HC Deb 10 December 1902 vol 116 cc671-725

As amended, considered:—

(2.50.)MR. CREMER () Shoreditch, Haggerston

said that he offered no apology for moving the omission of Clause 1, because hon. Members on his side of the House regarded it as the very foundation of the whole Bill, and a false foundation as well, and they were naturally anxious to do their best to exclude it and thus defeat the whole measure. During the debate on the Second Reading it was pointed out that the Government had two models on which they could have based their Bill—the Metropolitan Board of Works and the London County Council. To this day no one could understand why the Government did not prefer the London County Council in lieu of a body which expired in the midst of infamy, after an inquiry held at the instigation not of Radical Members but of Lord Randolph Churchill, which brought to light so many misdeeds, so much corruption, and so much jobbery, that it was literally hounded out of existence and superseded by the London County Council. Hon. Members opposite had tried in vain to put their fingers on any blot on the escutcheon of the London County Council, and from the time that that body was constituted down to the present moment, it had never been proved to be guilty of any of the offences which were so characteristic of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. Its hands were perfectly clean, and not one of its most violent enemies—and he was sorry to say they were numerous, especially in the House—had been able to charge the London County Council with any of the nefarious practices which were so common in connection with the Metropolitan Board of Works. Here they had a body absolutely above suspicion, and on the basis on which it was constituted the Government might well have built up their new Water Authority. But the Minister in charge of the Bill passed it by, pure and efficient as it had proved itself in the many great works it had undertaken, and had preferred to take as his model an old and corrupt body like the Metropolitan Board of Works. Surely that fact in itself was sufficient justification for their opposition to the Bill. There was no precedent, so far as he could gather, for the extraordinary course which the right hon. Gentleman had pursued in outlining his Bill. There had been various Committees and Commissions from time to time which had reported on the London Water question, but not one of them had ever proposed the constitution of a Water Board such as the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to establish. All of them, in fact, suggested a much smaller body, of not more than thirty-five or forty members, whereas the President of the Local Government Board preferred a board of extraordinary magnitude which would prove absolutely unworkable, most inefficient, and most costly. There was another reason which justified them in moving the omission of that Clause, and that was that the Committee which was appointed on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman to inquire into the nature and character of his proposals at first decided in favour of a Board of thirty-five members, and then, owing to some extraordinary pressure which he had never been able to understand, it reconsidered its decision, and finally accepted the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal. Why it thus climbed down he had no knowledge—they had never, in fact, been able to understand what mysterious influence was brought to bear on the Committee. Probably, however, it was not worth while at that stage to try and investigate the nature and character of the influence which undoubtedly was exercised. He was therefore proposing to revert to the proposal of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 6, to leave out Clause 1."— (Mr. Cremer.) Question proposed—"That the, words of the Clause to the first word 'a,' in line 20, stand part of the Bill."

THE PRESIDENT 0F THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.

said that before he said a word or two in reply to the hon. Gentleman who had moved this Amendment, perhaps the House would allow him to state very briefly, and without any argument for or against, what the course was which the Government proposed to take in regard to the Bill on the Report stage. It was for the convenience of the House that he should do so, and it would facilitate discussion if hon. Members knew what the intentions of the Government were. Various suggestions had been made for the Amendment of the Bill, and he would take them in the order as they stood on the Paper. In the first place, it had been pointed out that if the chairman and vice-chairman were elected from within the Board, it would create vacancies in their respective seats. It had been urged that that was unnecessary, and the Government were prepared to accept that view, and to introduce an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar, which would give effect to it. He now came to the question of numbers. The House would remember that the Bill, as originally framed, provided that the number of members of the Water Board should be seventy-three. In Committee they took out five numbers from five Metropolitan boroughs, and he promised to consider whether he could not re-arrange some of the outside areas and add their representation to that of London within. He had very carefully considered this matter, and he had been able to find four members from the outside areas which he proposed to add to the representation of the London County Council. This would make the total number of the Water Board at sixty-six, or, if the chairman and vice-chairman were elected outwith the Board, sixty-eight. Another point was whether the Water Board should agree to purchase without arbitration. The Government were unable to assent to that proposition. What they suggested was that purchase by agreement should not be valid unless the purchase arrangement had been submitted to the Court of Arbitration; and they gave full power to the Court of Arbitration to consider each contract when it came before them. As to the New River Clause, that was an "agreed Clause" which had been very carefully prepared by the New River Company, and approved of upstairs by the Joint Select Committee. While admitting that the Clause went too far, and would do more than was either desirable or necessary, he was unwilling to alter it here without realising what the effect of the alteration would be on the New River Company, but he proposed to undertake on behalf of the Government that the necessary alteration would be made in the Clause in another place.

MR. LOUGH () Islington, W.

What about the franchise?

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was advised that no question of the franchise would arise, as the franchise depended on the land; and the franchise would come to an end by the transfer of the land to the Water Board. Another suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Batter-sea that the members for the new Water Board should cease to be members of that Board if they ceased to be members of the constituent bodies sending them to it. There was an Amendment on the Paper which would give effect to that proposal, which he proposed to accept. He had also felt that it would be wrong that the position of vendor and purchaser should be occupied by one and the same person, and that, therefore, it was desirable that a man who was a director of a Water Company should not be a member of the first Board.

MR. LOUGH

What about the shareholders?

MR. WALTER LONG

said he thought that would be an absurd limitation, for, after all, the shareholders were very numerous; and if a man was not to be trusted to deal with contracts of this kind, it would be very difficult to find qualified people to sit on the Board. There was only one other point. On the new Board there were representatives of the Thames and Lea Conservancy. His attention had been called to the matter by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, in the course of the debate, and, in his opinion, it was not quite fair that these Conservators should, on the Water Board, take part in the decision in regard to purchase. He proposed to put an Amendment on the Paper which would exclude those Conservators from taking part in the proceedings for the settlement of the purchase. He did not propose to say very much in answer to the speech of the hon. Member for Haggerston. He recognised fully that the hon. Member had felt it his duty to make that speech; but the Government had expressed their views on the subject, and had, on the vote, obtained an overwhelming majority. He might say that in arriving at the decision to which the Government had come they were not actuated by any feeling of hostility to the London County Council. [Cries of "Hear, Hear!" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Their governing principle had been that of representation. Nobody could deny that in all the proposals made in connection with this question, none had found more general acceptance than that of representation, which would receive the confidence of all concerned. Therefore they had not given power to the London County Council alone, but to all the other local authorities interested. He had now only to return to the worn-out story of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He was a member of that Board when it was abolished; and if any one were to argue that because that Board was guilty of grave errors of omission and commission it ought to be condemned outright, he would be greatly mistaken. The Metropolitan Board of Works did au immense deal of excellent work. The hon. Gentleman failed to recognise that the Metropolitan Board of Works was elected by the vestries of London on a broad franchise; and he ventured to say that if they had handed the management of the water to the London County Council it would have been violently opposed by all the other local authorities, and that it certainly would not have passed this House. He contended that if they had proposed a popularly elected ad hocbody it would have been a very unwise and unpopular system, whereas in the proposal which the Government had made they had taken the necessary steps to secure the appointment of a practical and business-like body. He did not share the hon. Gentleman's vaticinations, and he hoped the Clause would be carried by a considerable majority.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON () Tower Hamlets, Poplar

said that he and his friends recognised to the full the very courteous and conciliatory attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up in this matter and the concessions which he had made. The right hon. Gentleman had recognised that the addition of four more representatives of the London County Council on the Water Board was a very considerable improvement on the Bill. They on the Opposition side objected to the principle on which the Bill was based, but he thought that the Committee would recognise that in accepting Amendments, moved chiefly from the Opposition side, the right hon. Gentlemen had rendered the smooth and effectual working of this new body more likely. Whatever might be the opinions held with regard to his own position in this matter, he considered that the action he had taken on the Bill had been fully justified. It was all very well for those who had not been in attendance to say that the Bill should have been fought through. With such a small following it seemed to him hopeless to attempt to kill the Bill. It was obvious, with only thirty or forty Members at his back, of whom there were only seven or eight who would speak in Committee, that it was hopeless for him to attempt to kill the Bill. The only alternative was to see whether the right hon. Gentleman would meet them in the matter, and that alternative he adopted. The sole object he had in so doing was to improve the Bill and make it workable, He had ventured to make these few remarks because he felt somewhat annoyed at the strictures that had been passed upon him. In his opinion the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman were vitiated by the principle of the Bill, and as the omission of this Clause had been moved by his hon. Friend he should certainly vote for its omission. In the opinion of the Opposition in regard to the question of a municipal basis, and in regard to this being a business-like and workable Board the proposals of the Government had vitiated both principles. What had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfied him or encouraged him to think that this Board would be an advantage to London. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down the principle that the basis of local government should be indirect election, and that was not their view. With regard to the Board of Works he had no desire to say anything against it, but he might just point out that that Board was shown to be so defective, inefficient and corrupt, that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a supporter swept it away. That surely was a sufficient condemnation, not only for the Board of Works but for the system of indirect election also. That was the only instance of a large public body being founded on indirect election, and the right hon. Gentleman was now going to elect this new body on the same basis. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the Metropolitan Asylums Board?] The Metropolitan Asylums Board stood upon a different basis altogether, but many people even with regard to that body did not think it was the best possible body for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was not actuated by any hostility to the London County Council in this matter. Mrs. Penruddocke might as well say she was not animated by any hostile feeling towards the child she bullied. The County Council could have been brought in to deal with this matter very easily indeed on the basis of direct election through the County Council. Why direct election through the County Council was not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman except through hostility to the County Council he could not understand. The basis of this Board ought to have been more in the direction of direct election, and inner London should be represented to a greater extent than outside London. He desired to enter a strong protest against this Bill being taken at all at this time of the year; it was not fair to the House, to the London Members, or to the London ratepayers. This Autumn Session was taken for educational purposes and not for the purposes of this Bill, and to force a Bill of this kind down the throats of the House in December, when it could have been dealt with in the previous August, was not treating the House or those interested in that great question with the respect to which they were entitled. The ultimate result of this procedure would be that the Bill, which otherwise would have been most satisfactory, would not be the success they all desired.

