up from the district. As a rule he would not be able to make his influence felt or his voice heard in such a large assembly. If this body was to be so large the ordinary individual would be practically out-classed as well as out-numbered, and it would be better to give the districts protection in other ways than by a mere nominal representative on a body of this size. He saw from the Amendment that some places were left out. Personally he thought it was a pity that all places should not be represented so far as

  1347
  possible, but it was better to leave them out altogether than to give them a false representation. He considered that the appointment of a very small number to represent those vast districts would be a false representation entirely. He would mention three cases in regard to which he had the figures. The Unban Districts of East Ham, Leyton, and Walthamstow, had each a population of about 100,000, and they were each to have one representative. That might be quite right for the present, but these districts were doubling every ten years, and, therefore, they would be grossly underrepresented in the course of a few years. He felt quite confident that the protection these districts would receive by so small a representation on so large a board would not be sufficient. Representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman through Committees of this House and through bodies outside that so large a body as one consisting of seventy-three members would not be a good working body. His hon. friend had said that the water companies did not care what the number was. He was quite sure that they would prefer a large body because they would be better able to drive a hard bargain. With a small body consisting of men took a keen interest in the business of the Board, the public interest would be better looked after than by a Board of seventy-three. Whatever was done, do not let them have a resurrection of the Metropolitan Board of Works. All sorts of local boards had been tried in all parts of the country, but never had there been such an egregious failure as the Metropolitan Board of Works. [Cries of "No."] Those who remembered the work they did, and the cost of it would bear him out. [Cries of "No."] He gathered that there were some admirers left of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think that those Gentlemen who had such admiration for the shade of that body that had passed would wish to raise it again to manage their own affairs. Perhaps they would like it to manage the water supply of London and neighbourhood, and perhaps the water directors would like them to deal with. He hoped they would have a body more practical and business-like, more in touch with the people who were
  1348
  to be supplied, and less interested in large money-making concerns than that body was.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he represented two interests. He was a water company director and a London Member of Parliament. He should like to say one or two words as to the formation of the new body. He entirely repudiated the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division, that the directors of the water companies wished to drive any bargain at all. They wished to have what was fair and reasonable. He personally thought that London might regret what was now proposed by the Bill. The cost might be very large, and it was extremely likely that in years to come it might be realised that it would have been better to compel the companies to do the work under the penalties which could have been imposed upon them in the event of their refusal or failure. But London had made up its mind to but up the water companies, and as a London Member he desired that the body appointed to carry out the work should be an efficient one in the interest of the ratepayers and the water consumers. He must candidly say that to his mind the idea of creating a body of seventy-three members brought together from all parts, and existing for three years, to carry on a business involving something like fifty millions sterling, was not his idea of the way in which the work could be done successfully. He wished to say this to protect himself hereafter if the scheme did not answer, and London had to pay dearly for the present scheme. His own view, like that of Lord Llandaff's 'Committee, was that there should be a very much smaller body than the Government now proposed. Speaking with the knowledge of a director who had had to do with the finance of one of the largest of the water companies, he considered that the financial part of this great work rendered it desirable that a smaller body of efficient men should be appointed. He should prefer very much a smaller body similar to a paid Board to look after this great work. This would be one of the largest businesses in the country, and his opinion was that the work could not be well done by such a body as was proposed.

  1349
  If the Chairman of this new body was efficient he must become the autocratic ruler of the concern. But if he were not the whole thing must fall into the hands of the paid officials. This scheme represented an enormous development of municipal trading, and he looked upon it with misgiving. As a London Member he should be glad to see some modification of the proposal, but as he had the misfortune to be tarred with the brush of being a director he had no right to take part in the vote. His only object was to protect London from what he considered would be a great evil. If the Chairman were efficient he would become an autocrat of this great concern, and that he thought might be the best, but if he was not a good man, the whole of the thing would fall into the hands of the permanent officials. He looked upon this development of municipal trading with great suspicion, and he objected very strongly to any scheme that might open itself to municipal corruption. He regretted he could not support the scheme of the present Bill as regarded the formation of the Water Board.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *(3.50.)SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he wished to move the comission of the word "Ten" in the first line of the Amendment in order to insert the word "Fourteen." He submitted this Amendment with that amount of reluctance which must always inspire a Member sitting on that side of the House in moving an Amendment to a Government Bill. But that reluctance was tempered by the conviction that his proposal was in the interests of the water administration of London, and was far preperable to that of the Government. His status in moving this Amendment might, he said, be considered a some what slender one. In the first place he was not a London Member, and in the second place he sat as a representative on the London County Council, and the Borough Council of his constituency had passed a resolution in favour of the proposal of the Government. He was, however, perfectly willing to face these disabilities because
  1350
  of the intrinsic merits of the position, and the really overwhelming case that there was against this proposal of the Government.
  He ventured to contend that the principles underlying the Government proposals were unconstitutional. Every Committee and every Commission that had previously exhaustively investigated this question had practically condemned the Government proposal and had advocated the identical principle of his Amendment. In 1891 Lord Ridley's Committee recommended a scheme on the lines of his Amendment; Mr. Plunkett's Committee had in 1895 done the same; while in 1899 Lord Llandaff's Commission had advocated the principle of his Amendment, and in doing so he condemned the principle of a large Board. To come to a more recent date, the Joint Committee of both Houses, which sat this year, arrived at the same conclusion. That opinion of the Joint Committee was all the more important because it had been come to subsequent to the re-arrangement of London government by the establishment of the municipal boroughs. Moreover, this Joint Committee was composed for the most part of Conservatives, and after listening to all the evidence put before them they came to a perfectly clear decision, and by an overwhelming vote condemned the proposal of the Government. He would not go into the subsequent tergiversations of that Committee when they substituted another scheme. He knew he was unable to allude to the unprecedented and extraordinary methods by which those tergiversations were influenced and by which the first decision of the Joint Committee was overturned. The ruling of the Deputy Chairman would not permit of his revealing the whole story of that transaction. If a decision could be taken by this Committee on the Government proposal and his—which embodied the principle of the decision which the Joint Committee had come to in its saner and uninterfered with moments—he had not the slightest doubt that the proposal of the Government, which the Joint committee had never really sanctioned, would be rejected.
  Now, to come to the main objections to this Board, which was to consist of seventy-three members, drawn from the London County Council, from the City Corporation of London, from the

  1351
  London Municipal Corporations, and from certain outside bodies. His first objection to such a Board was that it was constructed on a basis of duplicate representation—which he ventured to say was unprecedented. The system of duplicate representation was introduced in order to include the Borough Councils; and having included them, it became necessary to include the Urban Authority also. The county Council had always been recognised as the water authority for London; and he contended that from the general point of view it was also the sanitary authority for London. The local bodies had not had any dealing in the water question, where as the County Council had had dealings with it for many years. Under a statute passed by the House of Commons it had certain powers; and had investigated the whole question. Therefore, the County Council should be considered the water authority for London, not the subsidiary borough authorities. In 1899, before Lord Llandaff's Commission, the urban authorities outside London were invited to give evidence; but they replied that they knew, or cared, little about the subject; and that they were quite content that county authorities should give evidence. Had there been any general demand on the part of the Borough Councils for representation on the proposed Board? If there had been a loud demand running back for years, he could understand the difficulty in which the Government would be placed; though he himself would consider that to include representatives of the Borough Councils with representatives of the London County Council would be subversive of the existing municipal system. Before the Joint Committee only fifteen Borough Councils petitioned; and, of these, thirteen petitioned after the 1st January in the present year, when, although the Bill was not introduced, the proposed constitution of the Board was an open secret. Then the idea was brought before them for the first time, that they should have representation on the Board. He would ask why, if these bodies were to be included, should representatives of the County Council be included? That appeared to him to be wrong on every principle of local government, and would be certain to result in a conflict of interests. It seemed to him that County Council representation would be
  1352
  far better than Borough Council representation; and, in saying that, he did not intend to pass any reflection on the Borough Councils, or the urban authorities. They were very important bodies, and had extremely important duties to discharge, but those duties were confined to their own areas, and were of a purely local character.
  He saw in the proposed Board a danger to the whole local government of London; and also a danger of confusing duties which related to London as a whole, and duties which related to its several localities. They could not be too careful, in the early days of administrative Boards, to discriminate carefully between local questions, and questions which concerned London as a whole. If that principle were ignored in a complicated city such as London, there would be small hope that municipal life would be conducted on lines compatible with public welfare. To emphasize that point he would make one quotation from an authority which he did not think could be impugned by hon. Members on that side. Lord Salisbury, in a speech he delivered in 1894, said—
  "I am told that there are certain subjects which it is necessary that a central body should conduct and control. I quite admit that there are such subjects. They are principally connected with the main drainage of the Metropolis, with the management of the river which flows through this city, and, if you will, with the water supply. In fact, with those matters which depend upon the natural law that water will run down and will not run up. All these things, which depend upon those natural laws, are necessarily brought under a central management, but if that management were duplicated or were multiplied it would cause confusion."
  It was contended by the advocates of the Board that the supply of water was a local question. He contended most strongly that it was not a local question in London; it was essentially a universal question. If it had been local it would have been one of the very matters which would have been given to each individual Borough Council and urban authority. He would ask the Committee to consider the analogy of the main drainage scheme of London at present. It was very little heard of because it swas carried out most satisfactorily by one small central committee. Indeed, so satisfactory was the work of that committee that outside authorities had asked to be allowed to

  1353
  come under its administration. He himself could not see very much difference or distinction between extracting foul water from a house and putting pure water into it. What had been done by a small committee in the one direction could be done by a small committee in the other direction. He did not wish the Committee to imagine that he advocated, or had ever advocated, that the County Council should be the sole administrative authority for water in London. He had always opposed that proposal; and when the Committee investigated the only possible alternative—the severance—it was found to be impossible and impracticable.
  Once the central principle of local government in London was grasped, the problem, complex as it seemed, became simple. That principle was contained under three heads. The first related to matters concerning London as a county which should be under the central authority of London. The second referred to matters relating solely to a locality without overlapping in any way, which were dealt with by the Borough Councils. Then the rapid development of London Beyond its artificial boundaries necessitated a third system of local government, viz., a Board; and in that matter he contended most strongly that the Board must be drawn, not from the subsidiary authorities, but from the county authorities. The Water Board was a very fair example or the last mentioned form of government. In order to carry out its work in a far-sighted manner it would be necessary, from time to time, to transact work in a particular locality for the benefit of other localities. That was always extremely unpopular in the locality concerned. It might be a case of drains, storage, or reservoirs; and if representatives of that locality were on the Board, their primary idea would be the interests of their own area, with the result that they would be very often in conflict with the general interests of water London. He did not speak of the old Board of Works in the derogatory manner that the hon. Gentleman opposite did; but one of its weak points was that there were representatives of outlying districts on it who protected those districts against attack, although the attack was in the general interest;
  1354
  and there would be a great danger, if these small cabals were to be set up again. He did not reflect on the local bodies; but he advocated a Board which would look at London as a whole. It might be argued that the outside counties would send representatives from districts without the water area; but the bulk of the population would be within the confines of water London, and it would be perfectly easy for those outside areas to send in their representatives drawn from that particular part whose interest would be considered as within the water area of London.
  With regard to the portentous size of the Water Board—seventy-three members—the House did not want to institute a Water Board which was a large debating body; what was wanted was a small administrative body. He would suggest that this Board should consist of thirty-three members. The fact that provincial corporations had a large number on their Boards was no analogy. Those corporations had various functions to perform which necessitated committees and sub-committees being created. In this case there was only one function to perform, which could be well done by a smaller body. Every authority on this matter strongly disapproved of a large body. The main argument in favour of seventy-three members was that there must be a large body in order to establish the many committees that would have to be established to control the water business in all these areas. The evidence given before the Commission was that some seven or eight committees would be required, but in the opinion of the experts examined two or three would be ample. It was said it would be necessary to create appeal committees in various districts, and again the evidence of the experts controverted that evidence and said such a thing would be most undesirable. The detail work would have to rest with a paid official. He quite agreed that it was not desirable that all the work should be in the hands of a paid official, but a great deal of it must be. With regard to local members being placed on this Board in order that the grievances of their localities might be ventilated, he did not think such a thing was desirable. Under such conditions a

