HC Deb 18 July 1902 vol 111 cc671-724

Considered in Committee

(In the Committee.)

MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

in the Chair.

Clause 1:—

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

had on the Paper an Amendment, to leave out in line 9, the words, "managing and carrying on."

(12.10.) THE CHAIRMAN

ruled the Amendment out of order, on the ground that it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as it had been passed by the House, which had decided in favour of establishing a Water Board to "manage supply," To cut out the word "manage" would be to destroy the principle of the Bill.

MR. LOUGH

said he would like to point out that they had not so far had an opportunity of obtaining from the Government a definition of what was meant by the word "manage," and this was the only chance they would have of getting such an explanation. It was a very vague term, and very hard to interpret, and surely it would be advisable to allow the discussion at this point; for, after all, it was the most important word in the whole Bill.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; if the hon. Member were successful in carrying this Amendment, it would destroy the principle of the Bill to which the House assented on the Second Reading. But I think the hon. Member will be able to raise the point he wishes in connection with the following words dealing with the "carrying on" of the undertakings of the water companies.

MR. LOUGH

thereupon moved to amend the first sub-section by leaving out the words "and carrying on." He said he should have thought that the very object of the Bill was to get rid of the undertakings |of the companies when the proprietors had been paid for them, and to substitute for them a unified system of management and control of the London Water Supply. He feared that if the Clause passed as it stood, an obligation would rest upon the Water Board to carry on the water undertakings in more or less the same form as at present. Necessarily the Water Board should have some function, but the exact nature of the function was subject to a good deal of discussion. It had been decided to form the Water Board and to purchase the undertakings of the various companies, and the question now was as to how the work of bringing water to the London area and distributing it was to be carried on. The chief object in forming a Water Board was to buy out the interests of the water companies, but not necessarily to carry on the system of distribution pursued by the companies. The distribution of water by the Board in the way the companies had carried it on was not the usual method sanctioned by Parliament. Throughout the kingdom there were 931 water authorities established for the distribution of water, and of these all but thirteen were municipal authorities, and of the thirteen not one was in the least like this proposed authority. There was no precedent for such a body as was constituted under the Bill taking up the precise work of the companies. It would be better to omit these words, and by subsequent Amendment confine the efforts of the Board to bringing in the water and distributing it to the municipal authorities within the water area of the new authority, leaving to each municipal authority the details of distribution. The second objection he had to raise was, that if the Clause were carried as it stood, the different local authorities within the area would stand on a different footing—there would not be any equality in their functions. He thought few people realised what was comprised in "WaterLondon." Therewas a population of 6,000,000 to be supplied. The proposed area embraced three great towns with populations exceeding 100,000; three other towns with populations exceeding 90,000, and twenty towns with populations ranging from 30,000 to 70,000. Some of these towns were dealt with in one way, and some in another. While the great majority were put under the Board, and while the powers of the various water companies were conferred upon the Water Board, several of the towns were given the right to distribute the water, and to do the immediate local work. That was the case with regard to Croydon, Richmond, Enfield, Guildford, Hendon, and Dorking. In each of those towns the Water Board would supply the water in bulk, and the local authorities would distribute it. Would it not be wise, in view of those facts, to there consider the desirability of placing the whole area on an equality? The question would be asked whether, if this Amendment were adopted, and the functions of the old companies were not transferred to the Water Board, but that it was obliged to supply water in the way he had suggested, such a scheme would be practicable. His reply was in the affirmative, for the plan had already been adopted, as he had stated, in various towns within the proposed area. In the case of London there were only eight or ten intakes of water, and it would be perfectly simple and easy to stop the control of the Water Board at the intakes and to allow the distribution to be made by the local authorities. When they were discussing some of those points on a previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill suggested that, on the whole, public opinion in London was in favour of the creation of such a Board as that to do the detailed work, instead of leaving it to the local authorities. He had since Loked into that matter. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to point to the Parliamentary representation of the Metropolis as indicating a view in favour of the local authorities being set aside, and the distribution of water placed in the hands of the Water Board, he thought the inference was very different indeed. The votes cast for the Liberals at the last General Election numbered 159,000, although they only succeeded in carrying eight seats, whereas the Unionist aggregate of 250,000 votes secured fifty four representatives in the House of Commons. If representation had been proportionate to the voting power the Liberals should have had twenty-four seats instead of eight.

CAPTAIN JESSEL (St. Pancras, S.)

Does the lion. Member include the unopposed Returns?

MR. LOUGH

said he did. He had no wish to waste the time of the House, but the hon. Gentleman might take it from him that, if the representation of the House were in accordance with the votes cast at the last election, there would be thirty - eight Metropolitan Members on the Ministerial Benches, and twenty - tour on the Opposition Benches.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! The hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment under discussion.

MR. LOUGH

said he was afraid he had done so, but he was led to digress by the question put to him. What ho wished to insist upon was that the expression of opinion in London was very much stronger with regard to this matter than the state of its Parliamentary representation indicated. The real body which represented the views of London on such a question as this was the London County Council, and the great majority of the members of that authority were in favour of the work of distributing the water and carrying on the business of the Water Companies being undertaken by the municipal authorities. A very large question was there raised. He did not think that the precise meaning of the words contained in that and the succeeding line of the Bill had been sufficiently considered, and he did ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was absolutely necessary to impose on the Water Board the duty of carrying on the work in the same way as the eight companies had carried it on. He thought it was contrary to the spirit of the Government proposal. What was wanted was the amalgamation and not the maintenance of eight separate authorities to distribute the water. In his opinion it would be much better to strike out the words "carry on," and to substitute other words which would make it quite clear that the object of the Bill was to unify and amalgamate the London water system, and to secure a better method than now obtained.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'and carrying on.' "—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That the words ' and carrying on' stand part of the Clause."

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

There was one remark which I heard fall from the hon. Gentleman with unfeigned pleasure, and I hope he will carry it into full practice as we proceed with debates on this Bill. He has told us that this first Clause contains practically the whole of the Bill, and I therefore trust that when we have got through that Clause there will be little delay in completing the Committee stage. Apart from that remark of the hon. Gentleman, I confess I find myself unable to understand his intentions. His Amendment, no doubt, is a very simple one, but if it were adopted it would have the effect of reducing the Bill to mere nonsense. The duty of the new Board is to purchase and acquire the undertakings of the Water Companies and to carry them on, but what foundation the hon. Gentleman has for his statement that they are to be carried on in precisely the same way as they are managed by the Water Companies I do not know. I can see nothing in the Bill to justify that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has covered the whole ground of opposition to this Bill. He has dealt with the opinion of London, he has dealt with the new bodies, and he has dealt with the London County Council. But, with the utmost respect, I must decline, on an Amendment to leave out words of this kind, to travel over again the whole ground in connection with the general policy of this Bill, a ground which was covered on the Second Reading, and which will be raised again when we approach the consideration of the actual constitution of the governing body. The omission of these words would leave this Clause in an altogether incomplete condition. The hon. Gentleman is apparently afraid that the new Board will not only be compelled to carry on the water undertakings precisely as now, but that they will not have sufficient power to carry out those reforms which we all desire to see adopted with regard to the administration of London water supply. I do not think there is any foundation for his fears in the Bill before the Committee. The Board will have all the powers, duties, and obligations now possessed by the Water Companies, and it will be able to treat the whole area as one. It will, therefore, be able to effect such reforms as may be desirable. I submit that Parliament is doing all that is reasonable and just in transferring the undertakings to the now Board. With the powers to be conferred on it, the Board will carry out such reforms as experience suggests, and, if further powers should be required, Parliament will be asked to grant them. I earnestly hope the Committee will reject the Amendment, mainly because if adopted it would deprive the new Board of power, which obviously it should possess, viz., the carrying on the work of the Water Companies.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

said the right hon. Gentleman evidently misunderstood the remarks of his hon. friend as to the importance of the first Clause. No doubt it was the most important Clause but it did not follow that the subsequent Clauses did not involve a very largo number of important points. The point dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman was not the main point raised by the Amendment, but a comparatively small point which could be dealt with on Clause 3. The Amendment also raised the more important point of the suitability of the proposed new Board to manage and carry on the water supply of London. In every other case in the kingdom the municipal body had been taken as a body capable of dealing with the water supply. The Bill departed from this principle of recognising the municipality, and instituted a body perfectly unknown to our present municipal life. His hon. friend was justified in raising this question, because they wanted to know the reasons which actuated him in this departure arid in instituting a grotesque, fantastic, and unworkable body, founded on no principle, and apparently intended to prevent a municipal body from carrying on the work. Even if the new body were a suitable body to purchase they would not be a fit body to manage and carry on, most of their interests being antagonistic. It would not be able to carry on the work anything like as I efficiently as it was now performed. Look at the position in which this fantastic body would be placed in regard to management. The day on which the undertakings were to be taken over had been extended to two and a half years hence. What was the present proposal of the Government? It was that on an appointed day the Water Board should be compelled to take into its service all the officers of the existing water companies. What did that mean? It meant that for two and a half years, covering by far the most important period of its existence, the Water Board would either have to duplicate the stall of the water companies or it would have no officers of its own. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in taking that first opportunity of drawing attention to the powers to be conferred on this Board, especially as the Committee was now in a position to consider the Bill on its merits in the light of the evidence which had been published.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said this was a most unbusinesslike discussion of an unbusinesslike Amendment. They were being asked to constitute a Water Board and not to allow it to carry out the objects for which it was to be brought into existence. The proper time to discuss the question whether the new Board was or was not fantastic was when the Clause respecting the constitution of the Board was reached. It was reducing the Clause to nonsense to propose that a Board should not manage and carry on a business which they were created in order to acquire and carry on.