MR. LOUGH

quite agreed that the highest praise was due to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had conducted the Bill, but such praise as was given to the right hon. Gentleman did not prevent them from taking exception to the principles which the Bill contained. He regretted that his hon. friend should have said what he did with regard to the arrangement that had been made, because it was not quite an open question. What some of them complained of was that this arrangement should have been made without its being sanctiened by a meeting of the Party. No one on that side of the House regarded his hon. friend with feelings of greater respect, or would follow him more closely in his proper sphere than he (Mr. Lough) would. But the sphere of his hon. Friend, as a late Under Secretary for the Colonies, was the Colonies. With regard to London matters, if they had any Leader at all on the Front Bench, that Gentleman was not his hon. friend but the hon. Member for Southwark. But the London Members who sat on the Back Benches would receive no tyranny from the Front Bench on London matters at all. With regard to the concessions made by the right hon. Gentleman there were several important points which had been omitted. There had been no concession made with regard to compensation for purchase, for instance, and the concession with regard to the constitution of the first Board would require some extension. His personal complaint against the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite was that hon. Members opposing this measure had not been given any opportunity to fight their battles. Clause 1 illustrated the impossibility of anybody holding the views he did adopting a friendly attitude towards this Clause. Anybody who called himself a Radical and a friend of democratic politics in this country must oppose this Clause with all the force in his power. It remained as objectionable now as when it was introduced. The number of the Board was exactly the same as the number in the Bill as it was originally introduced, and all the objections taken then held good at this moment. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had given the London County Council a representation of fourteen instead of ten, but according to the opinion of the London County Council, as expressed at a meeting held on the previous day, that did not do the County Council any good whatever. It increased their responsibility, but it did not increase their power to enforce that responsibility. The London County Council was still hopelessly outnumbered, and not placed in any better position for fighting its battles. If for the moment they confined their view to the representation of boroughs within London alone on this Board, the Metropolitan Borough Councils had a representation of thirty-one as against ten representatives of the London County Council, so that, without counting the outside boroughs, the London County Council, was hopelessly outnumbered. The constitution of the Board was as bad as it could well be, and he did not believe any Member of the Opposition had sacrificed for the concession that had been made the rooted objection he had to this Clause. There was no direct election from the London County Council to this Board. The system on which it was based was most absurd—twelve or fourteen local authorities were formed into an electoral college to elect one member to this body. This system of indirect election was not one that should be set up at this time of day. A compromise would have been possible in this matter. There was the compromise proposed by the hon. Member for North Wilts: a compromise suggested by the Joint Committee, to whose decision he submitted weight should be attached. The Joint Committee, when it was left free, before it was influenced by the Government suggested a compromise which the hon. Member for North Wilts had moved in the House. That was a compromise which would have been accepted by the Opposition, and which would have been a real compromise. It would have got rid of these electoral colleges, and given a small and compact Board with a respectable representation to London, and adequate representation to Essex, Kent, and other counties around London. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not accepted that compromise; he had not had regard to the suggestion of the Joint Committee; he had not met the objections of the Opposition to this Clause, and he (Mr. Lough) was very glad they were all going into the Lobby to vote against it.

(3.35.) DR. MACNAMARA () Camberwell, N.

expressed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had treated the London Members who opposed this Bill very well indeed. There were only seven of them, and for every one who stood up to oppose the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman could put up eight on his side to support it. He was entitled to do so, but he had not done it, and for having exercised that self-denying ordinance he was entitled to the thanks of hon. Members. The fundamental issue which overshadowed, and in fact entirely dwarfed all others, was the question of the constitution of the Board. That was the main point of this Clause, and he, for the last time, vehemently opposed it. The Board consisted of sixty-eight members. It was still too large and unwieldy; there was nothing like it on any Select Committee or Royal Commission; there was nothing like it in any previous Bill for London water, and there was nothing like it with regard to any municipal supply throughout Great Britain. There was from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000 of the ratepayers' money involved in this Bill, and he did not consider that this Board was competent to deal with that sum in a wise and careful manner. What he felt was that it would blunder in its inexperience at a most serious cost to the ratepayers, and that the blunders which it would make would be those which were bound to be made at the outset of its career. With regard to the Board of Works, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the report of Lord Randolph Churchill's Commission, which investigated the affairs of the Board, was of a most serious character, and revealed a most lamentable scandal with regard to two members of the Board and some of the servants as well. And the Commission went out of its way to do so. He thought the Government were hopelessly wrong in the way they treated the County and Borough Councils in this matter. He thought the increase of the Board from thirty to sixty-eight all arose from the mistaken desire of the Government to insist upon the representation of Borough Councils upon it. The Joint Committee carried, by six votes to three, a recommendation that the representation of Borough Councils should be struck out, and then the counsel for the promoters, who were the Government, came to the Joint Committee and said that the promoters had heard with profound regret that the representation of Borough Councils was struck out. A motion to adhere to the decision to strike out the Borough Council representation was then put from the Chair, and upon it there voted five as against five, and by the casting vote of the Chairman it was lost. So that, on the casting vote of one man, London for all time was condemned to an unworkable scheme. Viscount Hampden, in regard to that matter, said the Government had shown in an unmistakable way that they dominated the Committee through their own Chairman, and they had not shrunk from coercing the Committee into going back on its own decision to establish a more efficient and workable Board, and the noble Lord had gone on to say that if the Water Companies were to be done away with the London County Council was the only body left to deal with it, provision being made for the representation of the outside areas. It was a pity that the Government should impose upon London an authority so grotesque as that which they seemed determined to establish. He was still as opposed to this Board as ever he had been. It was too large and unwieldy; it was removed from the effective control of the ratepayers; it had not the necessary experience and knowledge to carry out the duties of purchase; it was founded on the discredited model of the Metropolitan Board of Works; and despite the pressure of the Government it had not even now the sanction of the majority of the Joint Committee which examined the details of the Bill.

MR. JOHN BURNS () Battersea

said that the County Council for thirteen years bad persistently pressed on the Government a solution of the water difficulty by asking that, as in every other municipality, the water supply should be placed in its hands. By Clause 1 the Government had said that the water supply of London was anomalous, defective, and expensive, and ought no longer to remain in the hands of private enterprise, but that it should be transferred from private enterprise, with its waste, extravagance, mismanagement, and occasional droughts, to a public body. He sincerely regretted that instead of entrusting it to the London County Council the Government had decided to set up this Board of sixty-eight members, drawn from seventy-seven districts, and elected in the most extraordinary way. By their majority the Government had superimposed upon the proper municipal authorities the representation of thirty Borough Councils. Unfortunately for the Government the Borough Councils had shown no enthusiasm in the matter, nor were the ratepayers excited on the issue. He had looked in vain to see the people of London "in fine frenzy rolling' walking either to Trafalgar Square or Parliament Street to press for Borough Council representation. In the course they had taken the Government had neither facts, experience, nor wisdom on their side. The whole tendency of government in the municipal sphere, and even in the centralised area of State action, was to remit technical subjects, practical questions, and administrative matters, to small bodies. With other London Liberal Members, he objected to the Board on account of its size, and so far as they had been able to reduce the number of members they had proportionately increased its efficiency. If the London County Council, with 139 members, could discharge 21 statutory functions ranging over the whole ramifications of local, social and sanitary municipal life, there was no reason why a body of 68 should be created to look after one of the simplest, although the largest, of sanitary duties. The size of the Board made for inefficiency, its composition might make for extravagance; and the relative inexperience of the 68 members would very likely lead to an increase of the rate. It would, therefore, be the duty of President of the Local Government Board and his officials to keep their eye very closely on this Board in defence of the ratepayers. To those who desired wherever possible to secure direct and effective popular control in municipal matters, Clause 1 was a great disappointment, and he hoped that at some time in the future the right hon. Gentleman would be able to bring in an amending Bill, and that the Borough Councils would not be drawn into conflict either with the London County Council or with the six outside County Councils, but that they would agree harmoniously, if possible, in the interests of everybody concerned. This body ought not to be allowed to sit in a back street and buy pipes, as the War Office bought horses, in a fourth-floor garret. He hoped it would do its work in the full glare of publicity, and that in every sense of the word it would be a public statutory body discharging its duty in the clear light of day. Those with whom he acted, now that they had been beaten, desired to see the Board a success. If it did enter upon a career of usefulness it would be largely due to the fact that those who had objected to the Board on principle had placed the House and the public in the possession of facts and fears which would make every Department responsible for the Board watch its future progress with great care. This Board would have to spend large sums of money on pipes, engines, and so forth for the carrying out of large public works. The President of the Local Government Board should, therefore, see that the new water authority had sub-Committees formed of men who were beyond suspicion and above reproach. The tenders should be open and the contracts carried out with justice to everybody, and there should be no preferential treatment of an exclusive ring of contractors, such as had sometimes happened. Above all, it was to be hoped that local grievances would not be magnified, and that districts which happened to be ably represented would not be able to extract from the Water Board special concessions and advantages which poorer and less ably represented districts were not able to secure. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concilitory tone and temper with which he had met many of their proposals. From conversation with members of the London County Council he could assure the House that that body would send to this Board fourteen of the ablest and most experienced men on the water question in London, who would do their best openly and fairly to inspire the other members with their experience, and to co-operate with them in travelling the knot into which the London water question had got through the apathy of London, the ineffectiveness of Parliament, and the indifference that too many London bodies had displayed on the subject. It was the duty of the Metropolis of the Empire to have the best water supply in the world, and to see that Old Father Thames was no longer depleted of the enormous quantity of water of which the present system deprived it. To secure these two objects this Water Board had been created, and in its work it would have the help and good wishes of all those who had opposed it on principle.