  1355
  grievance had little chance of being remedied. By far the most effective way would be for the locality aggrieved to send a deputation to the central body. That was the practice of the London County Council, and the complaints of deputations were always listened to and dealt with on their merits. It had been pointed out that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of this Water Board would be paid officials and do most of the work, but he did not envy the man who would have to preside over these conflicting interests. He should be a good administrator, and with a large body like this it would be found that he would be nothing more than a Chairman to keep order. The Board was unwieldy, and from its size was not likely to be a good administrative Board, and no case had been made out for such a large Board when the Committee considered that the only work it would have to do would be to administer the water of the Metropolis.
  He had tried to consider this matter from a broad point of view, and the conviction to which he had been forced was that such a Board as this would not conduce to the good administration of the water of London. He made an earnest appeal to the Government to reconsider this matter. They had now arrived at the last month of the year after a most fatiguing session; the House was exhausted; many Members had gone and the debates were becoming more desultory every day. Was it right, under these circumstances, that a great question like this, affecting the health of millions of people, should be dealt with in this manner. The postponement of this Clause would not disturb the other portions of the Bill, which could all be got through; but the constitution of the Board affected the whole municipal power of the country, and was going to affect the finance and health of this vast and increasing city, and therefore he asked the Government to reconsider this proposal. It was a proposal which hardly any business man outside the House approved of, and therefore he appealed to the Government to adjourn this proposal to next session.
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment proposed—
  1356
  "In line 2, to leave out the word 'ten' and insert the word 'fourteen' "—(Sir J. Dickson Poynder)—(instead thereof.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  (4.20.)MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the Committee had listened to the excellent and well-informed speech of the hon. Member for North Wilts in support of the Amendment, and he could not help contrasting that speech with the one which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman upon the clause. The President of the Local Government Board was unable to make a good speech, because he had no case. The right hon. Gentleman had made a speech this afternoon in which there was little argument, but what there was had quickly been disposed of by the hon. Baronet. He supported the appeal the hon. Baronet had made to the Government not to press this Clause at the moment, in the interest of the Government for the smooth working of the Bill, and in the interest of economy in the working of it. He hoped they would not force through the House what he believed to be the most extravagant policy that had ever been forced on London. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that he had given the London county Council representation on the governing body because it had taken an interest in the question, and to the other district because they were affected, but he had not mentioned the extent to which the County Council was concerned. In the course of the next ten years the County Council, out of the County Council rate, would probably have to provide a sum of money ranging from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000, and the body which would have to provide the money, upon whose financial credit and administrative responsibility the money would have to be found to buy out the companies in the first place, and to supply shortages which would inevitably ensue if such a large body as was proposed managed the water supply—that body was entitled, if not to a clear majority, at any rate to more than one-seventh of the representation. Then, what about the other bodies? The Borough Councils would have thirty-six members out of sevety-three.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that a specific Amendment had been moved, and the discussion must be restricted to the substitution of "14" for "10."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that the object of the proposal being brought from the Schedule to the first Clause was that a general discussion might be taken. If the Committee had understood that they were to be limited to the question between "10" and "14," they would have taken the general discussion before the Amendment had been moved. He trusted the Deputy Chairman would allow the general discussion to be taken, as that was the distinct understanding.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the hon. Baronet in moving the Amendment, so far from confining his argument to the substitution of "14" for "10," dealt with the whole of the proposal.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that at that time there was no specific Amendment before the Committee, and therefore the hon. Baronet was entitled to discuss the whole subject. The discussion would now have to be restricted to the particular Amendment, but when the Question that the original Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board stand part of the Clause was put, a general discussion could be taken.
  CAPTAIN NORTONasked whether it was not on the clear understanding that they might discuss the whole Question that the hon. Baronet was allowed to move his Amendment.
  MR. WALTER LONGsuggested that the debate should be allowed to proceed as though the whole of the hon. Baronet's Amendment were before the Committee, it being understood that the debate should not be repeated at a subsequent stage.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that could be done with the consent of the Committee and himself. If, however, the discussion was now taken, it must be clearly understood that no discussion would be allowed at the end of the Amendment.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Always provided that Amendments to the Amendment will not be disallowed.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Oh, no.
  MR. JOHN BURNS (continuing his speech)contended that the Borough Councils were not entitled to the disproportionate representation proposed, inasmuch as they had no financial responsibility, were not particularly vested with metropolitan knowledge such as would be required, and were not elected or supposed to ask for representation on a body which ought to look at the water question from a universal point of view, without local prejudice or interest. He objected to the disproportionate representation because it would make the Board unusually and unnecessarliy large. All authorities on the subject agreed with that. If it was possible for a body of fifteen to manage the main drainage system of London, which, from some points of view, was more important as regarded the health of the people, more difficult to manage, and more dangerous to administer, it was taxing the patience of the House of Commons too much to ask that a mob of seventy-three men, gathered from thirty localities, should deal with the water supply. The proposal was contrary to the recommendations of all the Commissions and Committees that had inquired into the subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to get up an agitation in its favour he doubted whether even the fifteen or sixteen Borough Councils which had given a most perfunctory assent to the scheme would now be found in its favour. In such a matter, with the enormous sums of money at stake, and the necessity for economy, and for securing a personnel of the highest character on the financial side, with a view to obtaining credit, he was not diposed to attach undue weight to the view of the newly elected Borough Councils, who had not this subject before them at the time either of their creation or election. The hon. Members for Chelsea and West Marylebone, and other supporters of the Government, who had some knowledge of the question, had declared themselves in favour of a smaller body, on the ground that the authority now proposed was too large, might be inefficient, would overlap, and was not the proper kind of body for the purpose. The President of the Local Government Board ought to recognise facts. Not a single Conservative Member had yet stood up to defend the constitution of

  1359
  this Board. The hon. Member for Exeter had indeed tried to help the Governmental lame dogs over the stile, but his remarks were in the nature more of apologetics than of a wellinformed defence. It had been truly said that some counties which were enamoured temporarily of the Government measure were now realising that with such a large board there was a probability of theier localitits not being well served, and, in the matter of compensation, being unfairly treated. The Kent Water Company had already expressed a desire to get away from this large body, and some of the Middlesex authorities were anxious to follow the example of Kent and cut themselves off from this Board altogether. It did seem to him that a Board condemned by Lord Cross's Committee, Lord James's Committee, and Lord Llandaff's Committee, failed from the point of view of economy and efficiency. Why did the President of the Local Government Board want the Borough Councils to be represented at all? He believed that it was due to his unreasoning dislike for the London County Council. What was the reason for his dislike? The London Country Council would have to find the money, and the right hon. Gentleman should be inclined to conciliate, in the interests of the Water directors, the body which would have to pay the piper. This dislike appeared to have been begotten by a belief that if the right hon. Gentleman disliked the London Country Council sufficiently he could use the thirty-six Borough Councillors against the London County Council for political reasons, but if that was the Government view he wished to point out the consuquences of holding that view.
  No reasons had been given why the London County Council should be discredited and displaced in this way. The right hon. Gentleman asked that the London County Council should be over-whelmed and outvoted on this Water Board by those who might look at the question with more justice to the Water shareholders than the London County Council would. If that was the reason it was unreasonable, unstatesmanlike and unfair. Let the Committee look at the matter from a Borough Council's point of view. What did the Government do?
  1360
  They abolished vestries and put the Councils in their place. And why? Because some of them indulged in malpractices bordering on corruption. When the vestries were replaced by the Borough Councils thier numbers were reduced, and the very reason which induced the Government to make this reduction was the reason why thay should reduce the number of this Water Board. The Borough Councils were made smaller in numbers and larger in area, and if the new Borough Councils would do their work as they ought to do they could not afford that proportion of their small number which would be necessary for them to be represented on the Water Board to the extent proposed by this Bill.
  It had been said that in the future some members of the Borough Councils would have to be provided for education. He thought that instead of education and water it would be better to give them poor law matters to look after. It appeared that the County Council was to be supplanted by bodies which had already got enough to do. With regard to this new body the Bill said that it could purchase by agreement. This meant that a body of seventy-three persons coming together for the first time would have to agree to purchase the water companies either by agreement or arbitration. If purchase by agreement was settled upon then this new body was the wrong one to deal with it. This boby would probably decide to purchase by agreement, and they might be driven in their own interest to press harder upon the water shareholders than an arbitration tribunal, or harder even than a body like the London County Council would. There was a danger of this new body treating the companies unfairly. Of course there was also the other alternative that they might treat the companies too generously, which would be detrimental to the interests of the ratepayers of London. They would have experts on both sides. One side would try to get the best bargain they could for the ratepayers, and the other side would do the best they could for the water shareholders, and between those two interests he could see both sides appealing to those thirty-six Borough Councillors who would have no knowledge of this particular subject, and

  1361
  who, with a little political bias, would come down either on the side of the directors or the County Council who might want to have too much of thier own way. That course would be neither business-like nor just to the ratepayers or the water companies.
  Now that the terms were roughly determined and both side were satisfied with the arbitration tribunal, now that it was admitted that the County Council was the best authority, it did seem to him to be unreasonable and unfair beyond conception that these thirty-six Borough Councillors should be brought in without any knowledge and experience to determine the price of something which might range from £30,000,000 to £50,000,000. The problem of London government was every year becoming more serious, more difficult and complex. The way in which various vested interests had been allowed in the past to ride rough-shod over the common interest of this vast city had become intolerable, and if this was to be rectified they would have to have central bodies with larger control and wider powers than existing central bodies possesed in order to keep local bodies and companies down to certain lines and conditions by which a minimum of public inconvenience would be caused in carrying out their work. For executive reasons alone it was simply madness to say that the body responsible for the main drainage of London should not have a more or less dominating voice in the executive work of carrying out the water supply of London. By centralising the water and drainage management they would confer, in the matter of comfort and convenience, untold advantages upon London. A centralised body, small in numbers, trusted by the people, as central bodies invariably were now when directly elected, ought not to wait for the complaints of local people. It ought to anticipate local complaint by removing the cause long before it ran to the extent of a public grievance. These subcommittees would be used for preferential treatment by localities, they would be manipulated by officials, and perhaps by workmen. He could see, in connection with contracts, a fine vista of jobbery if this system of local committees was
  1362
  instituted. He objected to the proposed Board for, roughly, the reasons given by Viscount Hampden, a director of the Lambeth Water Works Company. Speaking at the half-yearly meeting of the company on 25th November, he said—
  "Both as a consumer and a ratepayer London he hoped that, even at the last moment the Government would avoid establishing such a cumbrous, unwieldy, and inexperienced Board as that proposed in the Bill. It had been said that the great advantage to be derived from transferring the undertakings to a public board would be unity of management, but it would be quite impossible ever to obtain unity of management with a board such as that proposed by the Government. They proposed to give representation to every single borough in the metropolitan area. Speaking quite generally, north and west London were supplied at a less charge than east and south London, and it would therefore follow that the representatives, say, of Westminster, instead of being in favour of unity of management, would do their best to oppose in every possible way they could any proposal to alter the incidence of charge or any effort to secure the equalising of rates."
  That ought to be conclusive to the President of the Local Government Board Viscount Hampden's statement was in it self argument enough against the establishment of this Board of 1873.
  He would state another argument. Everyone in the House knew that the Thames could not very much longer be depended upon as a source of water supply for London. Middlesex would seek power to go out of this scheme before two years had gone by. Surrey, Hertfordshire, Essex, and part of Kent, would object to remain compulsorily under this Water Board, because they would be under the impression that they could be better served in some other way. The effect of that would be that an extravagantly disproportionate cost in certain districts would ensue, and the water rate might go up. If it went up it might cause people to resist what he believed to be absolutely inevitable, namely, the abandonmnet of the river Thames as a source of supply in favour of some big project which would require business men, and great engineers with prescience and capacity. They would have to go to Wales or else where for the new supply. What would the Councillors who were on the proposed Water Board do? They would look at this project from a narrow, petty,