DR. MACNAMABA (Camberwell, N.)

said the hon. Member who spoke of the unbusinesslike discussion of an unbusinesslike Amendment should have

rounded oft his statement by adding the words "touching an unbusinesslike Bill." The right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Amendment would reduce the Bill to mere nonsense. But that would be a gratuitous effort on their part, for the fact was it had been reduced to nonsense already by the insistence of the Government on the form of the Water Board. Surely before they agreed to conferring on the Board the duty of purchasing, managing, and carrying on the undertakings of the various water companies, they had a right to know something about the complexion and size of the Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the Committee would have a free hand in considering the constitution of the Board, the passing of the Bill would be facilitated. All they wanted to do was to create a workable authority. They were successful upstairs until the Government and the Cabinet hustled the Committee.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That has nothing to do with this Amendment.

DR. MACNAMAEA

said that so long as the Government adhered to the Board as constituted by the Bill he would have to oppose the measure tooth and nail. All he wanted was that the Committee should have a perfectly free hand to constitute the Board.

(12.58.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 99; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F. Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire Flower, Ernest
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nain)
Arrol, Sir William Chen, Benjamin Louis Goulding, Edward Alfred
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Groves, James Grimble
Bailey, James (Walworth) Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Gunter, Sir Robert
Bain, Colonel James Robert Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Baldwin, Alfred Crost, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Horner, Frederick William
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Crossley, Sir Savile Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Cubitt, Hon. Henry Hoult, Joseph
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Dickson, Charles Scott Jeffreys, rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Bill, Charles Doughty, George Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Douglas, Rt. hon. A. Akers- Lawrenee, Sir Joseph (Monm'th
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Lawson, John Grant
Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Brotherton, Edward Allen Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.
Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H. Fisher, William Hayes Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. Purvis, Robert Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray
Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent Randles, John S. Tuke, Sir John Batty
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Renshaw, Charles Bine Valentia, Viscount
Macdona, John Cumming Richie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
M'Crae, George Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Welby, Lt-Col.A.C.E (Taunton
Manners, Lord Cecil Russell, T. W. Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne
Montagu, G. (Huntington) Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E, R. (Bath
Murray Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Smith, Hon. W. F.D. (Strand) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Nicol, Donald Ninian Spear, John Ward Wylie, Alexander
Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesl'y Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Percy, Earl Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley Sir William Walrond and
Plummer, Walter R. Thornton, Percy M. Mr. Anstrather.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W,
Boland, John Harrington, Timothy O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Brigg, John Hayden, John Patrick Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- Pirie, Duncan V.
Burns, John Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Power, Patrick Joseph
Buxton, Sydney Charles Jacoby, James Alfred Rea, Russell
Caldwell, James Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea Reddy, M.
Cameron, Robert Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Jordan, Jeremiah Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Causton, Richard Knight Joyce, Michael Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Channing, Francis Allston Kennedy, Patrick James Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Clancy, John Joseph Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Soares, Ernest J.
Cremer, William Randal Layland-Barratt, Francis Sullivan, Donal
Delany, William Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Acc ington Thomas, J A(GlamorganGower
Doogan, P. C. Leng, Sir John Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Lundon, W. Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)
Duncan, J. Hastings MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Edwards, Frank Mooney, John J. Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.
Elibank, Master of Murphy, John Young, Samuel
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Nannett-, Joseph P.
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.
Furness, Sir Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John Norton, Capt. Cecil William Mr. Lough and Dr. Mac
Grant, Corrie Nussey, Thomas Willans namara.

The next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of Captain Norton (Newington, W.), was— To insert after 'on' in line 9 of Clause 1, the words 'until the transference is completed.'

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not see any meaning in the Amendment.

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

said that Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill referred to the transfer of the undertakings of the water companies to the Water Board. If there was a transfer, the Water Board might be in a position to carry on separately the duties of the eight water companies for a period of nearly two and a half years. Therefore, it was a matter of great importance that words should be added to make it perfectly clear that the Board was only to carry on these separate undertakings until the period when the whole would be amalgamated and carried on as one concern.

*THE CHAIRMAN

It seems to me that the Committee has already decided that the Water Board which is to be established is to acquire by purchase and carry on all these undertakings. The hon. Member's Amendment says that the Board shall only do that "until the transference is completed."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said there was some difference between the words "managing" and "carrying on." What some hon. Members on this side thought was that "management" meant general control of the undertakings; while "carrying on" referred to the carrying on of the separate undertakings of the companies.

MR. LOUGH

said the particular words of the Amendment referred to what was to be done with the separate undertakings.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

asked the President of the Local Government Board to give definitions of what was meant by "management" and "carrying on." There must be some reason for having these words in the Clause.

CAPTAIN NORTON

May I be permitted to move the Amendment formally, in order to obtain an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman?

*THE CHAIRMAN

I confess I cannot understand the Amendment in the least. I do not know whether the hon. Member can throw any fresh light upon it, but so far as I do understand it, it appears to be nonsense, and if it is nonsense it would be out of order.

MR. LOUGH

said he would move the Amendment of which he had given notice, to insert after "on" the words "until the purchase is completed." After the speech which the President of the Local Government Board made half-an-hour ago, he thought it was necessary to insert some words like these, though he did not say these exact words. The right hon. Gentleman said that there could be no intention to throw the obligation on the Water Board to carry on indefinitely the eight separate undertakings as they stood at present. The whole Bill read as if that was the intention of the Government. The Board was to carry on each particular work. He found the word "each" in Clause 3, where it was stated that the Water Board should hold the undertaking of "each" Metropolitan Water Company, and be subject, to all the duties and obligations of the company. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that they ought not to keep open six or seven different offices.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, after the word 'on' to insert the words 'until the purchase is completed.'"—(Mr. Lough.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was sure the hon. Gentleman did not want to absolutely waste the time of the Committee. There was nothing in this Clause or in Clause 3 which was capable of the construction which the hon. Gentleman placed upon it. There was nothing about separate accounts or separate offices. The duty was imposed on the Water Board to do the work of the companies and to carry on their undertakings. It was quite obvious that it would be impossible for all the transfers to take place at the same time or on the same day; but as soon as all the undertakings were in possession of the Board, there was nothing in this Clause or in Clause 3 to prevent the Board carrying them on as a general concern, subject to the powers given under various Acts of Parliament.

MR. LOUGH

said he thought that that settled the matter.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not think the Amendment ought really to be pressed. It would limit the action of the Board until such time as the purchase was completed. That would be to make nonsense, and certainly it would destroy the principle of the Bill.

MR. LOUGH

said he quite saw that, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH

moved— In Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after the second word 'the' to insert the word 'water'. This was, he said, only a drafting Amendment, but he thought it was necessary, in order to include the Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the Staines Joint Committee was included in the first schedule.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that the Staines Joint Committee would have to go to arbitration in regard to their reservoirs, and he thought it was a dangerous thing that it should be treated as a separate question of arbitration. The arbitrators might be inclined to think that the House had instructed them to deal with the Staines reservoirs as a going concern.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that that was a question that was dealt with by Clause 10.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LOUGH

said the next Amendment he had to move was— In Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'water, to insert 'in bulk to the local authorities.' This question, he said, had been a good deal discussed upstairs, and the Chairman of the Surrey County Council gave evidence with regard to it. That County Council had executed an agreement with the London County Council that if the latter obtained their Bill they would secure severance. The Chairman of the Kent County Council also gave evidence in regard to the question, and stated that the local authorities throughout Kent wished for a supply of water in bulk.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Committee had already decided that the duty of the new Board was not to supply water in bulk, but to distribute it within the area described in the second schedule.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he thought the Amendment would be a limitation of what had already been passed.