(4.0.) MR. CLAUDE HAY () Shoreditch, Hoxton

said he would try in what he had to say to imitate the tone which the hon. Member for Battersea had displayed in his speech. This was a question with which he was conversant, and one upon which he had heard the opinion of men belonging to all classes in a large industrial community. After due consideration he felt it was incumbent upon him to support this Bill. Feeling that this water question in London was one of immense urgency, he voted for the London County Council Water Bill, and he believed that he was the only hon. Member on the Ministerial side who did so. It had been said that this Bill, by giving representation to the municipal authorities on the Water Board, had given the go-by to the true feeling of London, but he thought that was an entire mistake in regard to London as a whole. He had daily contact with Londoners of various opinions, and all he could say was that when hon. Members stated that the London County Council was the only true body In represent London they erred very greatly. The Borough Councils were becoming the true representatives of these vast communities in London more and more, daily and hourly, and the London County Council seemed to be getting out of touch with those whom they were supposed to represent. The Borough Councillors were generally men who had businesses in the locality and were resident amongst the working class community, and therefore it was absolutely idle and incorrect to pretend that the County Councillors were the only true representatives of London in this matter. He was sure that every hon. Member would re-echo the hope and intention expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, who, by his unceasing, single-minded work on behalf of London had not only earned the high reputation he enjoyed outside this House, but also the warm sympathy of those hon. Members who differed from him in his views. The hon. Member for Battersea, however, made an error when he demanded that the London County Council should have the control and management of the water question by a majority of its representatives on the ground that it contained 139 members who were now efficiently discharging twenty-one statutory duties. By this argument the hon. Member had adduced the most powerful reason of all why the London County Council was not the best body for the purpose. Surely if 139 men already had twenty-one statutory duties to perform, and remembering that the duties of the Water Board were so very intricate and onerous, that constituted an indisputable argument why the London County Council could not possibly be the most efficient administrators of the water question. What Londoners desired was to see an adequate, cheap, and regular water supply, and they felt that the Government, by the institution of the Water Board on its present lines, had created an authority which did represent in its fullest sense all the various interests both inside and outside of the London area, which, hereafter, ought to have a voice in the management of this business, Personally, he believed that his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board would receive the warmest thanks of all the interests concerned both inside and outside of the county of London for this Bill, and his statesmanship would find a proper place in Metropolitan history. It was on these grounds that he was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for carrying through this Bill, and he cordially joined in the expressions which had fallen from the other side of the Committee that they were willing to bury all that controversial spirit which had so long surrounded this question, and, as true Londoners, assist the Water Board to work for the benefit of the whole population of the Metropolis.

CAPTAIN NORTON () Newington, W.

said he was astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Hoxton, who took such a deep interest in social matters connected with London. The action he had taken on this question seemed extraordinary, and he did not think the hon. Member's constituency would be grateful to him for the course he had taken. Dr. Mansfield Robinson, a great water expert from the borough of Shoreditch, in his evidence before the Water Commission, read a resolution passed by the Shoreditch Borough Council on February 18th, 1902, strongly protesting against the London Water Bill now before Parliament, and disagreeing with the proposed constitution of the Water Board. Therefore the constituents of the hon. Member for Hoxton' had protested against this proposal.

MR. CLAUDE HAY

Not all my constituents. Will the hon. Member read on.

CAPTAIN NORTON

said the resolution urged that the London County Council should be the Water Authority, and recommended that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to each Member of Parliament for the borough. It also urged them to oppose the passing into law of the London Water Bill, and to support the measure put forward by the London County Council. In the face of

AYES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Perey, Earl
Anson, Sir Willian Reynell Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Pierpoint, Robert
Arkwright, John Stanhope Groves, James Grimble Plummer, Walter R.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Halsey, Rt. Hon Thomas F. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Atkinson, Rt.Hon. Jonh Hamilton, RtHn Lord G(midd'x Pretyman, Ernest George
Bailey, James (Walworth) Harris, Frederick Leverton Pryee-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manch'r Hay, Hon Claude George Purvis, Robert
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Health, Arthur Howard (Hanley Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hozier, Higginbottom, S. W. Remnant, James Farquharson
Bignold, Arthur Hozier, Hon, James HenryCecil Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hudson, George Bickersteth Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Bond, Edward Jessel, Captain Herbert merton Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Johnstone, Heywood Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John Knowles, Lees Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Bull, William James Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Sharpe, William Edward T.
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbeyshire Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Smith, Abel G.(Hertford, East)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Lawson, John Grant smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)
Chamberlain, RtHn J. A.(Wore. Lecky, Rt.Hn. Wiliam Edw. H. Smith, Hon. W.F.D.(Strand)
Chapman, Edward Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stanely, Lord (Lancs.)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Lockie, John Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Taylor, Austin. (East Toxteth)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Loder, Gerald Walter Erskin Thornton, Percy M.
Corbett, T. L. (Down North) Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Cox,Irwin Edward Bainbridge Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,S. Tritton, Charles Ernest
Crossley, Sir Savile Lowe, Francis William Tnfness, Lient.-Col. Edward
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) Valentia, Viscount
Dickson, Charles Scott Macdona, John Cumming Welby, Lt.-Col A.C.E(Taunton
Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers- Maconochie, A. W. Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Maple, Sir John Blundell Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Mildmay, Francis Bingham Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas Milvain, Thomas Wilson-Todd, Wm.H.(Yorks.)
Fisher, William Hayes Montagn, G. (Huntingdon) Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Flower, Ernest More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Forster, Henry William Mount, William Arthur Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George
Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W Murrary, RtHn A. Graham (Bute
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans) Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr.Anstruther.
Godson, Sir AugustusFrederick Nicol, Donald Ninian
Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
NOES.
Asher, Alexander Fuller, J. M. F. Sehwann, Charles E.
Bayley, Thomas (Deryshire) Goddard, Daniel Ford Shackleton, David James
Broadhurst, Henry Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Shackleton, David James
Bryce, Rt.Hon. James Hayne, Rt.Hon. CharlesSeale- Shipman, Dr. John G.
Burns, John Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Burt, Thomas Jacoby, James Alfred Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, David Brynmor(Sw'nsea Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings
Caldwell, James Levy, Maurice Wallace, Robert
Cameron, Robert Longh, Thomas Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Cremer, William Randal Maenamara, Dr. Thomas J. Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)
Crombie, John William M'Kenna, Reginald Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Norton, Capt. Cecil William Weir, James Galloway)
Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles Philipps, John Wynford Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Elibank, Master of Pirie, Duncan V. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer)
Emmott, Alfred Rea, Russell
Fenwick, Charles Rigg, Richard TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Samuel, Herbert L (Cleveland)

that resolution, the hon. Member for Hoxton came forward and supported the Bill which his constituents had asked him to oppose.

(4.13.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 50. (Division List No. 624.)

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

moved to leave out in line 20, Clause 1, "a chairman, a vice-chairman, and other," and insert "sixty-eight." He did not know that the Amendment he was proposing would be the best form in which to carry out the object he had in view, which was, that the election of the chairman and vice-chairman should rest with the Water Board itself. He understood that the President of the Local Government Board agreed with that object, but perhaps the Amendment would come better on one of the Schedules.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 1, line 20 to leave out the words 'a chairman, a vice-chairman, and other,' and insert the words 'sixty-eight.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Amendment should be made by altering Rule 1 in the Third Schedule.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he would move it there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved to leave out from "shall" in line 21, to "be" in line 23, Clause 1.

*MR. WHITMORE () Chelsea

said he deeply regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to move the rejection of the Amendment which was carried in the Joint Committee at his instance. By his Amendment, as the House was aware, the first selection of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman would have been vested in the Local Government Board. He still thought it would be in the interest of the administrative efficiency of the Board that the first Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed on the responsibility of the Local Government Board after anxious deliberation. He was sure the members of the Board at their first meeting would feel that they were called upon to discharge one of the most difficult and delicate duties they would ever have to perform, and he was perfectly certain they would regret that they did not find themselves presided over by a gentleman of distinction carefully selected by the Local Government Board. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had preferred the theoretical principles of municipal Government in this matter to practical considerations which he thought were much more important. He felt there was no good in prolonging his resistance, and therefore he would only express his strong conviction that the arrangement he proposed would have been better.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG moved—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 21, leave out from ' shall ' to ' be ' in line 23."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved— In Clause 1, page 1,line 23, and page 2, line 1, leave out 'by the Local Government Board and afterwards.'

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved— In Clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out' elected and insert 'appointed.'