  1363
  parochial, and microscopic point of view, because Vestrymen and Borough Councillors who never spend more than £200,000 or £250,000 in a particular locality would not have the moral courage to take up, in a bold way, the work necessary to give London, a proper water supply. Failing the adoption of the scheme of the London County Council, which he believed was the best, and which experience would prove to be the only way of dealing with the question, the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Wilts was the next best thing, and he would support the Amendment with all the power he could command, because he was extremely anxious that the water supply should be managed by men above local prejudice, and not susceptible to the influences arising out of vested interest. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would go on with less contentious Clauses and give the question of the constitution of the board consideration between now and March next.
  (5.7) SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid that hon. Members who urged the postponement of that portion of the Bill which dealt with the constitution of the new boby must either have forgotten, or taken singularly little account of, a petition signed by a large majority of London Members urging the Government to finish the Bill before the end of the present session. He submitted that that petition represented the preponderating opinion of the water consumers of London. Having given great attention to the subject, he was altogether unable to comprehend the alarm which was apparently felt at the constitution of a body of seventy-three members, and, still more, to understand the enthusiasm with which the constitution of a board of thirty-three members apparently inspired them. The difference between these two bodies was a little matter of detail, but he submitted there was no essential difference in the matter of administration between them. If hon. Gentlemen chose to substitute for the quasi-representative body proposed by the Government a small committee of ten, twelve, or fifteen paid members, he could understand that arguments of considerable force might be used in support of that proposal, but whatever arguments were given, it was perfectly certain they would not come from hon. Gentlemen
  1364
  opposite. If one looked beneath the surface it would be seen that the argument did not really turn on the municipal difference between a body of seventy-three or thirty-three members. Whether by coincidence or otherwise, it was a fact that! the Water Board proposed by his hon. friend the Member for North-West Wiltshire, and supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite, did give a practical majority and preponderance to the London County Council, whereas in the measure brought forward by the President of the Local Government Board the London County Council was merged in the larger representation. He admired much of the work done by the London County Council, but on the Water Question it appeared to him that the Committee were met by this difficulty, that every outside authority which had expressed a view on the question had petitioned, and urged the petition with the greatest possible force, not to be compelled to form part of a body for the management of the water supply on which the London County Council would have a predominant position. He believed the opposition to any proposal of the Government to give the London County Council a preponderating influence, would have been absolutely insuperable from all the counties round. It had been argued that the proposed Board was unwieldy, but surely the fact that a representative body drew its members from a considerable area, and that opposing views were represented, was a distinct advantage rather than a defect.
  The further argument had been advanced that the whole subject of water supply was rather the function of a committee than of an independent Board. He thought that that view arose from a complete misapprehension of the problem they were dealing with. The views of water authorities in various provincial cities had been cited with approval and emphasis, but he submitted that the problem before the Committee now was one differing totally in extent and nature from any water supply scheme at present in force throughout the country. Water London contained a population of six and a quarter millions. It was composed of districts differing mostly in thier requirements and their habits, while the sources of the water supply were widely separated from each

  1365
  other. He could not find the smallest analogy between the circumstances either of Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, or the other large provincial towns, and the problems which now confronted them in London. An interesting paper had been put in by the London Country Council, in which the figures concerning thirty-nine large towns in the provinces were given. But there was no analogy whatever between the water supply of London, with its six millions of inhabitants, and the water supply of towns whose population did not exceed 200,000. It had been argued on the basis of these figures that the committees were totally unnecessary, but if the details of the statement were read it would be found that of the thirty-nine large towns all but eleven worked through sub-committees; and that the number of sub-committees increased in direct ratio with the increase of area and of population. That appeared to him to destroy altogether the argument that the proposed Water Board, consisting of seventy-three Members, would be inefficient. It was perfectly obvious that the work of the Water Board would be conducted almost entirely through sub-committees. It had been repeatedly brought forward that a better proposal to the one now before the Committee would be Lord Llandaff's—viz., a Board composed of thirty members; but he thought that in taking that view the members of the London County Council were some what illogical; because, when the Llandaff commission reported in favour of a small Board, a deputation waited on the Government and Mr. Mackinnon Wood stated that he had not been able to find a single man to approve of that Report. A small Board, that Gentleman said, was not representative enough, but too administrative. They were, however, now told that the proposed Board of seventy-three members was too representative and not administrative enough. The real fact of the matter was that the opposition to the Bill came from those who would be satisfied with no solution but that which left the London County Council in command of the field.
  Then it was said that the ratepayers were not sufficiently represented on
  1366
  the proposed Board. He confessed that the reasons adduced for that criticism did not appear to him to be well founded. He maintained that the real wishes of the ratepayers and water consumers of London would be better represented in a Board of seventy-three than in one of thirty-three. And it went without saying that the representaion would be more complete ina Board of such numbers than on an administrative Board of twelve or thirteen. He could understand the argument against the new body as being inexperienced, and as not being able to get the best of the discussion when settling terms with the Water Companies; but it was forgotten that the Bill itself had laid down in precise terms the method of transfer and the conditions. He drew attention to Clause 23, which established the Board of Arbitration—
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, Order! The hon. Member must not discuss any future Clause. I think I have already allowed the hon. Member too much latitude in regard to the financial part of the Bill.
  *SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid he would pass from the financial Clause. His only object was to show that the danger apprehended in regard to the constitution of the Board from the fact that it was composed of seventy-three members was largely dicounted by the fact that the financial business of the transfer would rarely come before them. Attention had been almost entirely confined to one point, viz., the number and the constitution of the necessary authority. Outside that, there appeared to be a general consensus of opinion that the proposal before the Committee was acceptable. His own view was that it was not only acceptable, but that it was in the highest degree ingenious; and he believed most sincerely that if it were accepted by the Committee it would provide a good working solution of the question which had been too long before the community. He therefore urged the Committee most strongly not to be diverted from the examination of the real point of the Bill. If the argument of those who had—if he might use the term without offence—an axe to grind,

  1367
  were put aside, those who desired that the body to be created the sole authority for water, outside the London County Council—there was no alternative suggested to that submitted in the Bill.
  *MR. MELLORsaid he was not going himself to urge on the President of the Local Government Board to withdraw this Bill, although he was not enamoured of it. He hoped that a good Bill would be passed, because, as the hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said, this question had been a long time before the House, and it was desirable that it should be settled. He was, however, bound to say that he thought that it was very late in the session to discuss so important a Bill. When they considered the very large amount of money that was going to be invested in this matter, all the difficulties of the question, and the extreme importance of it to the ratepayers, he was sorry that it had come up to be dealt with now, when they would not be able to give it the attention which it deserved. He joined in the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board should accept this Amendment now. and then those difficulties in regard to the rest of the Bill would be very small, and that he would get it passed without much difficulty. If it should turn out that this Amendment would not cause the Bill to work properly, the right hon. Gentlenman had the remedy in his own hands. He could bring in a Bill to alter it next session, and with the Government majority at his command the amended Bill could be passed easily. This was not a political matter in any sense. It was a pure matter of providing London with an adequate supply of the best water. It was absurd to look at it from a political point of view. He was a member of Lord Llandaff's Commission, and it was as a member of that Commisssion, and not as a ratepayer of London, that he was now speaking. Why should the Government force upon them this Board of seventy-three, when all the authorities were against it? Lord Llandaff's Commission, which sat for two years, proposed a body of thirty-three; and he was sure that if the question had been put in that Commission
  1368
  whether there should be a Board of seventy-three or to leave the water companies alone, the water companies would have been left in possession. There was much more to be said in favour of the water companies than had been heard in this House.
  This was purely a question of administration. Could it be seriously suggested that any one who read the evidence taken before Lord Llandaff's Commission, or the evidence before the Select Committee, that seventy-three was the best number for administration? The Select Committee decided by two to one in favour of Lord Llandaff's Report, and the conclusion they arrived at was arrived at after considerable consideration and thorough examination of the evidence. What was the use of a Royal Commission if Parliament was not going to attend to its recommendations, especially when the Commission made a unanimous Report? All the eight men on the Commission started with different views, and finally, by the force of the evidence they heard, they Joined in a unanimous Report. The real reason why the number of thirty- three for the Board had been fixed upon was this: they had to inquire as to whether it was prudent, for financial reasons, that the water companies should be bought out by some body, and if they were to be bought out, by what body. They came to the conclusion that it would not be advantageous to the ratepayers that the water companies should be bought out by any body unless the greatest possible care were taken for future administration, and that that should not be to the disadvantage of the ratepayers of London. His objection to seventy-three members was that the people who returned the Borough Councils were also represented on the County Councils, and practically got their representation twice over. The County Council was the proper authority to be represented on the water board. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he had arrived at the number seventy-three after a great deal of consideration and thought. The Commission came to the conclusion that it was not to the advantage of the ratepayers that the water companies should be bought out unless the greatest possible

  1369
  economy and care were afterwards exercised in administration. They recommended a board of thirty-three members who should, as far as was possible, be experts—people well acquainted with water administration, who would administer the water in the most economical way and prevent waste. Of course, the Commission supposed that the experts would, to a great extent, be taken from among the old directors of the water companies, who had practical experience of the business. He hoped the Government would, even at this the eleventh hour, listen to their suggestions. If they did, no one could blame them, and it never could be reasonably suggested that either the Government, or the Bill, had been damaged by such a course. The Opposition simply wanted to get for the ratepayers of London the best possible administration, in order that no reproach might rest upon Parliament when the Bill began to work. Thirty-three members was quite enough. The Government's scheme would result in the borough and county representatives differing from each other, and the system of Progressives and Moderates would be reproduced. It was most desirable to avoid anything in the nature of debating; what was wanted was administration. He spoke not as a Member of the Opposition but as a member of the Royal Commission, which was a very strong one, and came to a unanimous conclusion after reading the evidence. That surley was a good argument in favour of adopting their recommendations, and he hoped under those circumstances the Committee, at all events, would not agree to the proposal of the Government.
  (5.38.) MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had little to add to his previous remarks. The right hon. Gentleman complained in almost pathetic terms that the Government had not adopted the precise recommendations of the Royal Commission. He was surprised, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should have raised the question on the Amendment of his hon. friend, which, whatever the views of the Government might be, was not based on those recommendations. The reason why they departed from the recommendations of the Commission was very simple; it was because they had to
  1370
  deal with this question as practical men who had to face a practical difficulty. As a matter of fact, the advice given by Royal Commissions was very seldom taken; their recommendations, unfortunately, were very often put on one side. The right hon. Gentleman said this was not a political question, and he was quite sure the statement was made in perfect good faith, but it was rather remakable that nearly all those who had denounced his proposals were Gentleman who sat on the opposite side of the House, or those who held similar opinions to hon. Gentlemen opposite. His hon. friend who moved this Amendment did not represent any London constituency; it was true he was a member of the London County Council— a Moderate—and he appeared now as the advocate of the Progressive policy. That was rather a curious mixture, which did not suggest to him that he should have much regard to the suggestions of the hon. Member.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite assured them that if they accepted the Amendment all their difficulties would disappear. But did the right hon. Gentleman really believe that hon. Members on that side, who in a vast majority represented London, and who had supported the Bill with the approval of their constituents, would surrender the policy with which they had associated themselves in order to adopt that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or of his hon. frined's A more remarkable receipt given to a Government for the easy carrying on of its business was surely never heard. While the Government might get rid of some difficulties by adopting the suggestion of the Party opposite, they would be only raising fresh difficulties which would make the passage of the Bill more difficult. It was impossible to approach this question in the same way as it could be approached if the country were new and there were no existing bodies. It was impossible not to recognise that there were a lot of metropolitan and urban authorities who, up to now, had failed to come to an agreement on this matter, and who had to be considered. Why all these attacks on the Borough Councils? Why should it be imagined that the County Council was endowed with every virtue and the Borough Councils with every vice? Why was it supposed that