MR. LOUGH

said he was quite sure that the supply of water in bulk to the local authorities would be a much better system to adopt than that proposed by the Bill. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill only authorised the Water Board to carry on the duties of the Water Companies, but that did not shut out the case of supplying water in bulk, because some of the Companies already supplied water in bulk. The duty which the Water Board ought to perform should be to secure the water, filter it, and then supply in bulk the water to all the local authorities, leaving the latter to settle their local difficulties within their own areas. Otherwise, the streets of those local authorities might be pulled up by the Water Board, and the local authorities would be interfered with in hundreds of ways.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he could not possibly accept the Amendment, because it would be contrary to the scope of the whole measure. The hon. Gentleman had said that his proposal had been discussed by the Committee upstairs; but it also had formed the subject of very careful examination by the Royal Commission, which condemned it, in paragraph 136 of their Report, as being not only inconvenient, but expensive. If the plan of supplying water in bulk were adopted, it would mean, in the western areas, the entire re-construction of the existing mains, would involve an enormous expenditure, and obviously would deprive the new authorities of any opportunity of raising sufficient revenue to do the very work which the hon. Gentleman said they ought to do, viz., to reduce the cost of water to the ratepayers.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the Amendment, for be had argued as if it meant severence, and not the supply of water in bulk. Severence no doubt would involve the construction of new mains. The County Councils in the outside areas would have preferred severence, and they gave evidence to that effect; but the majority of them would rather have water supplied in bulk than come under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. They felt that this new body would be of such a character, and London would have such a monopoly of influence, that they would be practically impotent to control their water supply. The system of supplying water in bulk had worked successfully in other parts of the country. He thought that under the plan in the Bill a great deal of the work of the Water Board would be hampered by conflicting interests. He did not think it was quite fair that this matter should be treated, and that they should be asked to settle it, as if it were a totally different matter. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, as it was a matter of material importance. The large amount of evidence brought before the Committee fully justified the proposal made, and what the Committee felt was that if it was accepted, this Amendment would enable those authorities, if they so desired, to have their water supplied in bulk. It would in no way destroy the Water Board that was created by this Bill, but would, on the contrary, make it more compact, and get rid of those difficulties which must occur between the inside and outside authorities, and make it more convenient for them to deal with the water interests in their own localities in their own way. He thought it was rather hard that districts like Halford should not be allowed to deal with their water as they desired. There was no principle involved, and he thought the outside authorities ought to have an option in the matter, and ought to be allowed to come upon the Board in the way in which he had suggested.

MR. HARRY SAMUEL (Tower Hamlets, Limehouse)

expressed the opinion that if this Amendment were accepted the Clause would be reduced to absolute nonsense. If this Amendment were carried, the powers of the new Water Board would be limited to supplying water in bulk and in no other way. It would compel everybody to take water in bulk, and in his opinion it was a most ridiculous proposition.

SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)

agreed that if the Amendment were accepted it would render it compulsory for the Water Board to distribute to all the areas within the schedule water in bulk. It might be a desirable thing that some of these authorities should take their water in bulk, but if they did, it was desirable that it should be regulated in some way. This Amendment, therefore, would go further than his hon. friend desired or the hon. Member beside him advocated. This subject was of great importance and should not, it seemed to him, be raised by an Amendment of this kind, but rather by means of a separate Clause in the Bill.

MR. CORRIE GRANT (Warwickshire, Rugby)

asked what was meant exactly by the words "generally for the purposes of supplying water" The preliminary words gave the Water Board all the power of the companies, and it seemed to him that those words, unless qualified, would cover the supply of water in bulk.

DR. MACNAMARA

asked whether the Bill provided that, if a local authority so desired, it should be permitted to have its water supplied in bulk by the Water Board.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Bill did not make it compulsory on the Water Board to supply any local authority in bulk. His answer to the hon. Member was, therefore, in the negative.

DR. MACNAMARA

said that in that case he would move to amend the Amendment by adding some words to it. He begged to move after the word "authority" to insert "if so required."

MR. WALTER LONG

said he only agreed to the insertion of these words in order that the whole Amendment, when put, might be rejected.

MR. GEORGE WHITELEY (Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey)

thought the Amendment would materially assist not only the Water Board but the local authorities to carry out their undertakings. It was desirable, in his opinion, that in this matter there should be some decentralisation, and the local authorities should be allowed to take water in bulk if they desired so to do. It was, he thought, a step in the right direction. It was the right of every locality to supply its own people with water if it wished to, and he had always striven to prevent the introduction into these various local areas of foreign influence. All local areas should be self-contained, and one of the most valuable privileges they had was the distribution of their own water. It might be suggested that it would deprive the Water Board of a certain amount of profit, but that could not be so, because as the outside areas developed, more water would be required. He urged in the interest of local government that this Amendment as amended should be looked on with favour by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said the Amendment would so alter the words of the Clause as left by the Committee that it would practically destroy it. The Amendment, if adopted, would deprive the Water Board of a considerable proportion of the revenue of their undertaking. The result would be that the Metropolitan Water Board would become a sort of wholesale water broker for the purpose of distributing wholesale lumps of water to the local authorities, who would make a profit on it. He also called attention to the drafting of the Amendment.

SIR ROBERT REID

pointed out that the Amendment as it now stood raised the question of whether or not there ought to be an opportunity, under proper conditions and safeguards, given to local authorities to take water in bulk. He had ventured before to suggest that this Amendment was not the proper way to deal with that question, because it could not be fenced round with the necessary safeguards. He now wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not wish to prevent legitimate business questions being discussed. The point raised by this Amendment was of great importance, and it seemed to him that it might be a great convenience, not only to the local authority, but also to the central Board itself, that water in some districts should be taken in bulk. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee reason to anticipate that he would fairly consider any proposal put forward with proper safeguards.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that as he was advised there was nothing in the Bill to prohibit the new authority from entering into an agreement with a local authority if it was desirable to do so to supply water in bulk, except that they would be under a statutory obligation to supply the district. He would, however, immediately respond to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would certainly give such a clause as ho suggested the consideration he asked for.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had at last seen that there was material substance in the Amendment.

MR. WATER LONG

I did not say so. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an entirely different proposition.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given an assurance to favourably consider a Clause upon this point when brought in. He, however, desired to point out that with regard to some of the outside areas there was already power given by Clauses 13 and 14 to supply them with water in bulk. He therefore did not see how any principle was affected by the Amendment.

CAPTAIN NORTON

said the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to meet the Committee so far that he had consented to consider a new clause, which would have for its object the giving of such powers to the Water Board as would enable it to give water in bulk to such authorities as desired it. The Water Board would be, under certain circumstances, as the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had suggested, a wholesale water broker. It must be remembered that it was not only the question of water that was affected by this Amendment, but also sanitation, which was largely a question of water; and it certainly was not unreasonable to suggest that such localities as desired it should have the distribution of their own water.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn [2.0].

(2.30.) MR. CORR1E GRANT

moved to leave out in Clause 1, lines 13 and 14, the words "subject to such alterations therein as may be made by or under this Act." It seemed to him that the words were quite unnecessary.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was proposed to make certain changes with regard to districts now supplied by the water companies. The words proposed to be left out were necessary in order to make it perfectly clear that certain places mentioned in other clauses of the Bill were excluded from the operation of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUGH

moved— In page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out ' (which area is in this Act referred to as the; limits of supply.)' He said there were provisions in the Bill which might vary the limits of supply. Some places might go out and others might possibly be added. He did not see the good of the parentheses at all.

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

said the expression "limits of supply" was in the Bill, and it was desirable to have some definition of what was meant by that.

Amendment negatived.

MR. CORRIE GRANT

moved the following Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire — In page 1, line 15, after the word 'supply, to insert 'Provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudice any future application that may be made to Parliament on behalf of any County or District Council for withdrawing the whole or any part of the area under its control from the said limits of supply.'

MR. WALTER LONG

said this proviso was unnecessary, because it must be obvious that whatever power Parliament possessed now to change the existing condition of things, it would possess in future to change the condition of things brought into operation by this Bill.

Amendment negatived.

DR. MACNAMARA

moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, to leave out Subsection 3. He was opposed to the Subsection, because he was at variance with the proposal contained in it. There was no precedent for the scheme, either in regard to size or constitution, and it was grotesque and unworkable in itself. He was opposed to it, too, because it offended against all the principles of financial propriety. The Board, as proposed, not only represented the counties, but also the smaller areas within the counties. From the point of view of finance, there was absolutely no ground for the inclusion of these smaller areas, which were already represented through their county.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 19, to leave out sub-section (3).—(Dr. Macnamara.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Act the Water Board shall consist of stand part of the Clause.' "

SIR ROBERT REID

suggested that the Amendment should be put in such a way as not to oust subsequent Amendments.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he did not complain of the Amendment, though it appeared to be a little inconvenient. Alt the arguments he should desire to use in answer to the objections the lion. Member had raised were arguments he must address to the Committee when they came to the Amendment which definitely raised the question of the number and constitution of the new Board. It was quite obvious that a a sub-section of some kind must find a place in the Clause. If there was to be a Board it must be constituted in some shape or form; and therefore, if they omitted the whole of the sub-section, the Bill would be left in a very incomplete form.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

admitted that there was a great deal of force in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but what they were anxious to do was to raise the question of the introduction of the Borough Councils into the constitution of the Board, a proposal to which they had great objections. It was fairer to them and to the Committee that the discussion should take place on this Clause rather than on the Schedule.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for North Wilts definitely raised the question of the choice between the county constitution and the constitution in the Bill.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to distinguish between the question of size and that of constitution.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

said their objection to Sub-section 3 was that it would fix the number of the Board before they knew what its constitution was to be. It was not desirable to fix the number before the Committee had decided what bodies were to be represented on the Board.