MR. LOUGH

said if he remembered rightly this was an Amendment accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on Committee stage to which they attached considerable importance. He desired to secure that all the members of the constituent bodies should have the undoubted right to elect a member to the Water Board.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. This was the ordinary word used on such occasions.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG, in moving the next Amemendment, said he would remind the House that his promise in Committee was by some re-arrangement of the outside areas to find four members of the Board to be added to the representation of the London County Council. He found that the County of Middlesex under the original scheme had one member to every 90,000 population, Essex one to every 85,000, Kent one to every 44,000, and Surrey one to every 49,000. It was obvious that that was not an equitable representation of these four counties. He had therefore decided to take one representative each from the counties of Kent and Surrey, which would bring their representation nearer to a level with that of Middlesex and Essex. He also proposed to take two members from the Conservancies, thus reducing the number of the Board to sixty-six, and placing the representation of London Within as compared with London Without on a proper footing.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out '10' and insert '14.'

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said it was quite clear that the Conservancies were moribund bodies, and the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in leaving them only one member. Some of them had ventured to point out that, under a population or ratable basis inner London was not represented on the Board as compared with outer London, and the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would bring about a much better and fairer proportion between the representation of inner and outer London. He was not going to say, however, that this addition of four members to the representation of the London County Council made him any the less opposed to the principle on which the Bill was founded. He trusted that those who took a strong view as to the position of the London County Council would feel that they were now in a much stronger position than they were under the Bill as it was originally framed, seeing that they would now have one-fifth as against one seventh of the whole representation. At the same time, the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to him to have much weight in this connection. The right hon. Gentleman said that this would bring up the representation of the London County Council to the proportion suggested by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. He did not think so. The proposal of that hon. Gentleman was to give the London County Council practically, if not an actual majority of the Board, an overwhelming position on it. He did not, therefore, desire to put the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman higher than it ought to be put.

MR. COHEN () Islington, E.

said he wished to express satisfaction at the increase of four members which his right hon. friend had given to the London County Council. That satisfaction, however, was tempered by the fact that, in giving four extra members to the London County Council, his right hon. friend had taken away a member from a constituency in which he was interested.

MR. LOUGH

said he thought the London County Council had been hardly treated under the Bill. For eleven years it had been the water authority for London, and had done its business very ably indeed. He was glad to see that the London County Council were getting more representation on the Water Board, but he thought it should have been larger still.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. CAUSTON () Southwark, W.

said that the object of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper was to take away the representation of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. He desired to give the President of the Local Government Board one further opportunity of reducing the number of his Board. The most extraordinary thing was that the poorest parts of London, which were most interested in the water supply, were not in favour of being represented. The Metropolitan Borough Councils had shown no genuine demand for representation on the Water Board; in fact, six of the Councils had passed resolutions against their being represented on the Board. The time of these Councils was fully occupied in strictly local matters. They had never had to deal with the water question at all, but had looked to the London County Council as the proper body to deal with it.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that the hon. Member for Battersea had proposed an Amendment by which when a member had ceased to be a member of a Local Board, he ceased to be a member of the Water Board.

MR. CAUSTON

said that matter was quite safe in the hands of his hon. friend the Member for Battersea, and therefore he would not say anything more about it. He did not quite understand it. He understood that the members of the Water Board were to be taken from the various local authorities, and directly these gentlemen ceased to be members of the local authority they ceased to be members of this Board.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page2, line 6 to leave out the words 'one by the Council of each of the other metropolitan boroughs.'"—(Mr. Causton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said the hon. Gentleman had truly said it was not possible to say anything new either for or against the proposal he made, which was that the scheme of the Bill should be altered at this the last moment by the elimination of the Borough Councils. One thing he had not said anything about, and that was the effect the Amendment would have. If the Amendment were carried the Metropolitan Boroughs would be cut off, and the principle for which hon. Gentlemen had so strongly contended in the previous Amendment would be cut off altogether. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of six Metropolitan Boroughs which he said were opposed to this proposal, and he had stated that those were all poor Boroughs in the south of London; he had forgotten to mention that they also sided with him politically. The hon. Gentleman had stated that none of these Boroughs had expressed a desire to be put on this governing body. But it the hon. Gentleman was entitled to quote these six Boroughs against the proposal of the Government, the Government were also entitled to quote the remainder in its favour. No pressure had been brought to bear on the Boroughs to support this measure, and since the Bill had been introduced they had not altered in one iota the desire they had to be brought into the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew quite well that they did their best to get up agitations against the Bill, and that they had failed; there had been no response to their suggestions from any part of London. And they knew perfectly well that the Government had received overwhelming support. He believed the Government had taken the right step in including the Metropolitan Boroughs in this Bill, and he asked the House to support the Government by rejecting this Amendment.

MR. LOUGH

thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather misrepresented the argument of his hon. friend the hon. Member for Southwark, and what his hon. friend had proved by it. The right hon. Gentleman had also omitted to mention the most important fact in this matter, which was that the Joint Committee recommended the very suggestion which his hon. friend had just made. The Joint Committee recommended that the representation of the Borough County Councils should be struck out, and it was only when the Government sent back to that Committee the message that they had received this recommendation with profound regret that those who had already voted against it agreed to the inclusion of these boroughs in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had insinuated that if hon. Members went into the Lobby in support of this Amendment they would be voting for the reduction of London representation, but that was not so, because the effect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to get rid of all the inside and outside boroughs. The argument in support of this Amendment was that those boroughs had no duty analogous to that which would be thrown on their shoulders, and that if they had they would, however important these boroughs might be in themselves, derive no good by sending one member to a Board of 68. The appointment of these members did not synchronise with the election of the Councils themselves, so that in all probability the members appointed to the Water Board would remain members of that body long after they had ceased to be members of the Borough Councils. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in dividing against it, and that it could not he said that they were in any way treating the representation of London unfairly by supporting the Amendment.

*LIEUT. COLONEL TUFNELL () Essex, S.E.

said he strongly opposed the Amendment. He happened to know that so far from the Borough of Islington not desiring to be represented on the Board, they had sent in a requisition that they should be allowed to have two representatives on it instead of one. They thought it was hard, as they were the wealthiest and largest ratable borough in London, that they should only have one representative

on the Board, whilst the City of West-minister, where there was nothing like the extent of population, were to have two. The Borough of Islington was one of the hardest working, and one of the best boroughts in London, and they would be only too glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to allow them to have two members instead of one on the Water Board.

(4.53) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 111; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 625.)

Lough, Thomas Roe, Sir Thomas Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Samuel,Heibe L.(Cleveland) Wason,JohnCatlicart(Orkney)
M'Kenna, Reginald Sehwann, Charles E. Weir, James Galloway
Mellor, Rt.Hon. John William Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Whiteley,George(York, W. R.)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Shipmpn Dr. John G. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Philipps, John Wynford Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Yoxall, James Henry
Pirie, Duncan V. Soames, Arthur Wellesley Rea, Russell Spencer, RtHn. C.R. (Northants
Rigg, Richard Tully, Jasper TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Wallace, Robert

Amendments proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 2,line 17, leave out 'and'. In Clause I, page 2, line 18, leave out 'one by the councils of the urban districts of.' Clause I, page 2, line 35, leave out 'and.' Clause I, page 2, line 36, leave out 'one by the councils of the urban districts of." "—(Mr. Walter Long)

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Clause 1, page 2, line, 39, leave oul 'three.' and insert 'one.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)

SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND () Middlesex, Uxbridge

said he did not see why the Thames Conservancy should only have one representative on the Board. It must be remembered there was a question now before a Royal Commission of dividing administration over the river into two parts, and, if this suggestion were carried out, the Thames Conservancy should have at least two members.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he had been reluctant to reduce the representation of the Conservators, but the reduction was necessary from the considerations that bad already been discussed, and be asked the House to abide by the distribution which had been arranged. The Thames Conservancy was no worse off than any other constituted authority. He was surprised that his hon, friend should have quoted the Report of the Royal Commission, because that Surely was a strong recommendation for the course the Government had adopted. All the work which had to do with this new Hoard had relation to the upper Thames, and, that being so, it was only the upper Thames that should be represented on the new Board. He regretted having to reduce the representation of the Thames Conservancy, but he could not now ask the House to reconsider the matter.

SIR F. DIXON HARTLAND

said that the Thames Conservancy was the body to which the whole control of the water of the Thames was given, and therefore, he should, if opportunity arose, move that the word "two" be inserted instead of one.

MR. SPEAKER

The form will be to negative the word "one," and if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in negativing "one," he may move to insert "two."

Question, "That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to

MR. LOUGH

said as the Clause read now, the first words were— The Water Board shall pay to each company as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking. If the words" as compensation" were left out the Clause would read much better, and convey more clearly what the Government intended to convey. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that the House was hurried and pressed this week, but if he could convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment he now proposed to move was of great importance, and that it, would not alter the principle of the Bill, the right hon, Gentleman would, he hoped, yet consider whether the Clause was outside the scope of improvement. All along, the Government had commended this Bill to the House by assuring them that it would not involve the principle of compensation for compulsory transfer of the Companies' property; and when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, these words were not in the Clause. At that stage the Bill undoubtedly more accurately represented what the Government intended than the present, words did. He submitted that these words should be struck out because they were contrary to the 23rd Clause of the Bill. Sub-Clause 8 of Clause 23 provided that the Court should not make any allowance for compulsory sale, or for the depreciation in the value of shares. It had been contended all along that the 10 percent, usually allowed under the Lands Clauses Act should not be applied in this case, and the right hon. Gentleman had promised on the previous Monday that this Amendment should be taken into consideration on the Report stage. He submitted that the deletion of these words would make the Bill better sense and make it stronger. The right hon. Gentleman, having considered the matter, had, however, refused to take it "as compensation." Since then, as he saw by The Times of this morning, an extraordinary rise had taken place in all water stock—a rise ranging from 2 per cent, to 10 percent.