  1371
  the County Council could do anything they set their hands to, and that the Borough Councils could do nothing? There was no justification whatever, in fact, for these attacks. He contended that it was impossible to ignore the position of the London water area. That area extended much beyond the Limits of the London County Council, both in extent and population, and it would be found that much of the money spent for the various purposes of water supply would be spent outside the area of the London County Council. It was rapidly growing, and rates would increase proportionately. Apart from actual numbers, not only was it wise to select the governing body from these constituent authorities, but if they were to create a body to deal with the great sanitary questions involved, it was natural and just to go to the sanitary authorities of the area concerned. He hoped hon. Members would not suggest that these metropolitan boroughs should only be represented through the County Council, because he was not prepared to adopt the suggestion that the Government should shut out from any place on this body the metropolitan boroughs which had shown themselves so thoroughly capable of looking after the affairs of those boroughs, and who, he believed, were going to add largely to the interest and energy which must be bestowed on municipal work in London if the Metropolis was to vie with the work done in the other great towns.
  He did not believe that any other plan than that adopted by the Government was practical or workable. He saw no reason to alter the view at which he had arrived after carefully investigating this question, namely that if they were to obtain the support and agreement of all the people they must secure that there should be on the Board representatives of all the districts concerned. In that way only would they be able to secure a Board which would have the confidence of Water London. If, as was alleged, a Board consisting of seventy-three members would be a mere debating assembly, what became of the great corporations and County Councils? At present London was supplied with water by eight companies controlled by eight different directors. It would be necessary to divide London into districts and work
  1372
  through committees—for all the detailed work would have to be done in that way—and he did not believe it would be found in practice that there was one man more in this new body than would be wanted for the adequate discharge of their duties. It was amusing to note that the decision of the Committee upstairs as to numbers, upon which so much stress had been laid, was not particularly unanimous, because when the Committee were discussing the desirability of reducing the number to thirty-five, upon going into details of this particular question they raised the number to sixty-nine. The Committee found that unless this representation was given it would be impossible to secure the common agreement essential to the smooth working of such a body. These were the reasons which led the Government originally to put the proposals in the Bill, and they were the reasons which would make the Government adhere to the proposals, and thus render it impossible for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet to be accepted.
  (6.0.) MR. HALDANEsaid that the word "practical" ran through the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but he had listened in vain for some distinct indication of how, in the right hon. genthleman's mind, the "practical" nature of a proposal was to be tested. Above everything he should have thought practical considerations required that this Board should comprise a body able to proceed at once efficienlty to the business of conducting the arbitration. The first business of the Board would be to enter upon the arbitrations so that the awards might, if possible, be given before the "appointed day'. That was why, in the view of many Member who were anxious that there should be a temporary body which could conduct this business, the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to entertain a compromise made the constitution of the Water Board a much more serious matter.
  MR. WALTER LONG: What compromise?
  MR. HALDANE: To deal with the constitution of the Water Board in a later measure.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not understand the surrender of half the Bill to be a compromise.
  MR. HALDANEasked the Committee to consider the position in which this body would find itself. If it had to deal only with the matters spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman it would be different. But the arbitrators would probably say, "The sooner we set to work the better," and these seventy-three gentleman, drawn from all quarters of the London water area, not elected by any homogeneous method, but appointed by bodies holding the most divergent views, would have to prepare for and conduct arbitrations against the most skilled experts who for years had been steeped in the business of conducting these references. The Board would have no officials, as the officials of the companies would not come under their control until a later stage in the proceedings, nor would they have the skilled assistance of the London County Council. He really could not see how, with this body of seventy-three gentlemen, it was possible to have this business conducted with that degree of efficiency which the people had a right to expect. That was why some hon. Members considered that it would not have been a surrender of half the Bill, but a useful and easy compromise, to have dealt with the constitution of the Water Board in a separate measure, in the meantime passing a provision to enable some body—the County Council would have done very well—which had all the machinery for conducting these references at hand, to undertake what after all was the most serious business. Financial questions also would arise before the unfortunate body had anything like an efficient staff at its command. He had looked in vain for evidences of the enthusiasm of London Unionist Members for this measure. Where were the hon. Members for West Marylebone and the Epping Division of Essex, both of whom were keen on the Water Question? They were absent, and the right hon. Gentleman was backed only by a few depressed-looking supporters of Government.
  MR. WALTER LONG: We might return the compliment.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We are but seven.
  MR. LOUGH: There are six out of seven hon. Liberal Members present.
  MR. HALDANE (continuing)said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of working out the scheme of any of the Commissions on the subject, and the necessity, again of proceeding on practical lines. It was, therefore, somewhat peculiar that the scheme ultimately adopted should have differed in such an extraordinary degree from anything that had ever been suggested. Seventy-three was a great contrast to thirty. The consideration that should have been uppermost was that of securing a practical and efficient body rather than that of adequately representing this or that authority. He had no prejudice against the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and would like to see them adequately represented, but it should be "adequate representation" in relation to the question with which the Bill dealt. Certainly without entirely swamping the London County Council, which was practical body, and had conducted its business with great vigour and efficiency, the Government could have given the Borough Councils adequate representation by grouping or otherwise. A feebler argument from the practical point of view in support of any measure had seldom been heard.
  It was-said that the Board would require all these members because it was likely to have to separate itself into local Committees. He would have liked that idea to be worked out, because, from a perusal of the Bill, he was unable to see how that part would come in. Questions of policy would concern the water area as a whole. If questions of appeal and valuation such as were dealt with by borough assessment committees were to come before the Board, one could understand the desirability of local committees, but this body would have nothing to do with questions of ratable value and so forth. He presumed that the water supply was to be dealth with on a comprehensive and scientific scale. If so, these things would be reduced to rules to a far greater extent than was at present the case, and even if there were a certain number of appeals they would not be

  1375
  sufficiently numerous to require the enormous number of committees the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate. The real work that this body would have to do was, in the first place, to purchase the undertakings upon proper terms; next, to look after the finance—a matter requiring all the expert advice that could be obtained; and then there would be the question of carrying on the undertakings with the existing staff, as far as possible, on certain general principles which it would be for this body to work out. He felt quite sure that if by putting on this enormously heterogeneous representation they meant that the interests of the localities were to be made permanent, they would get themselves into great trouble. They wanted a policy which would apply to the whole area, and it was much better to deal with these matters upon general principles. He was sure they would have questions enough to deal with without bringing in local problems. If one looked at this matter from a practical point of view the only really practical way to get a thoroughly efficient administration of the system of water supply would be to secure a body altogether free from sectional interests, and be sufficiently moderate in numbers to work out its policy without the confusion which would result from entrusting this work to what was practically a new Parliament for London. It was to be regretted very much in the interests of London that this Board had been framed as it had been. He believed in the advice of the experts and he thought that upon this occasion the Government were going against the great body of expert opinion upon this matter, for the Royal Commission and the Committees which have considered this question were against any such proposal as this, and he could only look upon the future of this new body with grave apprehension. He did not really think that the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman had got half-a-dozen really convinced supporters besides himself.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he rose to give his support most thoroughly to the present Board being constituted at the number of seventy-three. He did so because the outside
  1376
  area was a very important one, and because it was the one from which they got all their water supply. When they came to look at the Bill and counted the number of representatives on the Water Board from these outside areas they would see that of the total of seventy-three there were twenty-five men to be co-opted from those outside areas and they were men who had managed the water supply of those areas, in the past in a most thorough and efficient way. He had been on the London County Council for some years, and had seen the members of the Council there, who worked very hard, but he doubted whether on the London County Council there were men with the same capacity as those who would be chosen from those outside areas. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington, who had just sat down, complained of what the President of the Local Government Board said in regard to the work to be done by this Board. They knew that the Board would have to buy up all the water companies, which would mean an outlay of between forty million and fifty million pounds.
  On this Board of seventy-three there would be all sorts of committees required. This Water Board would have to take charge of an area which had up to the present been looked after by the Boards of eight water companies, embracing some eighty different representatives. Therefore the Board they were asking for of seventy-three members was no large number to deal with this important business. There would be the finance committee, committees to deal with the water supply and also with the waste of water. A great many arguments had been adduced as to what they had to do with regard to the water supply, but he thought they would have a much better supply brought to them by the local authorities in outside areas, who ought to look after their own water coureses and see that there was no wasting of water. They would require committees to take charge in those outside areas, and it seemed to him that this number of seventy-three was little enough when they came to consider the large area to be dealt with. Last year he look up the subject of the future dealing with this water question, and he then thought

  1377
  it was advisable to have a smaller Board. In the meantime, after carefully considering the question, he quite agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that they must have a larger Board. It had been said that when they came to deal with the question of purchase with a Board of seventy-three, that those gentlemen who were on that Board would not be able to deal satisfactorily with the arbitration question. But surely they would be able to do this, for they were not going to decide the question.; They were going to decide the question. They were going to appoint arbitrators, and they would hare the demand of the water companies, and members of the Water Board were sure to be men who wished the companies to have proper value for their property, and they would be able to instruct learned gentlemen like the hon. and learned Member opposite to argue their case, and see that only the proper value was given for the interests of the water companies.
  The hon. Member for Battersea, if he might say so, appeared to wander all over the place in dealing with the question of the constitution of the Water Board and what it would be. He thought the main question they had to deal with was what was to be the authority and how was it to be constructed. His opinion was that this Water Board, as proposed by the President of the Local Government Board, would be an effective body, would not be too large, and would be able to do the work most efficiently. The whole question of passing this Bill into law was a very small one, and practically resolved itself down to the constitution of this Water Board. He had yet to learn that any of these different localities had disputed this question. No speaker in the debates on this Bill had said that these different localities chosen by the Bill ought not to have their representatives It was necessary that all these localities should be represented, and when they came to think that twenty-five of the Members of the Water Board represented outside areas, surely the water consumers of London ought to have somebody from the different Metropolitan Boroughs to represent London County Council. It was the London interests as well as the London County Council. It was absolutely necessary that they should
  1378
  have a larger number of representatives on the Water Board than the outside areas had. As there were twenty-five representatives of the outside areas, it was necessary that the rest of London should have some forty-eight representatives to make up the seventy-three As to the question of the proportion of representation to be given to the different bodies, he thought the London County Council had got too much work to do now. The right and proper thing was that the London County Councils should have about ten representatives, as was promised by this Bill, because they had to deal with the drainage question London was a most extraordinary city and the question of the future water supply and the great waste of water which was continually going on ought to be considered. The streets of London were mostly paved, and the roofs caught the rain, and consequently the water was taken immediately down the drains to the sea. It was estimated that in London alone about 120,000,000 gallons of water every day were taken right out of London and poured into the sea, and that was one of the reasons why London and the London water area was becoming so shorty of water. There was less and less water every year in London, because the whole of that which fell within the London area found its way immediately to the sea. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would stick to thier number of seventy-three members for the Water Board, and he thought the distribution of the representation, as now proposed, would be satisfactory to the House and also to ratepayers of London.
  *(6.28.)MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid the question of the constitution of the Water Board for London, althought it was one which did not concern so much the rest of the country, yet did concern the question of local government generally. They all desired that the principle of devolution should be carried be carried out, and therefore they had an interests in the constitution of the future Water Board of London. The hon. Baronct the Member for North-West Wiltshire had no axe to grind or any personal interest to serve

  1379
  in going against his Party upon this occasion. He (the hon. Member) also disclaimed any party motive in desiring see the London Water Supply made efficient. There were many objections to the London County Council being created the sole authority, because there were so many other districts included in the London water area which were not in the London County Council district, and therefore, it was only right that they should be represented. He could not understand the expressions used by the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich, who appeared to think that if the Borough Councils had no special representation, there was a danger of them being swamped by the representatives of outside areas. He wondered what hon. Members would think if small what hon. Members would think if small portions of their own constituencies wanted separate representatives in Parliament because they were afraid of being swamped by the whole division. Members who represented the London County Council would represent the whole of their constituents. He thought there was something in what had been said as to it its not being desirable that some corners of London should be specially represented. He could not help being amused at the statement of one gentleman, who said that certain places ought to have representation because in their areas orginated some of the water supply. He thought that the further from London the water used in the Metropolis originated the better it would be for the people. One of the draw-backs of the Government proposal which the Amendment was designed to correct was the very great inequality of the constituencies which were to be created under this Clause. Camberwell, with a population of 258,000; and Stoke Newington, with 51,000, were each to have one member on the new Board. He was informed that in each of those districts there was room for extension. Why in the scheme proposed was there such an inequality of representation? In proportion to the size of a representative body was the amount of work done. The larger the body, the less the work. He did not know a better illustration of that than this House itself. The more talk, the less work. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] He was glad to find that
  1380
  sentiment received the approbation of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. He did not know until the President of the Local Government Board told them that the Borough Councils would have to levy the rates. He was under the impression that the County Council would have to do it. Certainly, if any borrowing had to be done, they would get the benefit of the credit of the whole of London from the County Council, rather than the borough point of view. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for Exeter was rather mala propos when he said he could not find the smallest analogy, between the population of Water London, of six and three-quarter millions, and that of any difference had 849,000. Well, the only difference was that of population and area, and there was no difference in principle between 849,000 and 6,000,000.[Cries of "Agreed."] Then, why did they not apply the provincial principle to this area?
  Hon. Members who were opposed to the Government proposal supported the Amendment because they objected, in the first place, to such a large body, and, in the second place, to the duplication of representation. The president of the Local Government Board said the hon. Baronet the Member for North-West Wilts represented the policy of the Progressive Party of the London County Council. If he was rightly informed. this was the policy of the London County Council as a whole, and not merely of the Progressive Party. It was a very unfortunate circumstance, at all events, that when this duckling, which was hatched by a former Government corresponding to the present, was going into the water, its original parents should be afraid of it. He was only sorry that the Government could not trust the London County Council to the extent of giving it fourteen out of thirty-three representatives The President of the Local Government Board spoke as if it were somehow a matter of principle that not only should be in a small minority, surely the interests of the London County Council and those of the other Councils included in the Board of Management did not clash to