MR. LOUGH

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would promise to leave the question of the Members of the Board to the Committee for decision. A promise to do this would be received with a great deal of satisfaction, and would do something to facilitate the progress of the Bill.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the two questions of the number on the Board and of its precise constitution were quite distinct. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asked that the Government whips should not tell when they came to decide the constitution of the new authority. He had often heard this appeal made to Ministers, and, as a rule, he had not the smallest sympathy with it, as it was generally made with regard to some vital principle which had the support of the supporters of the Government. He was convinced that if the question were left to the decision of the Committee in the open form, the result would not vary in any degree from that which would follow in the ordinary course. There was the solid fact to keep in view, that out of sixty-three Members for London, fifty - five had supported these proposals. Therefore, he tailed to understand why Members, who did not represent London or Metropolitan constituencies, should believe that they could convince London against itself. But, however that might be, he could not assent to the proposal. The scheme of the Government had been carefully considered; it had the support of the great majority of the representatives of the Metropolis and of the Metropolitan constituencies, and when the time came he would be

prepared to defend it. He hoped the Committee would be allowed to pass on to the consideration of the next Amendment which would raise the first question in a definite form.

SIR ROBERT REID

said the point they had now to consider was how best to discuss these matters. There were two questions which were inextricably bound up with one another. One referred to the number and the other to the constitution of the Board, and the decision on the one must affect the other.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he was sorry to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as, on the Second Reading, he had said that he would leave the matter to the House.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. There were two distinct questions. As to the actual number of the Board, he still held the view that proposals made for the reduction of the number, which were consistent with the principle underlying the constitution of the Board, might be left to the House. But that did not apply to the question of the principle of the representation of the Metropolitan boroughs.

DR. MACNAMARA

said he felt bound to take this opportunity of dividing the Committee after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

(2.58.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 304.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir AlexF. Bignold, Arthur Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Allhusen, AugustusH'nryEden Blundell, Colonel Henry Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Bond, Edward Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Arrol, Sir William Bowles T. Gibson (Lynn Regis Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Brotherton, Edward Allen Dickson, Charles Scott
Bain, Colonel James Robert Carlile, William Walter Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Balcarres, Lord Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Baldwin, Alfred Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Doughty, George
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey) Chapman, Edward Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds Clive, Captain Percy A. Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Banbury, Frederick George Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Faber, George Denison (York)
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Coghill, Douglas Harry Ferguson, Rt. Hn Sir J. (Mane'r
Beresford, Lord Chas. William Cohen, Benjamin Louis Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Colliags, Rt. Hon. Jesse Fisher, William Hayes
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penorse- M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)
Flower, Ernest Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Simeon, Sir Barrington
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn.) Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Goulding, Edward Alfred Morrell, George Herbert Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Greene, W. Ramond (Cambs. Morton, Arthurt H. A.(Deptford Spear, John Ward
Groves, James Grimble Mount, William Arthur Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Gunter, Sir Robert Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Muntz, Sir Philip A. Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hare, Thomas Leigh Myers, William Henry Thornton, Percv M.
Hickman, Sir Alfred Nieol, Donald Ninian Tomlin-on, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Horner, Frederick William Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley Tuke, Sir John Batty
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Pemberton, John S. G Valentia, Viscount
Hoult, Joseph Pierpoint, Robert, Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield
Houston, Robert Peterson Platt-Higgins, Frederick Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hudson, Gearge Bickersteth Plummer, Walter R. Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. Taunt'n)
Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Whiteley, H (Ashton und Lyne
Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Pretyman, Ernest (George Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Purvis, Robert Wilson-Todd. Wm. H.(Yorks.)
Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Randles, John S. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath
Lawson, John Grant Rankin, Sir James Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham Renshaw, Charles Bine Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Wylie. Alexander
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Lonsdale, John Brownlee Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Loyd, Archie Kirkman Royds, Clement Molyneux
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft Russell, T. W. TELLER FOR THE AYES—
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Sackville, Col. S, G. Stopford- Sir William Walrond and
Macdona, John Cumming Sadler, Col, Samuel Alexander Mr. Anstruther.
Maconochie, A. W. Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
NOES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.
Boland, John Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Kelly, James (Bosconunon, N
Brigg, John Jacoby, James Alfred O'Shanghnessy, P. J.
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea Paulton, James Mellor
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Jordon, Jeremiah Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Burke, E, Haviland- Joyce, Michael Pirie, Duncan V.
Burns, John Kearley, Hudson E. Power, Patrick Joseph
Buxton, Sydney Charles Kennedy, Patrick James Rea, Russell
Caldwell, James Labouchere, Henry Reckitt, Harold James
Cameron, Robert Lambert, George Reddy, M.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries
Causton, Richard Knight Layland-Barratt, Francis Rickett, J. Compton
Channing, Francis Allston Leamy, Edmund Rigg, Richard
Clancy, John Joseph Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Craig, Robert Hunter Leng, Sir John Roe, Sir Thomas
Cremer, William Randal Levy, Maurice Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Crombie, John William Lundon, W. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Stevenson, Francis S.
Delany, William MacVeagh, Jeremiah Strachey, Sir Edward
Doogan, P. C. M'Crae, George Sullivan, Donal
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Duncan, J. Hastings M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Dunn, Sir William Markham, Arthur Basil Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Edwards, Frank Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Emmott, Alfred Mooney, John J. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Esmonde, Sir Thomas Moulton, John Fletcher Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Murphy, John Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Furness, Sir Christopher Nannetti, Joseph P. Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)
Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John Nolan. Col. John P. (Galway, N. Yoxall, James Henry
Grant, Corrie Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Norton, Capt. Cecil William TELLER FOR THE NOES—
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William Nussey, Thomas Willans Dr. Macnamara and Mr.
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Lough.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the Amendment he now rose to move was really one of the most important Amentments on the Bill that they had to discuss. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, that, though unfortunately he did not see his way to surrender on this question, he would leave the constitution of the Board an open question, and allow the House to exercise its judgment as to the size of the Board. In what he desired to say to the Committee he wished to separate the question of the, size of the Board from its constitution. He confessed he very much regretted the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up in regard to the matter within the last few months. This was a very great question affecting all the ratepayers and consumers of water in London; and he thought that the matter ought to have been settled by some more or less general agreement. He should be very glad to give up his preconceived opinions, perhaps even prejudices, in order to make a broad and strong and workable body, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not so far, apparently, been able to come to any arrangement. What they had got to find out from the right hon. Gentleman was, on what basis he had fixed the number of members for the Board. So far as he could see, it was a purely arbitrary figure. Neither in the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, nor in the evidence before the Committee upstairs, was there any basis on which this particular number had been fixed. The proposal that he had ventured to make to the Committee was in the nature of a compromise. That the London County Council should be the authority was obviously out of the question at the present moment; but it was equally clear that the proposal of the Government was not acceptable to the House. He therefore submitted a compromise which might very well meet the views of both sides of the House. He did not altogether agree with it, but he would accept it as a working arrangement. Substantially the proposal of the Committee was that the constitution of the Board should be on a county basis, and that the numbers should be materially reduced. That was agreed to by the Committee by the weight of the evidence brought before them. It was an impartial Committee, and the Government had a majority upon it, yet by a majority of six to three they adopted the proposal that he submitted that afternoon. Everyone would agree that what was wanted was a business-like body which would carry on their business with efficiency and despatch; and unless they got such a body as that, it would be a very serious matter for the ratepayers in reference to the price which they would have to pay to the Water Companies, and also in regard to the manner in which the business of the Water Board I would be carried on afterwards. He himself would rather go on with the existing system of eight Water Companies, which managed their business very well, than that an unbusiness-like Board, such as that proposed in the subsection, should be substituted for them. What had been done before was in favour of the compromise now proposed. In 1880, when the first Water Board was proposed by Lord Cross, then hon. Secretary, the number suggested was twenty-one. And the present Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, at the beginning of their career proposed that the number should be thirty. Then there was the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Landaff, which recommended that the number on the Board should not exceed thirty, and they based their recommendation on the knowledge they had acquired of the duties which would be required of this particular body. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the introduction of the Metropolitan Borough Councils had altered the circumstances. But he would point out that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who was a Member of the Landaff Commission, said he was quite certain that they would not have created a body consisting of sixty-seven Members. In no other part of the country, in great cities like Liverpool and Birmingham, the Board or Committee to manage the water supply did not consist in numbers anything like approaching those proposed by the Bill. That was the position when the right hon. Gentleman produced this Bill, and it ought to have indicated to him that the Board should be a small one, of working proportions. What they wanted from the right hon. Gentleman was some real arguments to show that a body of seventy-three Members would be a workable, homogeneous, and business like Hoard. The right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech, stated that the largeness of the Board was to a great extent founded on the opinion of experts. But he thought that it was hardly treating the House fairly not to call the evidence of these experts in reference to this particular point. There was no such evidence laid before the Joint Committee. On the other hand, there was evidence of the experts who controlled the water supply of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Gloucester, and else A-here, that the proposed body was far too large, and that the number should be thirty or under. He ventured to point out to the Committee that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman had met with no support from any quarter—from the Royal Commission, from the Joint Committee, or elsewhere. In the first place, the Moderate Members of the London County Council had one and all said that they were opposed to the proposal of the Government. Again, during the two or three debates in this House, every Member who spoke, with the exception of the Member for Lime-house, drew attention to this matter as the real blot on the Bill, and very strongly objected to the size of the body. Then his hon. friend the Member for the Strand Division, who was Chairman of the Committee of London Unionist Members, on the First Reading of the Bill, implied that the Board was of a rather unwieldy size, and that statement was cheered by hon. Members on his own side of the House. Then, the hon. Member for Chelsea, who had great experience in these matters, said that there were certain changes he should like to see in the constitution of the Board, and that he should prefer that the numbers should be reduced. The hon. Members or South Islington, East Islington, and Tewkesbury, and every speaker on the Ministerial side of the House condemned this part of the Bill. As to the Joint Committee, it appeared from their Report that the majority of that Committee were convinced by the evidence before them, and had by a majority thrown over the proposal in the Bill, and adopted that which he now submitted to the Committee. It was true that, for some reason, they did not adhere to that view, but they had never affirmed the schedule in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, through his Under Secretary, stated that when the Bill went into Committee, while other matters were matters of principle, this question of numbers should go to the Committee as an open question, and the right hon. Gentleman himself had affirmed that. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman adopt the same attitude now?