MR. WALTER LONG

How much has changed hands?

MR. LOUGH

said that water stock had risen 40 percent, upon the price at which it stood a year and a half ago; yet it had been said the price of the purchase would not be affected by the rise and fall of the market since the Bill had been introduced. He contended they had been undoing all the good they had done in the earlier stages of the Bill. He had no doubt that all this rise in prices had been the result of the work done in this House on Monday last. The House was now considering this matter for the first time since the Joint Committee sat. That Committee stuck "compensation" all over the Bill; and the right hon Gentleman himself on the previous Monday accepted an Amendment striking out "compensation" in another Clause under much the same circumstances. Why was it put in? There could be no doubt that it was put in to suggest to the arbitrators that compensation for compulsory purchase was intended, and that being contrary to the Bill he hoped that in this connection, and upon one or two other important matters, the Government would not consider the debate closed, and that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment he now begged to move.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 15, to leave out the words as compensation.' "—

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

MR. WALTER LONG

thought that the hon. Member had made a great fuss about nothing. The hon. Member seemed to have been excited by the fact that water stock of all kinds had gone up on the previous day a few points, though he had not responded to the invitation extended to him to say how much had changed hands at the higher price. He had ignored the fact that words were placed in the Bill in order to prevent any rise or fall of the price of stock which, in the opinion of the arbitrator, was due to the introduction of the Bill being taken into consideration in estimating the value of these undertakings. Though there had been a rise, it was obvious that it necessarily need have no effect on the ultimate value of the concerns. He had heard hon. and learned Gentlemen discuss the advisability of leaving out or leaving iu these words, and even they had disagreed, and that being so, what was an unfortunate layman to do but to leave them where they were. This subject was considered upstairs, and it was deliberately decided to insert those words, and he hoped the House would abide by that decision.

MR. HALDANE () Haddingtonshire

said there was one thing that would certainly have helped the right hon Gentleman in this dilemma, and that would have been to have taken out of the Bill the word upon which the lawyers differed, and thus have removed the bone of contention. In his opinion, it would be a dangerous thing to allow these words to remain in the Bill. In the Tramways Act of 1870 a similarly slovenly Clause was put in, and what was the result? The courts of England and Scotland came to different conclusions upon that Clause; there was arbitration after arbitration; hundreds of pounds thrown away on litigation, and it was not until years after that the matter was definitely settled by a decision of the House of Lords. Why should these words, "as compensation," be put in at all? They had words in Clause 23 of the Bill which, standing by themselves, would be a full and sufficient guide to the arbitrators. The Court of Arbitration was to determine the value of the undertaking on certain principles; nothing was to be given for compulsory purchase; and there was to be no enhancement of the value by reason of a rise in the value of stock. Allowances were to be made for costs, and very properly. They had laid down the principles upon which the arbitrators were to proceed. When they came to the Clause under discussion there was an utterly foreign expression imported —"as compensation" was put in. Why were those words inserted? Was it to introduce some new element? They ought to hear from the right hon. Gentleman why those words were inserted in Committee, and if they were necessary why the Government did not put them in originally. He thought his hon. friend was well founded in his desire to get words deleted from the Bill, which the Government could not explain, and which were not germane to the Clause; which were not in the original draft, and

AYES
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte During-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Long, Rt.Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Anson, Sir William Reynell Faber, George Dension (York) LOwe, Francis William
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fergusson, Rt Hn.Sir J. (Mane'r Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth
Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John Fisher, William Hayes Macdona, John Cumming
Bailey, James (Walworth) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Maconochie, A. W.
Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Flower, Ernest Maple, Sir John Blundell
Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds Forster, Henry William Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.
Banbnry, Sir Frederick George Foster, Philips. (Warwick, S.W. Milvain, Thomas
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Galloway, William Johnson Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Beresford, Lord Chas. William Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans More, Robt.
Jasper(Shropshire)
Bignold, Arthur Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Blundell, Colonel Henry Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Narin Mount, William Arthur
Bond, Edward Gordon, Maj. Evnas.(T'rH'ml'ts Murray, RtHn A. Graham(Bute
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicol, Donald Ninian
Bull, William James Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H. Groves, James Grimble Parkes, Ebenezer
Cautley, Henry Strother Guthrie, Walter Murrary Percy, Earl
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Hall, Edward Marshall Plummer, Walter R.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Chamberlain, RtHn J.A.(Wore. Hambro, Charles Eric Pretyman, Ernest George
Chapman, Edward Hamilton, RtHnLordG.(Midd'x Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Clive, Captain Percy A. Harris, Frederick Leverton Purvis, Robert
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Higginbottom, S. W. Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Conpton, Lord Alwyne Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Remnant, James Farquharson
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hudson, George Bickersteth Ritchie, Rt.Hn. Chass. Thomson
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Jessel, Captain HerbertMerton Robertosn, Herbert (Hackney)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Johnstone, Heywood Round, Rt.Hon. James
Cranborne, Viscount Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Crossley, Sir Savile Knowles, Lees Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cust, Henry John C. Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Seely, Maj. J.E.B(Isle of Weight
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lawson, John Grant Sharpe, William Edward T.
Dickson, Charles Scott Lecky, RtHon William Edw. H. Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDix'n Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sloan, Thomas Henry
Doughty, George Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

which must have been inserted for some purpose. Under cover of the words of the Clause, as it stood, it might be contended by the Water Companies that they were entitled to be paid something in consideration, say, of the rise of ratable value.

MR. HARRY SAMUEL () Tower Hamlets, Limehouse

said he should like to know upon which leg the Party opposite desired to stand. If the Committee did anything they approved of, hon. Gentlemen opposite desired the Government to sub stantiate it. If it did not, then they desired the Government to alter it. He thought the words "as compensation were rightly inserted, and that they ought not to be struck out.

(5.28.) Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes 56. (Division List No. 626.)

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Valentin, Viscount Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R. (Bath)
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Walroml, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Welby, Lt-Col. A.C.E. (Taunt'n Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George
Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Thornton, Percy M. Wilson, A. Sbanley(York,E. R.)
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wilson, John (Falkirk) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Titton, Charles Ernest Wilson, J.W. (Worcestersh, N.) Sir Alexander Acland-
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wilson-Todd. Wm. H. (Yorks.) Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Fitzmamice, Lord Edmund Schwann. Charles E.
Asher, Alexander Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Shackleton, David James
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert, John Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)
Broadhurst, Henry Goddard, Daniel Ford Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bryce, Rt.Hon. James Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Burns, John Harwood, George Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Burt, Thomas Hayne, Rt,Hon. Charles Seale- Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R(Northants
Buxton, Sydney Charles Hayter,Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D. Wallace, Robert
Caldwell, James Jones,David Brynmor(Sw'nsea Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Cameron, Robert Levy, Murice Wason, Engene (Clackmannan
Causton,Richard Knight Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Wason, Jon Catherat (Orkney
Cremer, William Randal Norton, Capt. Cecil William Weir, James Galloway
Crombie, John William Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Whiteley, George (York, W. R)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Philipps, John Wynford Whittaker, J. H. (Halifax)Thomas Palmer
Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas Palmer
Dunn, Sir William Rea, Russell Yoxall, James Henry
Elibank, Master of Rigg, Richard
Emmott, Alfred Roberts, John Bryn (Eilion) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Evans, Sir Francis H.(Maidstone Roe, Sir Thomas Mr. Lough and Mr. Haldane.
Fenwick, Charles Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Mr. LOUGH

said the next Amendment he proposed to move was one to which they attached the greatest value. Its object was to prevent the new Walter Board from arriving at an agreement for the purchase of all these great undertakings without bringing the case before the Arbitrators at all. This question had been argued at some length. On Monday last, after a long debate, the right hon. Gentleman met the Committee in a very fair spirit, and stated that he would consider the matter on Report. The right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled his promise, and had put an Amendment on the Paper which went a long way to meet the object he (Mr. Lough) had in view. Under those circumstances he would not detain the House, but would merely ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was quite clear that the Arbitrators would have full power with regard to the suggestions put before them. He wanted to be sure that the intention of the Government was that the Arbitrators should be able to fully examine the agreements, if agreements should be arrived at, and in order to allow any one who was a high authority upon drafting to offer some explanations.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 16, to leave out from the word 'sum' to the end of line 17."—(Mr. Lough.)

"Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he proposed to move the Amendment standing in his name, and the hon. Gentleman would see from the words of the Amendment that they gave full power to the Arbitrators.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn—

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 3, line 27, at end, to add, 'Any such agreement shall be valid only if and so far as it is confirmed by the court of arbitration constituted by this Act, and that court may confirm the agreement either with or without modifications.'"—(Mr. Walter Long.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said they were all very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting the House in regard to this matter. The proposal he made was a satisfactory one, and he hoped it would work well and might save time and trouble. What the Opposition had always felt before was that there was no check on behalf of the ratepayers on the transactions the Water Board might have with the Water Companies. He proposed to insert at the end these words, in order to make it clear—" one constituent authority should have power to object to the agreement." Those words, he thought, would give power to the constituent authorities to object. He thought agreements should not be carried through at all unless the Water Board was unanimous.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he did not know whether the words suggested would give the constituent authorities the right it was desired to give them, but he could not accept the Amendment because it would interfere with what was obviously the duty of the Water Board.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LOUGH thought

Clauses 7 and 8 were very important, and the House ought to give them a little more consideration before they passed them. He moved to omit Clause 7. It was one of the most serious provisions. Under the Bill some £4,500,000 of debentures were to be bought up and extinguished. The Clause provided the principle upon which those debentures were to be bought up, which was for the issue of new water stock. In addition, if there was any deficiency at any time, the rates of the whole area were liable to be called upon to make it up. This made the new water stock to be created a far better security than the present debenture stock. Under the provisions of the Bill, enough stock was to be issued to provide an income equal to the present income derived by the holders from their stock. It had been estimated that this would cast an immense burden upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis. The House had put this particular point before the hon. Gentleman on Monday last. They were buying up not a single company, but eight companies, and the right hon. Gentleman would not contend that the whole of the eight companies stood in exactly the same position. The New River Company had issued a small amount of debentures in proportion to its income and assets, and it had been exceedingly well managed. Therefore, its securities stood on a much higher level than those of some of the other companies. None of the companies could be regarded as bad, but three of them might be said to be in the second class. By this Clause they were put in the same position as those which had the very best debentures. Manifestly that was not fair. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to introduce some general words which would remove the evil which he saw here. He suggested the insertion of some words, such as "an equal amount of stock of an equally good security." That would give the arbitrators a free hand to take into consideration the fact that some of the companies had not such high-class securities as others. He did not want the vendors to be badly treated at all. In order that the point might be dealt with, he begged to move that Clause 7 be left out.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 4, line 4, to leave out Clause 7."— (Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 7 stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

hoped that the hon. Member would not press this. The matter had already been discussed at great length. There was really no foundation for the view the hon. Member had put forward that the value of the debenture stock was to be measured by the stability of the company itself. He had never heard anybody suggest, whatever the position of the London Water Companies, that they did not in each case furnish ample security. The argument that in the case of a company where little stock was issued the debentures were more valuable than in the case of a company where a great deal was issued, was in direct contradiction of the facts. He did not pretend to know what were the rules that governed these matters, but if the hon. Member would look into the facts he would find that the value of the stock had nothing to do with the amount issued. There were a great many other considerations that weighed, and to introduce general words, as had been suggested, would only land them on uncertain ground.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON () Hackney, S.

moved to leave out from sub-Section (6) of Clause 9, the words— But the Adventurers' and the King's shares shall continue to be of the nature of land to the like extent and in like manner as heretofore, and to devolve and be transmissible and dealt with as such, and any water stock issuable to the New River Company under this Act and distributable among the owners of the Adventurers' and King's shares respectively in respect of such shares. He understood that his hon. and gallant friend who represented the New River Company desired to have this matter more carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Company. There were provisions the Clause which required further consideration, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the House an assurance that Amendments would be introduced in another place.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 7, line 30, to leave out from the word 'section,' to the first word 'the,' in line 37."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he entirely agreed with his hon. friend that this Clause required very careful investigation, and that it required amendment. It was a very difficult Clause, and there was no doubt that it carried them further than they ought to be carried with regard to the altered character of the new shares. He would undertake that these matters would be investigated. His hon. and gallant friend had promised him assistance in the matter. He would also take care that it was attended to by the Attorney General, and that Amendments were introduced in another place which would make the Clause plain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. REMNANT () Finsbury, Holborn

moved to leave out "would otherwise be entitled to" in page 9, line 6, Clause 10.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the President of the Local Government Board stated, when the Bill was in Committee, that he might be able to see his way to omit certain words from Clause 10 in order to make it clear that no compensation would be payable. He proposed to omit the words relating to compensation "in respect of the interests of the company in the undertaking of the Joint Committee, or any expenditure by the company in respect of the said undertaking."

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 9, line 6, to leave out from the word 'for,' to the word 'any,' in line 8."—(Mr Sydney Buxton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said that what he promised was that he would again very carefully examine the Clause to see whether it was necessary to alter it. He had done so, and he was assured that there was nothing in the Clause which affected or altered in any way the rights these companies might have at the present time. If they had any rights they must be submitted to the Board of Arbitration, who had full power to deal with them. If they had none, they got nothing fresh under this Clause. He was advised that it was undesirable to alter these words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH

said he was awfully afraid of the word "compensation" whenever he saw it, and he would prefer that these words should be omitted altogether.

MR. GOULDING () Wiltshire, Devizes

said this Clause received very great consideration in the Committee upstairs, and the Chairman laid it down that the companies interested should go absolutely unprejudiced before the Court of Arbitration to state their case. He hoped his right hon. friend would adhere to the words "for compensation." Obviously they had been put in with some object, and it did seem rather hard that they should be struck out now.

MR. REMNANT

also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to stand by the words in the Bill.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,) Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk

said the case of a Water Company would not be prejudiced before the Court of Arbitration by anything in the Clause. The words of the Clause were— nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect any claim which any metropolitan water company would otherwise be entitled to make for compensation in respect of the interest of the company in the undertaking of the Joint Committee or any expenditure by the company in respect of the said undertaking. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved— In Clause 11, page 10, line 18, after 'Enfield,' insert 'and to agreements between the Water Board and those Councils.'

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved— 'In Clause 11, page 10, line 21, at end, insert 'and to agreements between the Water Board and those Companies.'

Amendment agreed to.

(6.0.) MR. LOUGH

said he had an Amendment on the Paper in regard to the equalisation of water charges, which had regard to a provision inserted in the Bill very hastily on Monday last. In every great city of the kingdom, except London, the water supply was handled by the rating authority; and in every great city in the kingdom there was an equalisation of water rates. It was a very good thing for the people who lived in wealthy districts of London that this equalisation of charges should be introduced, but how would it fare with the poor parts of London, where at present the water charges were low? He represented such a district. What they wanted was to go to the richer parts of the City and get them to pay something towards equalising the rates in the poorer parts. But that, he contended, would be impossible under the Bill as it at present stood. At Islington, for instance, a house valued at £20 a year paid £1 4s. for its water, whereas in Camberwell a house of the same value paid £3 7s. What was wanted was that these high charges for water should be reduced, but it should not be done at the cost of the people who now enjoyed the advantage of a low rate.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 13, line 38, at end, to insert the words 'provided that such uniform charges shall not raise the price of water in any district of the Metropolis which now receives a grant under the Equalisation of Rates Act, 1894"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said there could be no doubt that there was a difficulty in regard to the equalisation of the water rates, but that difficulty would not be met by the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, that Amendment would increase the difficulty. It was perfectly true that on one side of a street the charge for water might be much higher than on the other side, and while everybody who paid the higher charge was very glad to see equalisation, those who paid the low charge objected to equalisation. It was admitted on all hands that this question of equalisation was the most difficult task which the Water Board would have to face. It could not be solved, he maintained, by the particular measure proposed in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman; and he respectfully suggested to the House to leave the matter unfettered in the hands of the Water Board.

MR. LOUGH

begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved:— In Clause 15, page 13, line 39, leave out sub-section (7) and insert, '(7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare and publish in the London Gazette a scheme enabling their charges for the supply of water to be collected together with any local rate. Any local or rating authority within the limits of supply may transmit to the Local Government Board their objections to any such scheme within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.'

Amendment agreed to.

MR. WALTER LONG

moved— In Clause 16, page 14, line 39, leave out 'eighty,' and insert 'one hundred.'

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HALDANE

said he wished to amend Clause 18 (Provisions as to the Discharge of Loans, etc.) in respect of the period fixed for the commencement of the sinking Fund. As the Clause stood that period was fixed at twenty years. That would be quite right if this was not a going concern, but it seemed to him that to allow the Water Board to wait twenty years before commencing the Sinking Fund would be a little hard on posterity, and he suggested that seven years would be quite long enough.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 16, line 9, to leave out the word 'Twenty,' and insert the word 'Seven.'—(Mr. Haldane.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'Twenty' stand part of the Bill."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Royal Commission in their Report recommended that a period of twenty years should be given to the Water Board before they formed a Sinking Fund. Everybody pointed out that there would be great difficulties in the way of the new Board that there would be many risks and increased cost of production, seeing the Board was taking over eight different going concerns, and consolidating them into one. On the whole, he thought that this was one of those cases in which it was just to give more generous terms than were usually given. Twenty years was not too long to give to the Board to enable them to accumulate their profits before starting the Sinking Fund; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

regretted the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. It was true the Water Board would have to take a certain risk. and in the opinion of some that risk owing to the constitution of the Board, was considerably enhanced; but it was, after all, taking over a going concern. Its capital, therefore, would not for a number of years be unproductive, which was the usual reason for the postponement of the creation of the Sinking Fund. Moreover, before many years a considerable outlay of capital would be necessary for extensions of works, and possibly for the acquisition of a new and distant source of supply. Under these conditions it was surely desirable that the redemption of the original capital should begin at as early a date as possible. The period of the loan had been extended to 100 years in order that the Sinking Fund should be a smaller annual charge on the ratepayer. But if the creation of the Sinking Fund were postponed for twenty years, it would, when it eventually came into operation, be a heavier charge, because spread over a shorter period, and the advantage of the extension of the period of the loan would be lost. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.

SIR GEORGE BARTLEY () Islington, N.

thought that if the creation of the Sinking Fund were put off for twenty years, there would be a danger of it not being created at all. He really regretted any period of delay whatsoever being allowed. The increasing burdens on the ratepayers were very alarming, and this was the way in which they were aggravated. The water supply of London was a profitable concern, and there was no reason why the Sinking Fund should not commence at once. It would certainly tend to economy, as the ratepayers would feel the burden of the responsibility they were undertaking. He therefore supported the view of the right hon. Gentleman on the other side.