  1381
  the extent that there would be cliques and intrigues. These were more likely to arie among the representatives of very much smaller areas, who could hardly be expected to take as broad and liberal views as the representatives of the London County Council. He has endeavoured to import no Party spirit into this discussion. It but of the country at large, that great care should be taken in the formation of those bodies, who were in future, he hoped, to relieve Parliament of many of its most irksome duties, and it was in that spirit that he desired to support the Amendment.
  MR. D. J. MORGANSaid he would like to make a remark or two on behalf of the outside areas. In the area with which he had to do there was a population of over 100,000, and the ratable value was over £2,000,000. The people of that district were very interested in this Bill, and they were decidedly in favour of it. The Committee had heard a great deal about the increase of population. He remembered when fifty years ago in the district which he represented there only 5,000 people. Not only had there been the enormous increase of population during that period, but there was still a large amount of ground which was yearly being covered with houses, so that the ratable value in the district would increase to a very large extent. Looking to the immense area over which the new Board would have to do its work, he thought the Committee would see that when the members were split up into small committees there would be no more than necessary. Where there was a very large area to administer it was very difficult to get attendances if there was only a small body. The result was that the attendances became smaller and smaller, and then the work was done practically by permanent officials He hoped the Committee would support the proposal of the Government.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was astonished to hear the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich support the proposal of the Government. On the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Baronet made it a matter of complaint that the Board was too large, the number then proposed being sixty-nine He did not understand the suggestion of the President of the Local
  1382
  Government Board that the Unionist Members were pledged on this subject at the last General Election. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself was not pledged to the precise numbers of the Board. At the last County Council election, when this issue was before the people of London , an overwhelming majority in favour of purchase and control by the County Coucil was returned. The present Bill was not in existence then. Had they been pledged since? He was a fairly careful student of London affairs and he did not recollect the ocassion when they were pledged The President of the Local Government Board on the Second Reading of the Bill said they were not pledged to the number. He told the House that he would leave the number an open question.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No. Quote my words.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he not the words, but certainly the right hon. Gentleman said he was not pledged to the actual number. On 3rd March the right hon. Gentleman said that he would consider in the freest possible managers the number of the governing body.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had carefully guarded himself against a general reduction, but stated that he would be glad to consider proposals distributing the numbers amongst the Metropolitan boroughs.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that he had not taken the right hon. Gentleman's speech in that sense. He did not know of any London Unionist Member who was pledged through his constituency to anything like this number of seventy-three. At the last election of the County Council, the issue submitted to the people was, by the Progressives, purchase and control, financial and otherwise, under the County Council, and by the Moderates purchase. The result was a large majority in favour of the Progressive programme. Personally, he had been and was entirely opposed both to the number and constitution of the Board proposed by the Government. He was opposed to it because there was nothing in any recommendation of any Committee or Royal Commission to support it, and all the best expert testimony

  1383
  called before the Joint Select committee strongly repudiated the idea of making the Board so large as was proposed by the Government. Mr. Deakin of Liverpool thought that thirty was a sufficient number; Sir B. Leach said that in Manchester the Water Committee consisted of eighteen members, and he thought that sixty-nine was too large. The Deputy Lieutenant for the city of Edinburgh approved of twenty-five, and the Town Clerk of Glasgow twenty-eight. The latter said that sixty-nine was too unwieldly a body, and too unworkable, and that it would militate against the general efficiency of the Board. The other expert witness approved of a body consisting of between eight and twenty-six. The right hon. Gentleman said that when the Joint Select Committee recommended thirty-five, he thought there was little to complain of, but that when he came to consider the matter, form a practical point of view, he felt bound to make it seventy-three. Now if thirty-five was utterly impracticable what became of the recommendation of the Royal Commission and of the Committees, which were all in favour of a body of from fifteen to thirty? On 6th May, in the Joint Select Committee, Mr. J. G. Fitzgerald said that the decision of the Joint Committee had been considered by the Government with profound regret, and then he went on to say that London could have a fair representations on the Board by giving representations to the Metropolitan Boroughs; while Mr. Bremer, of Westminster, said that the decision of the Committee had been received with the utmost regret, and he hoped that they would have an opportunity of being heard. The Joint Committee were, he contended, compelled to come back to the representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs because the Government practically had had it thrust upon them. He was deliberately against the representation of the municipal boroughs which were represented by the London County Council. He did not say a word against the personnel of the Municipal Boroughs or the fitness of the men. This was purely a question of financial propriety. They were told that the boroughs were to raise the money to take over the Water Comapnie's concerns. Nothing of the sort. The County of London would indent the money as the fiduciaries of the
  1384
  rates of the County of London. He maintained that from the point of view of pure financial propriety there was no justification for the representation of the Municipal Boroughs on the Water Board, when most of the money came from the London County Council. The inclusion of the Metropolitan Boroughs was a difficulty which the right hon. Gentlemen had created for himself, and he would have to arrange a scheme of representation with something like equality, because it was unfair to give equal representation to unequal area and populations. The whole thing was unjust and absurd in the utmost degree.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was not a London Member, and had no personal interest to serve in advocating any point of view. He had no axe to grind, and it seemed to him that Members who did not represent London interests were more likely to regard this question in a judicial frame of mind. It was because he had been for many years a member of a Municipal Corporation and had sat on a Water Committee for a long period that he wished to make a few observations. In his humble judgment the scheme of the Government was unfair, unjust, and impolitic. It was founded on bad principles. It appeared to him to formulate those old feelings of distrust of the London County Council, which they had ventured to hope were dwindling. He would look for a moment at the history of the Bill. It was introduced by the Government in the early months of the year, and the Second Reading was passed after a discussion of two days; but he did not think that the London Members were then very vehement in their support of the Bill. Hon. Members would not deny that there was most vehement opposition to the proposals of the Government in the two days debate of March this year. In this Bill the Government had evolved from their inner consciences a multiplicity of Water Boards, and that was because the Government were, practical, men, as against the experts who sat on the Royal Commission to consider this question. They had flown in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which had sat for two years to consider the question and

  1385
  which had arrived at a unanimous conclusion. But that was not the only body which had deliberated upon this matter and formulated an opinion. A joint Committee, which the Government itself had set up, which might have been described from its composition as a most biassed and partial Committee, had come to a conclusion almost identical with that of the Royal Commission. They recommended that the Water Board should be on the lines sketched out by the Royal Commission. When the Committee had come to that conclusion, the Government had endeavoured to go behind their judgment. The Committee then considered that matter afresh. No further material facts were brought to their notice except that the Borough Councils desired representation, and even on that the borough councils were not unanimous, for no less than twelve of the metropolitan boroughs condemned the suggestion that they should be associated with the Water Board. Notwithstanding these facts, the Government was attempting to rush this Bill through the House. The Bill was a big one of fifty-seven Clauses, and that was not the course to adopt. The Government in this matter claimed to be influenced by the London Members, but the County Councils were a far better reflex of the opinion of London on this matter. They were elected by the rateprayers, who, in many cases, were not directly represented by Members in this House. The London County Council was strongly opposed to this Bill. Why should the Committee go behind the County Councils to obtain representatives elected on the same franchise as the County Councils? He was strongly of opinion that this borough representation was a mistake, the various representatives would be apt to push their own interests rather than deal with the matter on broad lines. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell, that if once borough representation was allowed it could not stop there. Everybody in the area covered by the Water Board must also be given representation. Other great cities in this country had outside areas as large in proportion as London's outside areas, but they did not co-opt members from them. They simply took the
  1386
  water and paid for it. So far as subcommittees were concerned, a Board of thiry-five members could split itself up into as many sub-committees as were required to administer the water of London. If the Government insisted on a Board of seventy-three members he could only say that in his opinion, although there would be volumes of talk, very little business would be done He supported the Amendment.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESSaid he should like to put the view of the London resident, as he was so unhappy as not to share the views of his otherwise distinguished representative. He held that the President of the Local Government Board was not entiled to point to the opinion of his supporters, who were representatives of London, as at all reflecting what the opinion of London was on this Bill. The London County Council ever since its creation had been constantly Progressive, but the Parliamentary representation of London had been quite the country. There was no parity of reasoning in the right hon. Gentleman's argument in comparing this Water Board with provincial municipal authorities. On those provincial bodies there was a large variety of functions necessitating a multiplicity of Committees. This Board had only function. Upon the same principle as Parliament placed the control of main drainage and sewage upon the County Council and devolved upon it those matters which appertained to the whole Metropolis in contradistinction to particular units, so they ought to impose upon the Council the duty of looking after the water supply. The Government would be well advised to pay attention to the desire of Londoners as expressed through their municipal authority, the County Council, in this matter.
  (7.24.) MR. WALTERLONGrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
  Question put, "That the question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 46. (Division List No. 607.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Allhusen, AugustusH'nryEden

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gordon, Hn, J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Purvis, Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Austin, Sir John

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Groves, James Grimble

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerland W. (Leeds

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Renwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bond, Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hendrson, Sir Alexander

  Russell, T. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Sackvile, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bull, William James

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sasson, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, John George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Kimber, Henry

  Seeley, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Cerbyshire

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawrence, Wm F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Champan, Edward

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants, Fareham

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwhich)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, EdwardJas. (Somerset

  Cohen, Bebjamin Louis

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Long, RtHn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lonsdale John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Loyd, Archie Kirman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir savile

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Valentia, viscount

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  M 'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Welby, Lt-Col A. C. E. (Taunton

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E. R.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Morgan David J(Walthamstow

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Fisher, William Hayes

  O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Flower, Ernest

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Forster, Henry William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Toulmin, George

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King'sLynn)

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Brigg, John

  macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  M 'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Burns, John

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Rigg, Richard

  Cremer, William Randal

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crombie, John William

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Warner and Mr. Rea.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  (7.33.) Question put accordingly, "That the word 'Ten' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 153 Noes, 48. (Division List No. 608.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon, Hon. J. E(Elgin & Nairn

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Austin, Sir John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Renwick, George

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W(Stalybridge)

  Bigwood, James

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brookfield, Colonel. Montagu

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bull, William James

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Butcher, John George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cavendish, V. C. W(Derbyshire

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Sassoon, Sir Edward albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Henry

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn JA(Worc.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia, Viscont

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn, Sir William H.

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunton

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  M'Arthur Charles (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Willough by de Eresby, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wilson, A. Stanly (York, E. R.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Duming-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Morrell, Geroge Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aymer

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fielden Edward Brocklehurst

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute)

  Wyndham- Quin, Major W. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Myers, William Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nicol. Donald Ninian

  Flower, Ernest

  O' Neil, Hon. Robert Torrens

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Allen. Charles P(Gloue., Stround

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crombie, John William

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Dunn, Sir William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pirie. Duncan V.

  Bond, Edward

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rea, Russell

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rigg, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur D.

  Russell, T. W.

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw' usea

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Caldwell, James

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Weir, James Galloway

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir John Dickson-Poynder and Dr. Macnamara.