MR. WALTER LONG

said the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. What he said was that, while he might agree to a reduction in the number of the Board, he adhered to the view that that reduction should not involve the exclusion of the representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said that the whole question turned on the number of the Board. This was a purely administrative body, and it was important, especially in regard to the question of. purchase, that it should be a strong, homogeneous body with some purpose in their mind, and able to work together. It was quite clear however, that in the large and unwieldy body proposed, they would not secure such a body as that. They would not get that individual responsibility on the part of the members by which alone the duties imposed upon them could be properly discharged. A spirit of "What's everybody's business is nobody's business," would prevail. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were to be paid officials; and it was quite certain that practically the whole business of the Board would get into their hands and into the hands of the other paid officials. Unfortunately, they in London had had experience of that in the past. It was largely that which had caused the old Metropolitan Board of Works to be so inefficient, and had caused so much dissatisfaction to the ratepayers. The Under Secretary argued that the numbers were not too large, because the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and the London County Council had equal or larger numbers. [AN HON. MEMBER: And the Liverpool Corporation.] He did not know that anybody who was a member of the London County Council, would say that the; numbers of that Corporation wore too largo for the work they had to do. As to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they had a very large number of Boards of Guardians necessarily represented on it; and, as regarded the Liverpool Corporation, it should be remembered that they had to manage all the city's affairs, beside the water supply. In his opinion, if the London County Council had been allowed to control the water supply, they would have been able to handle it easily, with the number of members at their disposal. The Committee must remember that this was a going concern; that it was not the creation of a large number of new concerns; and he would appeal to any Water Company director whether, supposing the Water Companies had themselves agreed to amalgamate into one company, the Board of Directors would not have been far fewer than the Board now proposed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that ho wanted to bring on the Board, representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, but the impression left on the minds of some of them by his speech on the First Beading of the Bill, and the evidence given before the Joint Committee, was that the right hon. Gentleman had got his numbers first, and then afterwards looked about to see what authorities should be represented on the Board. No one would assert that the Board would be a directly representative body. It would, in any case, be a secondary body; and, in part of its composition, it would be non-representative. The essence of the matter was of whether the purchase of the Water Companies would be a success or a failure. It would not be against the principle of the Bill if the Borough Councils were amalgamated in order to reduce the number of members. The Amendment proposed thirty-five; but that was not a figure in which he wished to pin his vote or his opinion. Looking at the body as a whole, and at the different authorities from which it would come, he believed it would be unworkable, inefficient and expensive; and the Amendment merely expressed that view without pinning the Committee to thirty-five members.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, after 'of' to insert 'thirty-live members including,' "— (Mr. Buxton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

(3.40.) SIR EDGAR VINCENT (Exeter)

said it might be convenient at that stage for the Committee to hear the views of a member of the Joint Committee. He did not claim to speak in behalf of his colleagues; nor could he speak with the authority of an expert; but he claimed to have brought to the consideration of the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee an impartial mind, and approached the subject without prejudice. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken stated that the sole functions of the new Board would be administrative. It appeared to him, however, that it would also have a representative character; and if the smaller number had advantages from the point of view of administration, the larger number certainly had merits from the point of view of being more directly representative of the water consumers. With regard to the proposal to reduce the number to thirty-five, including the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, he submitted that for the purposes of administration there was essentially little or no difference between a Board of seventy and a Board of thirty-five. If the hon. Gentleman had the courage of his convictions he should have suggested, not a Board of thirty-five, but a Board of ten, twelve, or, at the outside, fifteen members.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said he submitted his Amendment, not because he thought it the best solution, but because it afforded a means of arriving at a compromise.

SIR EDGAR VINCENT

said that the suggested compromise was in reality no compromise. The real difference was between a Board of a large number and of representative character, and a small Board of ten, twelve, or fifteen members, which should be mainly, if not exclusively, administrative. He admitted that for purposes of administration a small body would be more convenient; but any one who had experience of administration of that character would admit that large bodies did their work very largely through Committees, and were guided to a large extent by their Chairmen and Vice Chairmen, and this applied both to a Board of seventy and to one of thirty-five. The Joint Committee had before it a large amount of evidence with reference to the Water Board. A point which he thought impressed the Joint Committee very much was that the previous proposal of Lord Llandaff's Committee, that the Board should consist of a small number of members, had met with the most energetic opposition from the London County Council. When the proposal was put forward, the London County Council, which was to a great extent the strongest opponent of the present scheme; said it was altogether opposed to a Board consisting solely of the salaried nominees of a Government Department. Mr. McKinnon Wood had said that, although he had been right through the London County Council, he had been unable to obtain any support whatever for such a proposal. Now, when his right hon. friend brought forward a proposal of an opposite character, it was met with precisely the same opposition. The Joint Committee received evidence from gentlemen connected with the water administration in the large provincial cities and towns in England. He believed that in no ease in which these gentlemen had any experience did the population exceed 800,000 or 900,000, whereas the Bill had to deal with Water London with a population of between 5,000,000 or 6,000,000. There was, he submitted, no analogy between the cases. Then, again, the disparity between the area to be served in London, and the area served in a provincial city, was equally great. Further, he believed that the wants of the different sections of Water London were more diverse than were the requirements of districts in provincial cities. Then as to the alternative which was termed the county basis, all the other counties concerned were more afraid of one result than of any other; namely, that they would be left alone to deal with the question in conjunction with the London County Council. There was absolute unity of opinion on that subject. The counties said in effect that if they were handed over to the London County Council the argument would certainly be brought forward that representation should be allotted in proportion to population; and on that basis the Board would be constituted in a manner which would give the London County Council an enormous predominance. It had been said that the representatives of the various counties were altogether opposed to the scheme proposed by his right hon. friend. He confessed that, although the Joint Committee did receive evidence from them that they desired to reserve the right of subsequent severance, there could be no doubt whatever that they expressed a decided preference for the present scheme over any other which had been mooted. It appeared to him to be incumbent on those who opposed the present proposal, not merely to find defects in it, but also to bring forward a practical scheme, which would receive an equal amount of public support from the various bodies interested The impresion he gained from the evidence was that the present proposal was an ingenious attempt to solve a most difficult problem. He felt convinced that the Water Board when established would carry through its work efficiently; that it would deal with the most difficult problem of the transfer of the water undertakings with full regard to the rights and interests of the ratepayers of London, and that by unity of authority the whole problem of the water supply of such an enormous population as that of Water London would be dealt with with a thoroughness and comprehensiveness impossible under present circumstances.

MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

said, speaking also as a member of the Joint Committee, that the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the Committee had not established a case as to why the Board should consist of seventy-three members. What the hon. Gentleman had said was more by way of criticism of a smaller body; and he gave no reason whatever in support of the larger number, lie thought the hon. Gentleman put the point with regard to the London County Council rather unfairly—quite unintentionally he had no doubt. He said that the London County Council objected to the proposal of Lord Llandaffs Committee that the Board should consist of thirty members. But why? Because the Board was to be a non-representative body. He believed that the President of the Local Government Board had started altogether on a wrong basis. He was quite sure the right lion-Gentleman did not put before himself the Question as to the constitution of the body which would be best calculated to discharge the duties to be entrusted to it, most efficiently. Ho said that with some authority, because Mr. Fitzgerald, Counsel for the Promoters, admitted that the size of the Board should necessarily be large, not for the purpose of discharging its duties, but in order to give representation to the Metropolitan Boroughs. Mr. Fitzgerald was speaking of the proposal of Lord Cross that the Board should consist of twenty-one members; of Lord James that it should consist of thirty members; and of Lord Llandaff that it should consist of thirty members; and he said that the main difference was that at the time of these proposals the Metropolitan Boroughs were not in existence; and that it was thought desirable that they should be represented on the Water Board. Mr. Fitzgerald added that if representation were given to the Metropolitan Boroughs, similar representation should be given to the urban districts, with the result that the number of members would be doubled. He would show presently that there was no reason whatever why the Metropolitan Boroughs should be given any representation at all. He would quote evidence given before the Joint Committee in support of that view. The Joint Committee had evidence from Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. The representative of Manchester said (Question 3589) that sixty-nine members were totally unnecessary. The representative of Liverpool said (Question 3649) that a Board of about thirty would be quite sufficient. The representative of Glasgow said (Question 3735) that he did not see any difficulty in the undertakings being amalgamated under a body of, say, thirty members. He wished to controvert the proposition of the hon. Member for Exeter that as the population increased the Board should also necessarily increase. He thought that that was a complete fallacy. A large undertaking, so far as the administrative management was concerned, could be managed as easily as a small undertaking. It was said that a large Board would be required, because of the many Committees which would Le necessary to manage the various parts of the undertaking. He spoke on that matter with some little experience, having served for nine years on the Edinburgh and District Water Trust; and though it could not compare with the London Water Scheme, the principle he laid down applied, namely, that a Board need not increase with the increase of population. If the Board were divided into three Committees—law, works, and finance—a body of thirty would provide sufficient members to serve on them. He should like the President of the Local Government Board to consider seriously—because they all desired that the question should be settled on the best possible basis—whether it was necessary that the Board should be over weighted with representatives of the Borough Councils. They did not form a necessary element in the constitution of the Water Board. Why? They did not want to give representation to the Borough Councils as Borough Councils, but because they represented the water consumers. But the water consumers would be represented by the London County Council. He challenged any hon. Member, who had read the evidence, to controvert that statement. The duplication of representation which was now proposed was not only unprecedented, but altogether unwarranted. The representation should be given to either the London County Council or to the Borough Councils, but not to both. If both were to be represented on the Board, it would not be conducive to the proper transaction of business, and would be a distracting element, as discussions might arise, not on the merits of the question before the Board, but on the different interests of the London County Council and the Borough Councils. There never was a Bill considered with less bias, either in one direction or the other, by any committee, than the present Bill; the only desire of the Joint Committee being to secure a Board which could most efficiently discharge the duties to be, entrusted to it. He thought the Joint Committee was entitled to protest, as he personally did protest, against the conduct of the case by the promoters of the Bill. They practically refused to present evidence to the Joint Committee until they wore challenged to produce it in the most extraordinary way by the Chairman.

MR. WALTER LONG

said it was the first time ho had heard that, He should like chapter and verso for it.

MR. McCRAE

said he was prepared to give it. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to page 42 of the evidence, he would find that the Chairman said— The promoters have the opportunity, if they want to call witnesses. I do not think it necessary for me to coerce them into it. I never had such a task put upon me before.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was not disputing for a moment the hon. Gentleman's statement. It was the first time throughout the controversy that the statement had been made that the promoters of the Bill—that was the Local Government Board—refused to produce evidence. He wanted the definite refusal of the promoters to produce evidence.

*MR. McCRAE

said that after controversy not only with the Chairman but with opposing counsel, the promoters did submit evidence, but it was practically on compulsion.

MR. WALTER LONG

asked when did the promoters refuse. The hon. Gentleman made a definite statement that the promoters of the Bill—that was the Government Board—declined to produce evidence. The hon. Gentleman's words were perfectly clear and unmistakeable. He was not contesting the hon. Gentleman's statement. He only said it was the first time ho had heard it; and he was only asking the hon. Gentleman to produce evidence of it.

*MR. McCRAE

said that what he had read justified the statement. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to page 29 of the Blue-book he would see that Mr. Fitzgerald stated that from the nature of the case the Local Government Board could not be expected to go into evidence, and all ho proposed to do was to put in two witnesses.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the hon. Gentleman would he the last person in this House who would desire to misrepresent counsel or political opponents on a question of this kind. What he meant was that it was not desirable that the hon. Gentleman should put his contention in a form which was distasteful to the Government. The whole contention was an argument addressed by the learned counsel on the question of procedure. On such a question it would not be necessary to offer evidence, and that was the instance the hon. Gentleman cited in support of his definite statement that when the Local Government Board were invited to produce evidence they declined to do so. This was the first he had heard of any allegation of this kind.

*MR. McCRAE

thought that in that case the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the Blue-book. All that it was proposed to do was to put two witnesses in the Chair.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the paragraph to which the hon. Member referred commenced with— Now, my Lords, there is another matter of procedure which I wish to say something about. which clearly showed that the learned counsel was addressing himself to the question of procedure.

MR. McCRAE

maintained his statement that the Local Government Board, until they were asked to do so by Lord Balfour, refused to put sufficient evidence before the Committee, and said that anybody who read page 42 and following pages of the evidence would find it fully substantiated what he said. He also called attention to the fact that the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman when this Bill was before the House for Second Reading, that they should be allowed to treat it in Committee as a private Bill, had been ignored by the Government who, he thought, had in this case entirely thrown over the right hon. Gentleman. What he protested against here, and what he had protested against in the Joint Committee, was that, after the decision of the Committee had been given, the Government stepped in and took up a position which no promoter of a private Bill would have been allowed to do. The Committee was to consider this matter in the freest possible manner, and, having done so, and come to a decision, they had a representation from counsel for the promoters with regard to the decision they had come to. He protested against the Committee's freedom of action being interfered with in the way it was by the course which the Government adopted. But, even after their intervention, when the Committee came to the final schedule, if the Chairman had put the question in a constitutional way, that schedule would not have been before them that day. In spite of their protests, the Chairman insisted on putting the question in a certain way to produce a certain result.

*THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Member that, this being a Joint Committee, and a Peer presiding, the procedure would be governed by the Rules obtaining in another place and not by those which governed Committees of the House of Commons, and that the hon. Member would not be entitled to criticise those Rules.

*MK. McCRAE

said he was not criticising the Rules of the House of Lords. The point he desired to make was that neither the Rules of this House nor those of the House of Lords were observed.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that was a matter for the Members of the other House to consider for themselves.

*MR. McCRAE

pointed out that the special Report was put in by the Chairman for the express purpose of giving those who protested against this procedure an opportunity of raising this question in both Houses.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said that did not appear upon the special Report. The special Report was brought in to inform the Members of the two Houses of what had occurred. He did not think they would have any right to criticise the action of the Peer who presided over the Joint Committee, any more than the House of Lords would have the right to criticise the action of a Member of this House, and certainly not upon this Motion.

SIR ROBERT REID

asked if it would not be competent for a Member of this House to say, and establish before the Committee, that the form in which the Bill was now presented was not in accordance with the Rules of either House of Parliament.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said he did not think that had been suggested.

SIR ROBERT REID

said he understood his hon. friend to say that the Rules of the House of Commons were not observed, and, later, that the way in which the noble Chairman put the question as to the final schedule to the Joint Committee was not in accordance with the Rules of the House of Lords either. That was why he ventured to submit that this House could not be so impotent as not to be able to discuss whether the Rules of both Houses had been violated.

*THE CHAIRMAN

Each person was master in his own house. They had no right to say that the Rules of the other House were not properly carried out. If, as the hon. Member said, they were not properly carried out, that was a matter for the other House itself. They had no business to interfere with them. They would resent very much in this House if the House of Lords were to comment on the fact that the Rules of the House of Commons were not carried out.

SIR ROBERT REID

said his point was this. It was one thing to say that this House could not discuss the propriety of the Rules existing in the House of Lords. It was another thing to say that a Committee, on which the House of Commons was represented, had violated the Rules of the House of Lords which governed in this case, but which, pro hac vice, became their Rules.

*THE CHAIRMAN

said the person who applied these Rules was not a Member of this House. Upon him was east the duty of interpreting those Rules, and he did not think they were entitled in this House to discuss his conduct on this Motion.

*MR. McCRAE

said he had made his protest, and he would not press the matter further than to commend to the notice of the Committee the special Report which was drafted with regard to the incident. His whole point was that the Committee, with the evidence before; it, came to a certain conclusion, and he did not believe that the Committee would ! have altered its decision, even to the extent of having an equality of votes, had it not been for the pressure brought to bear by the Government. He did not wish to press his argument too far, but he felt that the responsibility was put upon them very unfairly. They had to consider whether they would take the responsibility of saying whether they should risk the passing of the measure by standing fast to principle, or whether they were to subordinate themselves to the Government. He felt the I responsibility keenly, but he came to the conclusion that if there was any danger of the Bill not passing because of opposition to the size of the Board, the responsibility would lie with the Government, who were evidently prepared to sacrifice the interests of London on behalf of prejudice and narrow political bigotry.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said he had had some experience on administrative matters of this kind, and the opinion he had formed was that for a Board of seventy-three persons there would not be enough work to do. He thought there were other weighty reasons, too, why, at all events at the outset, the Board should not be constituted with too large a membership. In managing these undertakings one of the greatest difficulties arose from the constant search for new sources of supply, and the constant conflict that took place with the interests of outside areas. That was the inevitable consequence. At some future date the House, might consequently be forced to consider the increase of the area over which this Board would exercise jurisdiction. These were the general reasons; that he thought ought to guide the Committee in arriving at a decision as to the number of members of this Board. He did not think anyone ought to vote for the Amendment, because even if thirty I five wais the magic and mystic number it was thought to be it was too early to say so. The real time to raise this question was when they came to address them selves to the Schedules, and then they would be able to decide what the right number was. It was possible to consider this Clause and leave entirely open tin ultimate number of members of which this Board should consist. He therefore suggested that their decision as to the numbers of the Board should be postponed until the Schedule was considered.