CAPTAIN JESSEL () St. Pancras, S.

hoped the Government would not give way on the point. During the first few years the Board would have large sums to pay in compensation, and it was inadvisable to throw too heavy a burden on the ratepayers.

*MR. WHITMORE

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that the postponement of the Sinking Fund had been used as an argument against a previous Amendment, and had doubtless influenced the action of the hon. Member for Peckham in expressing it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 19, line 39, to leave out the words 'the law of compensation for the purposes of.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 20, line7, after 'expenses,' insert '(other than costs incurred in any arbitration under this Act.)'"—Mr. Walter Long.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOUGH

moved the omission of Clause 26, which he described as one of the most objectionable in the Bill. Under the Clause the Government took power to bring certain areas into the limits of supply, and to leave other out. Consequently it had the right to increase the Water Board practically as it liked. The Bill had been improved by the Government agreement to reduce the number of members to sixty-six, but if it could be increased as he suggested, it would be possible completely to alter the balance of voting strength as between the inside and outside areas. One great weakness of the Clause was that the Local Government Board was restricted to considering the question on the basis of the variation of population, instead of being able to take all the circumstances of the case into consideration. It was a most dangerous Clause, and one which would— if there had been time for discussion in committee—not have been left in the Bill in its present form. There was no area in the world in which there was so much shifting of population as in the particular area here concerned. New residential suburbs were constantly springing up and others going down, and if it went according to the movement of population the representation on the Board would be always changing. The representation was not on any definite principle, and consequently there were such anomalies as Holborn having one representative for 60,000 inhabitants, while Islington with 340,000 inhabitants also had one representative. If any alterations were required, the Water Board should be left to apply to Parliament in the usual way. The best course would be to leave out the Clause altogether; if that could not be done, the first three sub-Sections should be omitted; but, at any rate, the consideration ought not to be restricted to the variation of population.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 22, line 5, to leave out Clause 26."—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'if at any time by reason of' stand part of the Bill."

(6.30.) CAPTAIN JESSEL

thought there was a great deal in the argument of the hon. Member with regard to sub-Section (1), but it would be a pity to leave out the whole Clause.

DR. MACNAMARA

drew attention to the fact that the Amendment had been supported by the Mayor of a borough, the population of which was diminishing, but which nevertheless was to retain two nominees on the Board. The basis of representation was originally fixed on the basis of ratable value and population, whereas under the present proposal the representation was to be varied on the basis of population only. That might cut across the original scheme of representation, but he did not mind that, as he was opposed to ratable value being taken into account at all. He should support the sub-section, as being more democratic than the original scheme.

MR. JOHN BURNS

was convinced that the Amendment would operate in the opposite direction to that desired by the hon. Member for West Islington. It would alter the basis of the Bill, and give a disproportionate representation to declining districts. In the last ten years the population of nine of the central London parishes had diminished to the extent of 67,000, and that, he thought, was an argument against the Amendment.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Clause had been inserted to meet cases which might arise in which an alteration of representation was required. Obviously, it would be far better to make such alterations by the machinery of the Local Government Board and Provisional Order, than by a private Act of Parliament. There was really no danger of anything unjust being done. On the whole, he thought the Clause was a useful one, and had better be retained.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. LOUGH

moved the omission of the words, "the variation of population or." He said the arguments of his hon. friends had not convinced him. Even though shifting of population did take place, the anomalies thereby created would be as nothing compared with those set up under the Bill. There should be no mandatory provision restricting the Local Government Board to the consideration of one point only; the matter should be looked at generally.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 22, line 5, to leave out the words 'the variation of population or.' "—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

MR. JOHN BURNS

thought the hon. Member had forgotten that in the composition of the Board, each Borough Council, irrespective of its population, would have a minimum representation of one member.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HERBERT SAMUEL () Yorkshire, N.R., Cleveland

moved the omission of Clause 33 (saving the rights of the South-West Suburban Water Company). He said that this was a Clause of considerable importance, and Clauses 34, 35 and 36 stood practically on the same footing. There were certain voluntary agreements with the small suburban companies by which the great companies had undertaken not to supply water in certain suburban districts, and this and following Clauses converted these agreements into statutory obligations. Why had this change been made? So far as the agreements were voluntary, they were continued by Clause 45, and would be binding on the Water Board; but these Clauses went much further, and the Water Board would be forbidden from supplying water in districts which the Water Companies had a right to supply. If the companies had not supplied water in these suburban districts it was for good reasons, and those reasons would doubtless guide the Water Board.

Except in regard to the South Essex Company these Clauses had not been discussed by the Joint Committee; they were treated as agreed Clauses. The London County Council had expected the Local Government Board to state the case against the Clauses, and were completely taken by surprise when the Clauses were brought forward as agreed Clauses. They, however, altered statutory limits of supply without examination, and gave monopolies to certain companies which were not now enjoyed under any Act. He hoped the Government would not force these Clauses on the House.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 24, line 13, to leave out Clause 33." (Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

Question proposed, "That the words of Clause 33 stand part of the Bill."

MR. GRANT LAWSON

said these Clauses were inserted by the Joint Committee, by whom individual rights were considered, at the instance of counsel representing the smaller water companies interested. So far from it being the case that the Water Board would be unable to supply within an area which the companies had a right to supply, he might point out that in this instance the Grand Junction Company had no power by statute to supply in the district referred to. It was not a matter for the Government; it was a matter of private rights for the Committee to consider, and the London County Council had notice of the intention to propose the Clauses. The real reason for the greater part of these Clauses was the existence of Clause 3, which provided that where a water company had been accustomed to supply water in any part of a parish the Companies Acts should apply to the whole parish. It would be extremely hard if, where a small company had allowed a bigger neighbour to come in by agreement, Clause 3 should transfer to the Water Board the whole of the parish out of the area of supply granted by Parliament to the smaller company.

MR. LOUGH thought

the House ought to have more justification of these Clauses than had been given. They were, in effect, five private Acts of Parliament for the benefit of five private trading companies. The London Members had had a greater burden thrown upon them by these Clauses than by any other part of the Bill. They knew the areas originally affected very well, but now these suburban authorities had been to the Local Government Board and obtained fresh rights and powers.

MR. GRANT LAWSON

I must protest against that suggestion. The Clauses give the companies no right whatever that they did not before possess.

MR. LOUGH

said that the companies to be bought up by the Water Board had had the right to supply in parts of the area of these smaller companies, and that right was now being taken away, so that the companies would have a monopoly where hitherto there had been competition.

MR. WALTER LONG

pointed out that the Clauses were the result of the procedure to which such Bills as that under discussion were subject. The general principle had to be approved by the House, but in order that the private rights of individuals or corporations should be properly protected the Bill had to go before a Private Bill Committee. The companies presented their case, and every opportunity was given for the opposite view to be stated. The Committee satisfied itself that the Clauses were just, and on the responsibility of the Committee they were inserted. The case with regard to competition had been altogether exaggerated. It was true the competition existed before, but that was between different companies; but now it would be between a private company and the Water Board with the rates of London behind it. That would be most unfair, and he hoped the House would uphold the decision of the Committee.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER () Staffordshire, Lichfield

said they had heard a great deal about the interests of the Water Companies, but the interests of the consumers appeared to have been overlooked. While it was perfectly proper that the rights of private persons should be safeguarded, it was the duty of the House to see that the rights of the public at large were preserved. If the Water Board was to be the best water company in the world, with the best supply and the best management, as it ought to be unless the Bill absolutely failed in its object, the interests of the people in the districts affected by these Clauses were distinctly injured. Enactments which were practically private Acts of Parliament ought not to be passed in this wholesale fashion; there should be careful investigation made in the districts concerned, as would be done if private Bills were introduced.

*COLONEL BOWLES () Middlesex, Enfield

said that Clause 35 dealt with the supply of a portion of his constituency—viz., a part of the parish of Enfield, six miles from Enfield Town. It was impossible for a supply to be given by the Urban District of Enfield, and if the Clause were omitted the only result would be that the local company at Barnet would refuse to spend money in supplying that outlying district. So far from consumers desiring the Clauses to be opposed, it was because they had no fault to find with them that the Clauses were inserted as unopposed Clauses upstairs.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that if it was impossible for the Water Board to supply a particular district, there was no object in passing the Clause, as the company concerned would have a practical monopoly, and would be neither damnified nor benefited by the enactment. Financially, he did not like the Clauses at all. It was perfectly true the Clauses were not opposed before the Committee, but the people interested were the members of the Water Board, a body not yet created, so that it was impossible for them to oppose the Clauses. The position was that at present, while certain companies had a practical monopoly in certain districts, there was a competitive supply which might at any moment, if thought advisable, be brought into operation. The companies were thereby put on their good behaviour. He did not think it would be denied that there was competition at the present moment, and these Clauses would in future give them a statutory monopoly without any power of compensation. He was afraid the position of the consumer would be very seriously injured by these Clauses.