  Toulmin, George

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Wilson, Chas. Henry(Hull, W.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  It being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Cimmittee—
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
  Clasue 1:—
  (9.0.) MR. H. J. WILSONcalled attention to the act that there were not forty Members present.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There can be no count at the opening of the Evening Sitting before ten o'clock.
  MR. CALDWELL: The new Rule is that there can be a count, but that the House cannot be counted out. What happens is, that if there are not forty Members present the House passes to the next business. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: According to the new Rule the House cannot be counted at the Evening Sitting before 10 o'clock; but if a division takes place before that hour and forty Members are not present the House passes to sthe next business.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he thought the Rule meant that the House could not be counted out, and unless there were forty Members present they must pass on to the next business.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I take it that "count" means count in teh ordinary way.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that in moving the Amendment standing in his name he wished to say that he had no animosity whatever towards the City Council. It might be thought that he was a champion of the London County Council, but he wished to point out that he had no connection with that body in any way, and he was not addressing the Committee as their champion. When it was the fashion of those with whom he usually acted to make little of the great past of the City of London he had always readily acknowledged what they had done, not only for that one square mile in the City but for greater London and for the Empire. He did not wish to urge that the City of London should not have the fullest amount of consideration and representation on anything with which it was connected in regard to matters of this kind. The question of representation was based mainly upon the ground of ratable value and population. He wished to consider whether the City had a claim on these grounds to the representation which was now proposed to be given to it upon the Water Board. It might appear that the City, having a very great ratable value, ought to have considerable representation, but, as a matter of fact, did this question of the water supply rest in the case of the City of London upon the rateable value?
  The bulk of the water which was supplied to the City of London was supplied by the New River Company. What had been the action of that company? Over and over again it had been represented in the past that the amount of water supplied to the City was not in keeping with the ratable value, and that the charges made for water were out of all proportion to the water supply. The New River Company accepted that as a fair argument upon the part of the City authorities, and they had reduced those charges

  1393
  because it appeared to the water company that the City should not pay for large warehouses and large buildings containing innumerable sets of offices as if they were habitations peopled like the thickly inhabited parts of London. The Water Company was aware that the water was used largely for cleansing the asphalte in the street at night, but the amount of water used in the daytime was very small, simply because those who lunched in the City did not consume a very large quanity of water. If, therefore. it was unfair to base the representation of the City on the Water Board upon ratable value, the only other basis to go upon was that of population. It would be grossly unjust to give to the City of London two members on the basis of ratable value when the water in the City was not supplied upon that basis. It would be admitted that this was not a case of giving to each individual in the City a certain proportion of water, but it was a case of providing that the service on the whole should be sufficient that a certain standard of purity should be maintained, and that the supply should be sufficient for the purposes of public health. Otherwise the supply might be taken on the basis laid down by a certain Irish waiter who supplied a customer with oysters, the customer complaining that they were bad. The waiter replied, "You have nothing to complain about; you called for a dozen oysters and I have given you two extra."
  Therefore the test in the City should be population and not ratable value. He would therefore examine the clams of the City from the standpoint of population. The night population of the City of London was 26,923. That was the population upon which to base the water supply, because the bulk of those who inhabited the City by day left in the evening and generally had only one meal in the City. Therefore the bulk of the necessity so far as water was concerned did not fall upon the area of the City, but upon the localities where those, persons who were employed in the City compare with some of the districts which had two members of the Water Board under this proposal? Take for example the
  1394
  Borough of Islington, Which had a night population of 334,991. That was tweleve times as great as the night population of the City of London. Take the borough of Camberwell. The City of London had not one-tenth of the night population of the great borough of Camberwell, which contained 259,359. The City of London, therefore, with onetenth of the population of of Camberwell, and one-twelfth of that of Islington, was to have two representaives; in other words, six times the representation of Isligton and ten times that of Camberwell, Even on the day population of 301,384 in 1891, the City had fewer inhabitabts by 31,000 than Islington. Or, to put the case in another way, the City had 43 per cent of the population of the entire water area, and 9.7 per cent. of the ratable value, the mean of those two ratios being 5.09. The London County Council area , with ten representatives, had 72.44 per cent. of the entire population, and 80.18 per cent of. the rateable value, or a mean of 76.31. Therefore, each representative of the County Council represented a mean of 7.63 per cent., so that the City, with a mean of 5.09 per cent. had a greater representation to the extent of 2.63. He asked hon. Members to show on what basis the City, if entiled to only one representative according to ratable value and population, was given two members, and why the County Council was not given a proportionate representation. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amedment—
  "In line 3, to leave out 'two' and insert 'one."—(Captain Norton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of proposed Amedment."
  *SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEsaid the satatments that the London County Council had always been recongnised as the water authority for the Metropolis, were both inaccurate. The sanitary authorities were the Borough Councils, and if anybody could clam, and he believed nobody could to be th ewater authority for London, it certainly

  1395
  was the Corporation. The hon. Member opposite was obviously not aware that this water question had been a vital one with the Corporation for the last twenty-five years. Up to 1892, the Corporation was the only authority in London that could promote Bills in Parliament for gas or water undertakings, and they had been entirely in unison with the London County Council during the last few years on the subject and had received much generous and sympathetic help from that body. He believed, however, that the water question would never have been brought to its present stage but for the Corporation. Within the last twenty years the Corporation had spent, not out of rates but out of their own cash, £20,000 in endeavouring to bring this water question to a focus, with the one aim of doing what they could for the benefit, not of their own square mile only, but of the whole Metropolis. The most extraordinary thing about the hon. Member's Motion was that while he desired to eliminate a good many of the seventy-three Members of the Board, he yet was willing to hand the water supply over to the 126 members of the County Councils. Then the hon. Gentleman opposite was quite wrong in his statistics. The night population of the City, according to the statistics of the London County Council, was 36,002. Then the hon. Gentleman quoted the day population at something like 300,000. It was more than double that. Then hon. Gentleman would give the City representation on the night population, but would he assess the City on that basis? No, he would assess them on their £3,872,679 of rateable value. Not only was it right that the City should have the representation the Government had proposed, but it was surprising that someone had not asked that its representation should be doubled. By securing what was known as the Auction Clause and the Chamberlain of London Sinking Fund Clause, the City had done good service to Londoners generally. The City had not acted on any niggardly onesquare-mile idea in its discharge of its trusts, and he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member had made this proposal.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that in these days when there was a diminution of
  1396
  interest in local affairs, a dying out of public spirit, and not that attention paid to the traditions of local government that could be desired, he was prepared to forgive the right hon. Baronet for using the debates of the House of Commons to speak of the greatness and history of the City of London. The ex-Lord Mayor defended the City in and out of season, but at present it was desirable to get back to the object of the Amendment before the Committee. His hon. friend did not object to the City having two members; he would not mind it having three or four, or whatever its ratable value and population entitled it to, provided there was an equalised water rate over the whole area of supply, and the representation was on a common basis. With its high ratable value, small population, and paying on the amount of water consumed, the City, if it availed itself of Clause 15 (6), would have to pay only half the amount per thousand gallons paid by Stepney, Limehouse, Battersea, or Whitechapel. Westminster had secured a Clause enabling the present low water rate to be maintained in districts where it was possible to have a low rate. What guarantee was there that the City would not follow suit? There was no desire to impose a disability on the City by this Amendment, but simply to point out that under the Bill such an arrangement as he had described was possible. As to other remarks of the right hon. Baronet, the County Council was the chief sanitary authority for the Metropolis, the Borough Councils looking after local sanitation only, while the central body was responsible for the public health, main drainage, fire brigade, and other services. It was perfectly true that for two or three centuries the City Corporation was the only authority in London with power to initiate legislation, but they failed to exercise that power, and that was his complaint. If the City had done its duty a hundred or so years ago the House of Commons would not have had to discuss ad nauseum various Water Bills. What they were now contending for was an equalised water rate over the whole area on some intelligible basis; it would then be an easy matter to determine whether the City was entitled to one, two, three or four members on the Water Board.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthought the hon. and gallant Member for West

  1397
  Newington had knocked the bottom out of the contention that the constitution of the Water Board was based on proportionate grounds, whether of ratable value or of population. The right hon. Baronet urged that the day rather than the night population should be considered, but it was not people but property and hereditaments that were assessed. Evidently the ex-Lord Mayor favoured a poll-tax, a view which his constituents might do well to note. But where were the champions of Islington, Lambeth, Stepney, St. Pancras, and Wandsworth, whose interests were jeopardised by this proposal? The population of those districts was overwhelmingly greater than that of the City, and yet the right hon. Baronet stood alone in supporting the cause of his people.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)pointed out that the question of other boroughs would come up on other Amendments.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the scheme of the Bill had been shown to be illogical in every sense, and he was surprised that members of the opposite Party did not rise in their places in the interests of their constituents.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONexpressed his surprise that the right hon. gentleman had vouchsafed no reply on this matter. The Amendment was not directed against the City as such;it was moved with a view to getting information as to the basis on which the City was allowed two members on the Board. There must be some reason, as the right hon. gentleman had declared that the Bill was founded on a logical basis, and the Committee were entitled to know what that reason was. There was great danger in this differentiation between the various parts of the Metropolis. It involved artificial and arbitrary selection. If adhered to, it would enable other parts, as they increased in population or ratable value, to claim a larger share of representation, and then this Board, already too large, would become yet more cumbersome and unwieldy. Westminster had already taken care to guard itself against any equalisation of the water rate, and the Opposition desired to know whether that provision would apply to other parts, especially to the City.
  Mr. WALTER LONDsaid the hon. Members for Battersea and North Camberwell and himself were never likely to agree as to the precise result of the Bill or as to the present incidence of rates in London. They held exactly opposite views. The hon. Member for Battersea held that the London County Council would find all the money;he, on the other hand, held that the money would be found exactly as the greater proportion of the expenditure of the London County council was now found, viz., by precepts issued to the Metropolitan Borough Councils. Each of those districts would pay their share according to the ratable value of their own area. In making this proposal the Government had had regard to the mean of population and the ratable value. Upon this basis they had given to certain Metropolitan Boroughs two members each and they had found that the City of London judged in this way was second only to the City of Westminster in the amount of ratable value. They had also based the representation in the case of the City of London upon historical precedents and the fact that the ratable value came second as compared with all the ratable areas in London. Therefore on those grounds the Government thought the City of London was entitled to have two representatives on the Water Board.
  Amendment negatived.
  *(10.0.) MR. LOUGHsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to make any concession upon the Amendment which he was about to move. This provision seemed to be an attempt to give proportionate representation to the metropolitan boroughs, but he thought he would be able to show to the Committee that there was no success in this attempt. There were other boroughs quite as large which had only one representative, and he wished to know why two members had been given to certain boroughs and only one to others Stepney got two representatives while Camberwell, Wandsworth, and Hackney, which had a much larger area than Stepney, and each of which contained a vast population, were only to be allowed one member each. Kensington got two representatives whilst Southwark only had one. This showed that there was considerable inequality, and that the Government could not

  1399
  Possibly have followed any just principle in making this division of representation. Altogether there were some 3,000 representatives on the metropolitan boroughs, each of them representing a ward. The largest wards contained about 4,000 electors and the smallest between 800 and 1,000. Under this proposal they gave thirty-six representatives to the Borough Councils. Supposing they were taken from the most populous wards, the whole of these thirty-six members would only represent a population of about 144,000. If they were taken from the smallest wards they would represent between 29,000 and 36,000 electors. If the right hon. Gentleman felt himself pledged to give these Borough Councils representation, surely one would be quite enough, and by adopting this Amendment he would be doing something at the same time to reduce the size of this unwieldy Board. The President of the Local Government Board said that he had considered not only population but also rateable value. If that were so, why sould Lambeth have two members and Paddington only one? There were 300,000 people in Paddington, or almost the same number as in Lambeth, and Wandsworth also had a very large ratable value. He was bound to say that he thought the right hon. Gentleman by this proposal had failed to establish any intelligible system of proportionate representation. If they now established a precedent for giving these bodies two members, in two or three years time the right hon. Gentleman would have to double the representation of other districts, and they would probably get eventually some ninety or one hundred members on the Water Board. The great objection to this proposal was that the Board would be too large and unwieldy.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 4, to leaveout'two,'and insert one.'
  "—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MR. WHITMOREsaid he proposed to support this Amend-
  1400
  ment for reasons which the hon. Member who moved it had not given. Some of the reasons which actuated him in taking this course might have been advanced in regard to the last Amendment upon the representation of the City. When the new Act constituting the metropolitan boroughs was passed the principle was laid down that all these metropolitan boroughs should be treated with absolute equality. Their existence was not based on any rig figures of population or ratable value —some boroughs were created which were small both in ratable value and in population, but nevertheless they were supposed to be worthy of a new municipal life because of their history and present local life. In his opinion the introduction into this Bill of a differentiation between these boroughs was a distinct departure from the real spirit of the Act which created them. Therefore he felt bound to support this Amendment, and he asked hon. Members to support him in resisting this attempt to make an artificial distinction in regard to the metropolitan boroughs. The hon. Member opposite had pointed out that the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for this difference of treatment in respect of the six selected boroughs were very small reasons. In all these boroughs the conditions were constantly changing, and from time to time, if they paid this regard to small differences of population, it would be necessary to re-adjust their representation on the Water Board. Surely this would be undersirable. He thought all those twentyeight boroughs ought to have one equal representation on the new Water Board. He wished to remind the President of the Local Government Board that although they were quite prepared to accept the scheme of the Government he thought that if without affecting the essential character of the scheme they could reduce the number of representatives it would be a good thing for the future working of this Board, and in the Amendment before the Committee they had an opportunity of doing this. At the same time he must admit that Westminster was in a different position to the other boroughs, and it was so treated under the London Government Bill. The City of Westminster partook