SIR ROBERT REID

said the suggestion of the right hon. Member-as to the propriety of postponing this point until the Schedule was considered, was not altogether new; it had already been made by an Amendment on the Paper. The difficulty was that owing to the way in which the Bill was framed it was impossible to consider this suggestion unless they in the first instance eliminated from the Clause now under discussion the word "seventy one". If the Government would separate the discussion as to the numbers from the discussion as to composition so far as it could be separated, there were two ways of doing so. One was to take the discussion on numbers with the full freedom to discuss it on the Schedule also, and the other was to leave out the word "seventy-one" so that the words of the sub-section ran, "the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and other Members," which on the Schedule would enable the Committee to come to a full discussion on the question.

MR. W. F. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)

said they had no objection to the postponement of the consideration of the actual numbers, provided the principle of the representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs was preserved.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he was obliged to his right hon. friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite for their suggestions, but the Committee must clearly understand that if he adopted the suggestion of his right hon. friend there should not be a debate on this question over and over again. It was a matter of perfect indifference to the Government when the discussion was taken. He offered no objection to the course suggested, but he could not agree to leave out the number at this point if they were to have the debate not only-on the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the Chippenham Division but also on the Schedule. That must be understood.

MR. LOUGH

asked whether the matter could not be dealt with by postponing the Clause.

*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER (Wiltshire, Chippenham)

thought the suggestion of his right hon. friend the Member for Hallam was a most reasonable one, and he was quite ready to assent to it. It was a matter of complete indifference where his Amendment was brought in, so long as the matter was discussed, and ho would gladly have it postponed.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN (Stirling Burghs)

said the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman was fully recognised, and be would, he hoped, reciprocally recognise the spirit by which he had been met on that side of the House. Everybody wished to have an adequate discussion. The only question was what was tho most convenient time at which to have it, whether upon the Amendment of the hon. Member or upon the discussion of the Schedule. As an outsider he confessed he saw some little difficulty as to how the general size of the Board could be discussed upon the Schedule, because in the Schedule they were plunged at once into a discussion as to places, distances, sources, etc. Let not the Committee say that they were willing to put off this discussion until the Schedule was considered, unless they were sure it could be taken on the Schedule. But if the right hon. Gentleman would ensure that there should be a proper and adequate discussion when they came to the Schedule, he thought that might be perhaps the most convenient place to take it.

MR. WALTER LONG

said he reciprocated the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to know where they would be when they came to the Schedule. He could riot express an opinion as to where they would be at a later stage. He had thought the Clause might possibly create some Parliamentary difficulty, and, in the event of that difficulty arising, he had proposed to move an Amendment which would have the effect of taking the Schedule out of its present position in the Bill and making it a part of the first Clause. He then saw the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division. That Amendment would serve the same purpose, and on it the whole question could be debated. Both that Amendment and the Government proposal could then be discussed, because in resisting the proposal of his hon. friend he would be compelled to defend that of the Government. If, however, there was any technical difficulty in the way of that being done, he was prepared to move the omission of all words after "appointed" in order to insert what at present was Schedule III. of the Bill. That would bring the whole question within the purview of the Clause, and altogether he thought it would be better to discuss the matter now than on the Schedule. That, however, was a matter for the Committee; all he was anxious about was that there should be one discussion of a clear and definite character, and a decision come to once and for all between the two alternatives.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

thought that under the circumstances the Amendment should be withdrawn, as its only object was to raise the question of number. The alternatives now before the Committee were whether the discussion on both the size and the constitution of the Board should be taken on the Schedule or on the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it would be difficult to have a general discussion on the Schedule, and therefore he would be in favour of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. WHITMOEE (Chelsea)

thought it would be impossible to come to a proper decision as to how the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed, unless they know what the constitution of the body was to be. He thought, therefore, the most convenient course would be to take the discussion on the whole question now, either upon the Amendment suggested by the President of the Local Government Board, or upon the Amendment of the lion. Member for the Chippenham Division.

MR. LOUGH

pointed out that if the Amendment came after the word "appointed," the word "seventy-one" would have been passed. He hoped the Amendment would be brought in, before anything controversial was decided.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought the Committee could decide as to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and then deal with the important question of the number. He was quite willing to agree that the question should be put in any form which would enable the whole matter to be discussed at once.

SIR ROBERT REID

said all were; agreed as to the desirability of discussing the whole question at once; the only point was as to how that could best be done. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep "seventy-one" in the Clause? If so, they had better discuss the question of numbers before coming to the Schedule; if not, some words should be introduced into the Schedule, upon which the question of numbers could be there discussed.

MR. WALTER LONG

thought it would perhaps facilitate matters if the word "seventy-one" was formally omitted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

moved to omit the words "a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and" He wished to leave the Water Board perfectly free to appoint a Vice-Chairman in addition to a Chairman, to decide whether or not they should be paid, and to make the appointment or appointments annual or permanent as they thought best. These were important points. There was a great deal to be said in favour of having paid officials, but at the same time there were splendid precedents for attaching no salary to the offices. The Chairman of the London County Council, whose duties were of a much more multifarious character than those of the Chairman of the Water Board would be, was unpaid, and ! the Lord Mayor was in practically the same position as regarded salary, because, although a certain sum was voted to him, his expenses were understood to be much in excess of the amount voted. In moving this Amendment he was not actuated by a desire to delay the Bill. He was extremely anxious that this water question, of which the ratepayers of London had been waiting for many years for a practical solution, should be settled in the interests of the people. It seemed to him, however, that the only object in retaining these words was to create two good berths to which handsome salaries attached. He was certain that men could be found to discharge the duties faithfully and efficiently without salary, and in order that the Board might be perfectly free in the matter, he moved that these words should be omitted.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words 'a chairman, and a vice-chairman and' "—(Mr. Cremer.)

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

MR. WALTER LONG

gathered that the objection of the lion. Member was not so much to the creation of the two offices, as to the proposal that the holders of the offices should be paid for their services.

MR. CREMER

said whether they should be elected annually or permanently was another point.

MR. WALTER LONG

said that that question was not raised by the Clause under consideration. If the hon. Member objected to the payment of a salary, he should move the rejection of sub-section (4). If the hon. Member took exception to the creation of a chairman and a vice-chairman, and in the same breath asked the Committee to believe that he had no desire to delay the progress of the Bill, he was making a rather large demand upon the credulity of Members. It was obvious that there must be a chairman and a vice-chairman, though the question of whether they should be paid or unpaid might be afterwards considered. There was bound to be a presiding officer, and it was also necessary that there should be an officer able to take the place of the presiding officer in the latter's absence.

MR. MELLOR (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)

thought the purpose of his lion, friend would be met by accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and moving the omission of subsection 4.

MR. McKENNA

said that if these words were omitted, it would leave the Water Board to appoint a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman and as many executive officers as they thought necessary. It was quite clear, if the Government adhered to the proposal of a Board of the magnitude at present suggested, that it could not be an executive body, and that it would be necessary to have four or five handsomely paid officials to carry on the executive work of the Board. Under these circumstances he thought it useless to provide that there should be a chairman and a vice-chairman. There must be a chairman and a vice-chairman, but the Board ought to be left perfectly free to elect its own executive officers, as it was admitted on all hands that such a Board could not be anything more than a debating assembly.

MR. GREMER

said he had not imagined for a moment that the Board could be constituted without a chairman to guide its deliberations. It was such a self-evident proposition that it was totally unnecessary to incorporate it in an Act of Parliament. For many years he had had a great deal to do with drawing up rules in connection with trades unions, but he had never known a body of working men who thought it necessary to, provide that a chairman should be appointed to preside over the deliberations of the executive body.

MR. COHEN

pointed out that the London County Council, which by universal consent was an admirably constituted body, had not only a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman but also a Deputy Chairman, and it was by statute obliged to appoint those three officers, each of whom was fully occupied.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

said the hon. Member was mistaken as to the County Council being obliged to appoint those three officers; the election was optional. He desired to know why this special provision had been introduced into the Bill, instead of the matter being left, as in the case of the London County Council, entirely in the hands of the body itself. This Board would be so large that he was afraid too much of the power would get into the hands of the paid officials. He thought it inexpedient that both should be statutory positions, and he could see neither precedent nor reason for such a proposal.