MR. COHEN

said that the suggestion made would be a breach of faith on the part of Parliament, which hade x-pressly informed the company that their rights should not be affected by this

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Galloway, William Johnson More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond. Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Alnaos) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Arnold Forster, Hugh O. Godson, Sir Augusts Frederick Mount, William Arthur
Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn Murry, Rt HnA. Graham(Bute
Bailey, James (Walworth) Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Goulding, Edward Alfred Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Gray, Ernest (WestHam) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Banbury, Sir Frederick Geroge Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Percy, Earl
Beckett, Ernest William Greville, Hon. Ronald Plummer, Walter R.
Bentinek, Lord Henry C. Groves, James Grimble Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Bignold, Arthur Hall, Edward Marshall Pretyman, Ernest George
Blundell, Colonel Henry Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F. Pryee-Johes, Lt.-Col. Edward
Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Hambro, Charles Eric Purvis, Robert
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. Joh Hamilton, Rt.Hn Lord G.(Midd'x Raseb,Major Frederic Carne
Brotherton, Edward Allen Harris, Frederick Leverton Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bull, William James Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Butcher, John George Hay, Hon. Claude George Round, Rt.Hon. James
Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H. Health, Arthur Howard(Hamley Samuel, Harry S.(Limehouse)
Cautley, Henry Strother Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cavendosh, V.C.W. (Derbysire Higginbottom, S.W. Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)
Chamberlain,J. Austen(wore. Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle of Wight
Chapman, Edward Hudson, George Bickersteth Sharpe, William Edward T.
Charrington, Spencer Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Kenyon, Hon. Gco. T.(Denbigh) Sloan, Thomas Henry
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lawrence, Sir Josoph (Monm'th Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand
Conbett, T.L.(Down, North) Lecky, Rt.Hn. William Edw. H. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Crossley. Sir Savile Lockie, John Thornton, Percy M.
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A.R. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Denny, Colonel Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Tritton, Charles Ernest
Dickijnson, Robert Edmond Long, Col, CHarles W.(Evesham Tufnell, Lieut. Col. Edward
Dickson, Charles Scott Long, Rt.Hn. Walter(Brustol,S. Valentia, Viscount
Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fred Dixon Loowe, Francis William Walrond, Rt.Hn. Sir William H.
Doughty, George Lueas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Ahwes. Lucas, RegisnaldJ. (Portsmouth Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Faber, Geprge Demoson (York) Macdona, John Cunming Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh, N.
Fergusson, Rt.Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.
Finaly, Sir Robert Bannatyne Maple, Sir John Blundell Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Fisher,; William Hayes Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Milvain, Thomas
Flower, Ernest Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.
Forster, Henry William Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W. Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Cremer, Willian Randall Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea
Allen CharlesP.(Gloue., Stroud Crombie, John William Lough, Thomas
Asher, Alexander Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Asquith Rt, Hn. Herbert Henry Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles Nolan, Col. JohnP.(Galway, N.
Atherley, Jones, L. Dunn, Sir Wiliam Norton, Cat. Cecil Wiliam
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Emmott, Alfred Pease, J. A (Saffron Walden)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Fenwick, Charles Philipps, John wynford
Broadhurst, Henry Fitzmanrice, Lord Edmond Piric, Duncan V.
Burns, John Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Rea, Russell
Burt, Thomas Fuller, J.M.F. Rigg, Richard
Buxton, sydney Charles Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Caldwell, James Goddard, Daniel Ford Sehwann, Charles E.
Cameron, Robert Haldane, Rt.Hon. Richard B. Shackleton, David James
Causton, Richard Knight Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale- Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

Bill, which only carried out the intention entered into by all parties.

(6.58.) Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes, 137; Noes,

49. (Division List No. 627.)

Shipman, Dr. John G. Whitley, J.H.(Halifax) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Herbert Samuel and Mr. Warner.
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.
Spencer, RtHn. C.R.(Northants Yoxall, James Henry
Weir, James Galloway

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 23, line 38, at end to add 'but no day earlier than the 24th day of June, 1904, shall be appointed as respects any Metropolitan Water Company except with the consent of the Water Company and the Water Board.'"—(Col. Lockwood.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

MR. LOUGH

said this was really opening the whole question of the appointed day. During the year and a half which the hon. and gallant Member wished to stereotype, the company would be in possession, and would have no interest in providing for a new supply of water.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the alteration moved by his hon. and gallant friend had been agreed between all parties in the House. The intention of the Government was to fix an appointed day upon which all the companies were to be vested in the new Water Board unless postponed by the Local Government Board. It was pointed out at the time by his hon. and gallant friend that the words meant that the Board was to be entitled to bring forward the appointed day contrary to the wishes of the parties concerned. That might involve great injustice to the Water Companies. He did not think any such words went necessary, because he thought it was clear that the power of extension was given to be exercised if for some circumstances it seemed necessary to postpone the day; but if his hon. and gallant friend thought the words in the Clause were capable of the interpretation he had placed upon them, he could not resist the words suggested, because they carried out the original intention of the Government.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY () Sheffield, Hallam

moved— In page 32, line 3, after 'salary,' to insert compensation or annual allowance.'

Amendment agreed to.

SIR JOHN COLOMB () Great Yarmouth

moved— In page 32, line 8, leave out 'pension,' 2nd insert 'compensation or annual allowance.'

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LOUGH

moved to leave out Clause 48. He said the proposal contained in this Clause was one which had never been seen before in connection with the buying up of a Water Company, or any other private property which was required for public purposes. The Clause provider! for compensation to the directors of the Water Companies. That was a precedent which they ought not to set up so hastily in this House. It was not in this Bill when it came to the House originally. This compensation would cause a considerable extra charge on the ratepayers of London. There was no basis set out in the Bill on which compensation should take place. The directors were in a very different position from some of those officers of the Water Companies for whose protection the House had passed two Clauses. The directors probably had a considerable interest in the companies, and they would share in the high prices at which the concerns were to be bought. The President of the Local Government Board did not appear to be at all decided in his mind about the wisdom of creating this precedent by the Bill. He left it to his followers behind him. He thought it would have been better if they had not decided in a direction in which the right hon. Gentleman was not willing to lead them. One of these days, when they would have to face their constituents, they might feel that it would have been better not to have taken this course.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 32, line 32, to leave out Clause 48." —(Mr. Lough.)

(7.18.) Question put, "That the words of Clause 48 stand part of the Bill."

The House divided:—Ayes, 98; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 628.)

AYES.
Acland-Hool, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Morgan, DavidJ.(W'ithamst'w
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Morton, Arthur H. Aylemer
Anstrutherm H. T, Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Mount, William Arthur
Arkwright, John Stanhope Greville, Hon. Ronald Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute
Bailey, James (Walworth) Groves, James Grimble Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Hambro, Charles Eric Nicol, Donald Ninian
Beckett, Ernest William Harris, Frederick Leverton Plummer, Walter R.
Bignold, Arthur Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Blundell, Colonel Henry Heath, Arthur Howard (Hapley Purvis, Robert
Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex) Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Resch, Major Frederie Carne
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John Higginbottom, S. W. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Brotherton, Edward Allen Hozier, Hon. JamesHenryCecil Round, Rt.Hon. James
Burdeat-Coutts, W. Hudon, George Bickersteth Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Kenyon, Hon, Geo. T.(Denbigh Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)
Chapman, Edward Law, Andrew Bouar (Glasgow) Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(IsleofWight
Charrington, Spencer Lawrence, SirJoseph(Mouth'th Sharpe, William Edward T.
Compton, Lord Alwyne Lawson, John Grant Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Sloan, Thomas Henry
Crossley, Sir Savile Lockie, John Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Cust, Henry John C. Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S. Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Dickinson, Robert Edmond Lowe, Francis William Thornton, Perey M.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft) Tomlinson, Sir W m. Edw. M.
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lucas, REginaldJ(Portsmouth) Valeutia, Viscount
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Mane't Macdona, John Cumming Walrond, Rt,Hn. Sir William H.
Fisher, William Hayes Maconochie, A. W. Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)
Flower, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wodehouse, Rt.Hn. E.R.(Bath)
Forster, Henry William Maple, Sir John Blundell Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Foster, PhilipS(Warwick, S. W. Messey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F. Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George
Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H.(CityofLond. Milvain, Thomas
Gibbs, Hon. Vieary (St. Albans) Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Godson, Sir AngustusFrederick Moon, Edward Robert Pacy TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Cohen and Mr. Bull.
Gordon, Hn J.E. (Elgin&Nairn) More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire
NOES.
Abraham, William (Rbondda) Dunn, Sir William Roberts, John Bryn (Eafion)
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc, Stroud Emmott, Alfred Roe, Sir Thomas
Asher, Alexander Fenwick, Charles Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Atherley-Jones, L. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund Sehwann, Charles E.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Flannery, Sir Fortescue Shackleton, David James
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Shipman, Dr. John G.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Fuller, J. M. F. Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Broadhurst, Henry Galloway, William Johnson Spencer, Rt.Hn. C.R.(North'nts
Burns, John Goddard, Daniel For Tully, Jasper
Burt, Thomas Hay, Hon. Clande George Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Butcher, John George Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale- Weir, James Galloway
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Caldwell, James Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Causton, Richard Knight Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.) Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Cautley, Henry Strother Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Clive, Captain Percy A. Philipps, John Wynford Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Pirie, Duncan V.
Cremer, William Randal Rattigan, Sir William Henry TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lough and Captain Norton.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Rea, Russell
Denny, Colonel Rigg, Richard
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

moved an Amendment on Rule 1 of Schedule 3, to provide that if a member of the Water Board is appointed chairman or vice-chairman, the appointment shall not create a casual vacancy.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In Schedule 3, page 35, line 2, to leave out all the words after the Bord'Board.'"—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Bill— In page 35, line 5, at end, to insert the words '2. If a person appointed to be a member of the Water Board is a member of the Council or one of the Councils by whom he is appointed, he shall, it he ceases for two months to be a member of that Council, at the end of that period cease to be a member of the Water Board.'"—(Mr. John Burns.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned until this evening.