  1401
  more of the ancient character which characterised the City of London, and therefore they would not be doing anything contrary to the spirit of the London Government Act by placing Westminster and the City in an exceptional position, and in allotting to them both two representatives on the Water Board.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had listened with much pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea. He appealed to the Government not to differentiate on artificial grounds between the different metropolitan boroughs because this would cause irritation in a number of ways. Camberwell seemed to him to be the most hardly treated of any Borough in London, and he did not know what Camberwell had done to be treated in this way. Camberwell was the birth-place of the Colonial Secretary, and he thought that fact ought to commend itself to the Government. Camberwell had a population of 258,538, and that population was growing. It also had a ratable value of £971,305. Nevertheless under this scheme Camberwell would only have on representative. Stepney, which was to have two representatives, had a population of 294,466, or 35,000 more than Camberwell, but it ratable value was £200,000. less than Camberwell. How did they square that argument? He thought that the basis of representation which was good enough for the House of Commons ought to be good enough for a Water Bill. After what had been said he was compelled to take rateable value and population into consideration, and considering these two questions, what fair basis had the Government adopted in giving Stepney two members? He had examined this thing with the utmost impartiality. Take the case of Kensington, which was to have two members. Kensington had a population of 86,052, while Camberwell had a population of 258,538.Therefore, on the basis of population, one Kensington man according to the proposal of the Government was equal to three Camberwell men. That was not true;at any rate it was not true in the Old Kent Road. The hon. Baronet the Member of Dulwich brought in a Bill last year, in which he proposed a Water Board much smaller
  1402
  than was now proposed. He stated not long ago that the hon. Baronet left out of his Bill the representation of the Borough Councils, but he had since discovered that he was wrong in that statement, and he desired to withdraw it. The hon. Baronet's scheme gave sixteen members to the London County Council, one to the City of London, and one to each of the Metropolitan Boroughs. Therefore he thought the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich ought now to support this Amendment, which would operate in such a way as not to create this unjust differentiation. It would be fair and reasonable to give one representative to each of these boroughs, thereby standing by the principle of 1899.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITHstated that Westminster had a population eight times larger than that of the City of London and an assessable value nearly one and a half millions greater;therefore, if the City was to have a representation of two on the Water Board, it was only fair that Westminster should have a representation at least equal to it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if the Government saw their way to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend, the Opposition would be willing that Westminster should have two Members. If this course was adopted it would leave all these different Borough Councils on a footing of equality in regard to representation on this new Water Board.
  SIR ROBERT MOWBRAYhoped that the Government, before assenting to the Amendment, would carefully consider what they were doing. The Boroughs had been put into the Bill and he hoped they would remain there with the right to elect two members of the Board. His constituency in Lambeth were exceedingly anxious that this double representation in their case should remain. If they were to go into the ancient history of these constituencies he thought a claim on historic gronuds might be made on behalf of Lambeth, in the same manner as had been with regard to the City of London and the City of Westminster. He would put this consideration before the Committe. Of

  1403
  all the Metropolitan Boroughs, Lambeth was second in point of population and fifth as regards ratable value. By reducing the number of the Board to 33 they might get a more workable Board, but it would have lost its representative character. A mere reduction of numbers from 73 to 68 or 69 would be of no practical value in making the Board more workable, but it would reduce the interest taken in it by the Metropolitan Boroughs. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid he could not support any proposal which would make any inroad on the scheme produced by the Government, but this Amendment would not make an inroad upon it. He thought it would improve the scheme to slightly reduce the number of members of the Board. After all it should be remembered that the object ought to be to get the best men on the water Board. Each of the boroughs might be able to get one good man, but if they had to select two good men he thought there would be a practical difficulty in getting a second as good as the first. He thought the City of Westminster should have two memebrs on account of its special position.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he did not agree with all the figures which had been given by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. Speaking for the Borough Council of Stepney, he could not believe that they would be so unreasonable as to wish, for the sake of a difference represented by a few hundred pounds, that they should have two members while Camberwell had only one. He did not agree with the proposal in regard to Westminster, and he hoped the Government would not except that city.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid he was decidedly of opinion that it was a bad thing to make a difference in the representation of these boroughs. Except with regard to Westminster, he thought it as a pity to differentiate the representation. He trusted the Government would accept the proposal.
  MR. COHENStated that he objected to the proposal to reduce the re-
  1404
  presentation of Islington. On the ground of population and ratable value, that district was entitled to the representation proposed by the Government, and he hoped they would adhere to their original plan in regard to Islington. If the London County Council was equitable represented by ten members and Islington by two, how was that equity preserved if they took away one member from Islington and allowed the County Council ten to remain? Equity and justice required that Islington should have two representatives.
  MR. WALTER LONGstated that the Government had selected these particular boroughs in consideration of their population and ratable value. The Government felt that there was so much difference in regard to the population and rateable value in the case of some of the metropolitan boroughs that they ought to be given a larger share of representation. Of course he fully admitted that there were some boroughs which came very near the line, and he was glad that the representatives of boroughs to which additional representation had been given had given way. He could not help thinking it would be fairer all round that the boroughs should have equal representation, and would avoid a difficulty which he confessed had not occurred to him—namely, that, however accurate the calculations of the Government might be now, the time must come before very long when they might be entirely upset. In these circumstances he hoped the larger boroughs would feel that it was to the advantage of the whole that they should conced this.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made—
  "In line 4, by leaving out the words, 'two by the council of each of the metropolitan boroughs of Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, St. Pancras, Stepney, and Westminster,' and inserting the words, 'one by the council of each of the metropolitan boroughs.'"— (Mr. Walter Long.)
  (10.45) MR. SYDNEYBUXTONmoved an Amendment with the object of grouping the metropolitan boroughs for the purposes of representation, and so reducing their total number on the Board. The object of the President of the Local

  1405
  Government Board in having the metropolitan boroughs represented would still be gained, although, by the system of grouping which he suggested, the number of representatives would be reduced from thirty-four to twelve. By his Amendment a considerable number of the boroughs would be grouped, but there was nothing in it which would affect the principle of the proposal of the Government. He did not desire to discuss further the question of the excessive size of the board. He thought it was generally admitted that it would be an advantage to reduce the size of the body. It was on these grounds that he desired to press his Amendment on the right hon. Gentleman. He did not cling to the exact number he had proposed, but threw it out more as a suggestion. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept the principle of his Amendment, he would not press as to details. If the right hon. Gentleman showed a conciliatory spirit in this matter he would do much to make the passage of the Bill easy.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 6, to leave out the words 'council of each of the other metropolitan boroughs, and insert the words 'councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Poplar and Stepney;one by the councils of the metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Hackney, and Stoke Newington.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  Question Proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he thought he had shown the Committee that the government were desirous of meeting any reasonable proposal which had for its object the more equitable distribution of the representation. But it would be impossible for the Government to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, even in a limited form. In the first place, they thought that each of the metropolitan boroughs was entitled to separate reprsentation on the new Board. Apart from that, if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion were accepted it would seriously disturb the balance of power as between London within and London without.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that if his Amendment were carried, it would also carry with it a considerable reduction in the representation of the outer areas.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that if they were practically to reduce at the same time the representation given to the outside areas, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Poplar would not be open to the criticism he had been makeing upon it. He could assure the Committee that from the first, when it was represented to him that one of the flaws in their proposal was the largeness of the number of the new governing body, he had endeavoured to meet that criticism. He thought the best plan to do that was to maintain a proper balance of representation between London Within and London Without. If they were to strike out a number of representatives from London Within, It would involve the re-casting of the representation of London Without, and thus destroy the whole character of the Bill. While he was most desirous of meeting in a conciliatory and reasonable spirit any suggestion, he felt that the Government had gone as far as they could, and that they could not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, either in whole or in part.
  *Mr. REAsaid he supported the Amendment for the simple reason that it would reduce the number of the Board from seventy-five to forty-seven, a number approaching very nearly to that of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. That body had few friends, and he was not one of them, but he considered it was a more practical and reasonable administrative body than that proposed for the Water Board. The Metropolitan Board of Works had far more duties to perform than the Water Board would have. At the beginning they had only to take care of the main drainage, but shortly afterwards parliament added to their powers the care of the main thoroughfares, the improvement of the new streets, and the charge of commons, open spaces, and the fire brigade. It had never been said that the Metropolitan Board of Works was under-manned. The Board of Works was a superior body to the proposed Water Board in another respect. Although its elections were indirect they were more direct than those of the proposed Water Board. In the case of the latter, the electors elected the local authority, the local authority met together and elected a committee, and the committee elected one member of

  1407
  the Board. But that was not the end of it. When they were elected they elected members to the Thames Conservancy, and then the Thames Conservancy elected members Back to the Board.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Committee were not now discussing the Board of Works, and the hon Gentleman was not in order.
  *MR. REAsaid he was only alluding to the Board of Works as an illustration, and he would pass from it at once. He remembered a speech made in Committee before the recess, by the hon. Member for Exeter, in which that Gentleman admitted that if he were to judge from the point of view of efficiency, he would have a small Board, but he justified the Goverment proposal on the ground of representation. Surely it was not beyond the wit of man to frame a Board which would be both efficient and representative. The number of directors of the water companies, excluding those of the New River Company, which was a mediaeval concern, put together amounted to sixty-one. He should like to ask any water Director, if he wished to make a commercial combine of the water companies, would he suggest that all the Boards should be amalgamated too, and that the directors should continue to draw their fees?
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
  *MR. REAsaid he supported the Amendment because it would reduce the number of members on the Board.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that that was a general question which had been decided on the first Amendment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the whole reason of his Amendment was that it would reduce the numbers of the Board.
  *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment before the Committee was to leave out the words on the Paper and insert another word.
  *MR. REAsubmitted that the effect of the Amendment before the Committee
  1408
  would be to reduce the number of Members of the Water Board by on less than eighteen. In the great provincial towns, although the committees are often large, the real business of the Water Committee was done by two or three members, and what the other members were most interested in were the sources of supply and the fishing. The metropolitan water companies had not the possesion of any effective fishing at the present time. Why bring in the metropolitan boroughs, because after all these were not real boroughs. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] They were metropolitan boroughs, but they differed from real boroughs in that, although they hada Mayor and Town Council, they had not even the powers of Urban District Councils. The Urban District Councils which would be represented on the Water Board had control of the fire brigade, open spaces, and building regulations, whereas all these duties in the metropolitan area were performed by the London County Council.
  CAPTAIN JESSELasked if the hon. Gentleman was in order in calling attention to the powers and duties of the metropolitan boroughs.
  *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to go into these questions except as an illustration of his argument.
  *MR. REAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board declared that everybody approved of the constitution of the new Water Board except the London County Council, and that the London boroughs did approve of it. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate that the London boroughs represented the citizens, while the London County Council only represented the members of the London county Council. Why, the London County Council was elected on this very issue. The metropolitan boroughs were consultled by the Government and were offered this representation, and naturally the members had not declined it. As to the London Members of Parliament they knew that they were not elected on this question but on something very different. It appeared to him that instead of everybody agreeing with this Bill except the London County Council,

  1409
  all the experts, the Royal Commission, the Committees of this House, and all public opinion condemned the Bill.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid that whether they accepted the precise Amendment before the committee or not, the Government ought to give this matter more serious consideration before this Clause was passed. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill said that the main principle on which he had proceeded in allotting members to the new Board was ratable value; but when thirty-two members were allotted to the Borough Councils that was far beyond the proportion they were entitled to on ratable value. The right hon. Gentleman had also taken the population into account; but if the Amendment was not accepted there would be many anomalies. Boroughs with a population of 50,000, 60,000, or 70,000 received one member, while other boroughs with a population of from 200,000 to 300,000 received only one member also. Would not the right hon. Gentleman be willing to reduce the number of representatives of the Borough Councils, if not to ten, at least to fifteen or sixteen? His argument was that the right hon. Gentleman could secure the whole principle of the Bill by accepting some reduction.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had already stated that if the Government were to reduce the number of representatives given to the Metropolitan Boroughs they should have to reduce the proportion of representatives of London Without. He had already grouped as far as possible the outer districts, and had given a minimum representation to the metropolitan boroughs. If they were to take 15 or 20 from the representatives of the metropolitan boroughs, the representation of London would become unfair. Of course, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there were many anomalies in regard to the representation of the different boroughs. The only way to avoid that would be to carve London into new districts, but everybody would admit that it was best to take the existing areas which had their own local life.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that everyone could see the force of what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to the necessity of maintaining
  1410
  a proper proportion between inner London and outer London. But he did not understand that his hon. friend wished to alter materially the proportion fixed in the Bill. They proceeded on the original question as to whether a Board so constituted would not be unwieldy, cumbrous, and ineffective; and in that opinion they were supported by all the authorities who had investigated the question. What was the use of appointing Royal Commission after Royal Commission if no attention was to be paid to what they said. The one thing on which all the Commissions were agreed was that the governing body should be much smaller than that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. If he might be permitted to say so, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to assume rather a helpless attitude, in which he should have thought he would not allow himself to remain. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What am I to do? The body may be cumbrous, and I would be quite content to see the number of the representatives of the metropolitan boroughs reduced, but we cannot do that, because we must have representatives from certain districts outside London, and they are so numberous that we must have a sufficient number of representatives of inner London to maintain the balance." He should have thought that the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman would have overcome that difficulty, and certainly he thought the obvious and acknowledged evil of such a huge, cumbrous Board would outweigh any little difficulty of that kind. There might be a county basis, or some other arrangement. His hon. friend was not particularly tied to the grouping he indicated in the Amendment, but what he proposed was that there should be a governing body of thirty-six members, twenty-four from London and twelve from outside. The Committee ought to bear in mind the importance of a effective and business-like body, reather than the desire to please this locality or that locality, and to satisfy its requirements, and, in some respects, its pride. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BOUSFIELDasked if it would be worth while to spoil the symmetry of the scheme in order to save seven representatives. London had been divided up into different units, and they wished to

  1411
  make them separate and corporate units in reality, and to reat them all on the same basis, with the exception of special areas.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that, as a very large ratepayer in one of the outlying districts. The importance of a small and effective body was so great that he was quite sure the outlying districts would be willing to sacrifice some off their representation in order to secure it, with a view to mitigating the enormous rates now paid in the suburbs. The amalgamation of boroughs inside London would be a great help, and it would reduce the representation to a manageable size. He thought the outlying districts, if they had a chance, would say that they desired the Amendment to pass, even with the condition that their representation should be reduced, and he was quite sure it would be a benefit, not only as regarded the reduction of rates, but also as regarded the working of the Bill as a whole. There would be much less friction, as the larger the constituency, the less likely would it be that its representatives would heave special local interests to serve, instead of fighting for a pure and sufficient supply of water and a reduction of rates. He hoped the Government would yet make the concession asked for, and reduce the representation both in inner and outer London.
  MR. HARRY SAMUEL, Limehouse said he would point out that, even according to hon. Members on the Opposition side, the outside areas were growing areas, and, in these circumstances, he thought the Amendment was unsound.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the proportion would remain unaltered as the outer representation would also be reduced.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the hon. gentleman opposite, said the Amendment would spoil the symmetry of the scheme; but surely there should be grouping in inside London as well as in outside London. Many of the Urban District Councils mentioned in the Bill were just as important as some of the Borough Councils. Personally, hefeltgreat difficulty in voting, because, which was not a representative system at all. It was popular control three degrees removed; but on the principle that the smaller the body for administrative purposesthe better he would support the Amendment.
  (11.23.)Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 37. (Division List No.609)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Groves, James Grimble

  Allhusen, AugustusH'nry Eden

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hamilton, Rt. HnLordG (Midd'x)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Davenport. William Bromley

  Higginbottom, S. W

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hozier, Hon. JamesHenry Cecil

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bignold, Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Jessel, Captain Herbert AMerton

  Bigwood james

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Bond, Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Fardell, sur T. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bull, William James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Covendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A. (Wore.)

  Gibhs, Hn. A. G. H. (CityofLond.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chapman, Edward

  Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Gouldidng, Edward Alfred

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Colston, Chase. Edw. H. Athole

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lance.)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Taylor, Austin (East Taxteth)

  Morgan, David J (Walth'Msto

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murrary, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Lopner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Myers, William Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Royds, Clement Molynenx

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Samual, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Purvis, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud

  Helme, Noval Watson

  Tully, jasper

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHentry

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Nortnon, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Brigg, John

  Rea, Russell

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Burns, John

  Rigg, Richard

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Robets, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Caldwell, James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Grant, Corrie

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Causton and Mr. Spencer.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Thomas, DavidAlfred (Mertthyr)

  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he wished to move in line eight to omit "two" and insert "one." The Principle had been accepted that the metropolitan boroughs should be treated as units withouht regard to size; and therefore it seemed to him that the borough of West Ham should not be given two representatives. He thought it would give rise to great jealousy, especially in the important boroughs which had agreed to their representation being reduced. Why should West Ham have two representatives, when Islington, which was one of the largest boroughs in London, had only one?
  Amendment proposed to proposed Amendment—
  "In line 8, to leave out 'two' and insert 'one.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he ventured to hope that the Goven-
  1414
  ment would not accede to the Amendment. It was perfectly true that the representation of some of the metropolitan boroughs had been cut down; but there was an immense difference between the metropolitan boroughs and the county borough of West Ham. Not only had the metropolitan boroughs direct representation on the Water Board, but they were also represented through the County Council. West Ham, however, had no hand whatever in the election of the London County Council, and would not be represented by it nor by the Essex County Council on the Water Board. Therefore, it was not on all fours with the metropolitan boroughs. He would further point out that the councils of the various urban districts had agreed to the scheme in the Bill, and now relied on the good faith of the Government. He said with all possible respect that if the Government broke faith and accepted an Amendment such as that before the committee the influence of the action in West Ham would be that they would use their utmost efforts to oppose the Bill at every stage. They

  1415
  had the greatest difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory scheme, but having obtained one it should not now be heedlessly destroyed. It should further be remembered that the greatest earning power existed in the outside areas.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he did not understand that there was any question of an arrangement; and as the matter required greater consideration, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRmoved to leave out "one" in line nine, and insert "two by the councils or urban districts of East Ham, Barking, and Ilford." The President of the Board of Trade had said that outside areas had the minimum representation, and this especially applied to the districts mentioned in the Amendment. Further, the hon. Member for North-West Ham pointed out that the greatest earning power existed in the outside areas; and inasmuch as the Water Board was going to take a well in Barking for the use of other districts, the least that district might receive was representation on the Board. East Ham had a population of nearly 100,000, and Barking had a population of over 40,000; and it was apparent that a Bill of this kind would operate adversely on such districts unless they had proper and adequate representation on the Board. He would be very grateful to the President of the Local Government Board if the districts mentioned in the Amendment would be given representation on the Board. They would be affected by the Bill, and should not be excluded from representation.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 9, to leave out 'one' and insert 'two' by the councils or urban districts of East Ham, Barking and Ilford.'"—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he wished to point out to the hon. Member that only a very small portion of Barking was supplied at present, and that there was supplied at present, and that there was a provision in the Bill, it the circumstances which now existed were altered,
  1416
  giving the Local Government Board power to alter the conditions of the representation. The other districts were provided for in the Bill; and therefore he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  *Mr. LOUGHmoved to leave out lines 9 to 13, and insert "One by the councils of the urban districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, East Ham, Leyton, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead, and Woodford." The object of the Amendment was to reduce the representation of the country of Essex. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a balance had been established between inner London and outer London; but he wished to point out that the representation of inner London had been altered, and therefore it would be a great injustice if the representation of outer London was not also altered. In the original scheme inner Londond had forty-six members and outer London twenty-one. That meant that a reduction of five in London within necessitated a reduction of three in London without, and if the right hon. Gentleman would look at the counties. where a reduction was possible he would find that Essex was the county in which it was most desirable to make a change. The representation of the various counties was most unequal. The county of London had one representative for ever 99,000 inhabitants, Middlesex one for every 81,000, and Essex one for every 56,000. Therefore, Essex had a larger representation than it was entitled to. If ratable value were considered, the difference was equally astounding. The five members given to Essex represented a ratable value of £886,000 with a population of 234,000. Islington, with a population of 340,000 and a ratable value of £1,500,000, had only one representative. He thought such inequality ought to be removed. The idea of giving five memebers to such a county, was, if he might be permitted to say so, quite absurd. The Amendment proposed only one representative; but if the right hon. Gentleman would be content with two, he would be prepared to accept it. He would urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in a liberal spirit. If the right hon. Gentleman did not wish

  1417
  to agree to the precise words of the Amendment, perhaps he would consider the matter, and bring up a Clause at a later stage.
  Amendment propsed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out lines 9 to 13, and insert—'One by the councils of the urban districts of Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, East Ham, Leyton, Loughton, Waltham Holy Cross, Wanstead and Woodford.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  Mr. WALTER LONGsaid the Amendment would reverse the effect of the Amendments which had been already adopted. It would be juest as inequitable in one direction as the operation of the previous Amendment would be in the opposite direction. The Amendment before the Committee would reduce the representation of the outside areas, and would, therefore, make the predomininance of London greater than it was, or than it ought to be. The hon. Member pointed out that there was no very consistent plan for the distribution of representation in the Bill; but his answer to that was, as he had stated over and over again, that they should take England as they found it and not cut it up into new areas merely to suit new requirements. It was perfectly true that the unit of representation was less in some districts than in others; but so far as they could they had endeavoured to secure an equitable representation for all the parts represented. He did not in any way wish to suggest that the subject was not one of considerable importance, but he would venture respectfully to point out that the Amendment was merely ringing the changes on the original proposal. They had considered almost every possible alteration, and he would only add that he strongly felt that unless they stood by some recognised principle of representation which would maintain the balance of power between London within and London without, they would disturb that balance, and have the various authorities claiming to have the whole question reconsidered.
  Mr. SYDNEYBUXTONsaid that inner London only had a representation of 64 ½
  1418
  per cent., whereas, on the basis of population and rateable value, it ought to have a representation of 81 per cent. It was therefore clear that inner London was under represented. He did not see why the outer areas should be over represented. especially as under the Bill if the population increased to a certain point in any particular area that area would be entitled to further representation. that would safeguard the interests of the outer districts, and the Board should be put on the proper basis of representation and rateable value. The Amendment would make the proportion as between inner and outer London better; and therefore he would support it.
  Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid he would ask the President of the Local government Board dto consider before the Report stage whether he could not, by a little different grouping, make a reduction in the representation of the outside areas which would be proportionate to that made in the inside areas.
  MR. WALTERLONGsaid the matter had been very seriously considered more than once, but he should be glad to consider what would be the precise effect of the changes which had been made in the representation of inner London, and whether it called for any alteration of the Kind indicated.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he would suggest that Progress should now be reported, in order that the Committee might have an opportunity of considering the matter.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid if his undertaking to consider the matter was met by a Motion to report Progress, he certainly would withdraw it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the question which had been put to the right hon. Gentleman was, would he undertake to reduce the representation? [HON. MEMBERS: To consider the reduction].
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was willing to consider it.
  MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee reported Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.