MR. LOUGH

thought the main reason why the Clause was in its present form was that the Board should be enabled to elect two officers from outside if they desired to do so, and thus increase the unrepresentative character of the Board. This authority was already sufficiently far removed from the electorate, and he should therefore support the Amendment. The seventy-one members should be obliged to select their chairman from among their own number. No such provision existed in regard to any other public body, and in view of the fact that it would increase the unrepresentative character of the Board, he thought the words ought to be omitted.

MR. WALLACE (Perth)

referred to the Local Government Act to show that the London County Council was under no statutory obligation to appoint a vice-chairman. He did not say that a vice-chairman would not be necessary in connection with the Water Board, but he thought the Committee ought to understand that the office under the County Council was not a statutory one.

CAPTAIN JESSEL

said that, in giving the Water Board power to appoint a Chairman from outside, the Government were only following precedent, inasmuch as the Metropolitan Boroughs, as well as the London County Council and the London School Board, already possessed that power.

(4.58.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 305.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Furness, Sir Christopher Plummer, Walter R.
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden Galloway, William Johnson Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arkwright, John Stanhope Gibbs. Hn. A.G H (City of Land. Pretyman, Ernest George
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Godson Sir Augustus Frederick Purvis, Robert
Arrol, Sir William Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn Rankin, Sir James
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Goulding, Edward Alfred Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bailey, James (Walworth) Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds Renshaw, Charles Bine
Bain, Colonel James Robert Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Staly bridge
Bard, John George Alexander Groves, James Grimble Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Thomson
Balearres, Lord Gunter, Sir Robert Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)
Baldwin, Alfred Hain, Edward Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Hare, Thomas Leigh Royds, Clement Molynenx
Balfour. Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds Hatch, Erne-t Frederick Geo. Russell, T. W.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Hay, Hon. Clande George Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Banbury, Frederick George Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry Samuel, Harry S. (Lim-house
Beresford, Lord Chas. William Hoult, Joseph Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver-ham Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.
Bignold, Arthur Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecal Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone.W.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Hudson, George Bickerstc Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew
Bond, Edward Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Simeon, Sir Barrington
Bowles, Capt, H. F. (Middlesex Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Smith, Abel H.(Herford, East)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Brotherton, Edward Allen Kimber, Henry Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand)
Bull, William James Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Spear, John Ward
Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Carlile, William Walter Lawson, John Grant Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire Legge, Colonel (Ion. Heneage Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. H. Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Chamberlayne, T. (S'hampton Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Thorburn, Sir Walter
Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Thornton, Percy M.
Chapman, Edward Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.) Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.
Charrington, Spencer Lonsdale, John Brownies Trevelyan. Charles Philips
Coghill, Douglas Harry Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tufnell, Lt, -Colonel Edward
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th Tuke, Sir John Batty
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready Lyttelton, Hon. Ahred Valentia, Viscount
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Macdona, John Cumming Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Compton, Lord Alwyne M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Wallace, Robert
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas M'Crae, George Warde, Colonel C. E.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Majendie, James A. H. Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow Manners, Lord Cecil Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe Whiteley, H.(As'tonund. Lyne
Crossley, Sir Savile Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Cubitt, Hon. Henry More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tow'r Hamlets Morgan, David J. (Walt'stow) Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord
Dickson, Charles Scott Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Morrell, George Herbert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptd.) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.
Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Wodehouse. Rt, Hn. E.R. (Bath)
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Muntz, Sir Philip A. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Durning,-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-
Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Emmott, Alfred Myers, William Henry Wylie, Alexander
Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r Nicholson, William Graham Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Nieol, Donald Ninian Younger, William
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Paulton, James Mellor
Fisher, William Hayes Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley
FitzGerald, Sir Rob't Penrose- Pemberton, John S. G. TELLEKS FOE THE AYES—
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Pierpoint, Robert Sir William Walrond and
Flower, Ernest Platt-Higgins, Frederick Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Allan, Sir William(Gateshead) Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Burns, John
Ambrose, Robert Boland. John Buxton, Sydney Charles
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Brigg, John Caldwell, James
Atherley-Jones, L. Bryce, Rt Hon. James Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea Power, Patrick Joseph
Causton, Richard Knight Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) Rea, Russell
Channing, Francis Allston Jordan, Jeremiah Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries
Clancy, John Joseph Joyce, Michael Rickett, J. Compton
Craig, Robert Hunter Lambert, George Rigg, Richard
Crombie, John William Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Leamy, Edmund Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan Leng, Sir John Roe, Sir Thomas
Delany, William Levy, Manrice Runciman, Walter
Doogan, P. C. Lundon, W. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Duncan. J. Hastings Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Dunn, Sir William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)
Edwards, Frank MacVeagh, Jeremiah Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Elibank, Master of M'Kean, John Strachey, Sir Edward
Esmonde, Sir Thomas M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Sullivan, Donal
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Murphy, John Tennant, Harold John
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Nannetti, Joseph P. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Grant, Corrie Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Griffith, Ellis J, Norton, Capt. Cecil William Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. O'Brien. P. J. (Tipperary N.) Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull. W.
Harrington, Timothy O'Connor, James (Wicklow W. Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hud'rsfi'd
Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale- O'Kelly, James (R'scomm'n, N.
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. O'Mall'ey, William
Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. O'Shaughnessy, P. J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. Pease, J. A. (saffron Walden) Mr. Cremer and Mr.
Jacoby, James Alfred Pirie, Duncan V. Lough.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, line 29, to omit 'seventy-one.' "—(Mr. Lough.)

Agreed.

*MR. WHITMORE

moved an Amendment giving the Local Government Board power to appoint in the first instance the Chairman and vice-chairman of the Board. A great deal of the success of the work of the Board would depend on the good sense and ability of their chairman and vice-chairman, and the selection of these gentlemen—one of the most important acts which the new Board would have to perform—would be their very first duty which they would have to perform when they had not got into the habit of cooperation. Surely it would be better that at the outset, the appointment should rest with the Local Government Board. He was most anxious to see this new departure in the water administration of London a success, and that was his reason for moving the Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words 'be appointed,' and insert the words 'until the time fixed by this Act for the first new appointment of a chairman and vice-chairman be appointed by the Local Government Board and afterwards.' "—(Mr. J Whimore.)

Question proposed—"That the words 'be appointed ' stand part of the Clause."

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

hoped the Government would not accept the Amend- ment. One of the arguments in support of this body was that it was a representative body. It was not as representative; as it might be; but that was the argument. To take out of its hands this most important power would be a serious evil. It seemed to be imagined that once the chairman and vice-chairman were appointed, they would remain in office during the period of that Board. He did not so read the Act, and he hoped the appointments would be annual. One of the things he feared in connection with this Board was that, in consequence of its size, much of the power would get into the hands of the chairman and vice-chairman, and therefore it was essential that they should be elected annually. Whether that was so or not. he thought the appointment should not be taken out of the hands of the Board. Among so many members it would surely be possible to find men capable of carrying out the duties of these offices. He should oppose the Amendment.

MR. WALTER LONG

said the original proposal of the Government was that members of this new body should appoint their own chairman and vice-chairman from among themselves, but he had received several representations pointing in the direction of the Amendment. It seemed to him very desirable that there should be two gentlemen clothed with authority in office before the actual election or selection of the body was completed, to guide the new body; and, further, it was very important that the first two appointments should not in any way be made haphazard. He had had great difficulty in arriving at a decision, as there was much weight in the views of the hon. Member for Poplar, while at the same time he was greatly impressed by the arguments on the other side. He could only say that if, in the opinion of the Committee, it should be thought desirable that this duty should rest with the Department, he was quite willing to accept that decision. He proposed to leave the matter to the Committee to decide as they thought fit. In reference to a remark made in the course of the discussion, he might say that the appointments as determined by the schedule would be held for three years.

MR. LOUGH

thought it a pity that this Amendment should be accepted. The Government were gradually lowering the status of this new body. It had been said more than once that if the number of members was reduced the administrative excellence of the body would be increased. That would be so if good men were appointed and they devoted their attention as business-men to the difficulties which had to be faced. But they would not be able to do that if they felt that they were in the hands of two or three paid officials appointed by the Local Government Board from

outside. The Board should have the full responsibility of its position thrown upon it. This Amendment was a step in the direction of relieving it of that responsibility, and it was a great pity that it should be done. The gentlemen so appointed would become permanent officers; they would get a life interest in the concern; and the whole Board would sink into the condition which other Boards had sunk into, and lose its administrative activity and ability. He hoped as the Government had left the Committee free to vote as they pleased many hon. Members on the other side would venture to disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Chelsea.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

could hardly believe the hon. Member for Poplar to be in earnest in suggesting that the chairman of this enormous Water Trust should hold office for one year only. His experience of water companies had shown him that the more experience the chairman had the more valuable he became. For that reason he should support the Amendment, in order that for the first chairman there might be chosen a man more acquainted with the subject than the members of this Board were likely to be.

(5.23.) Question put.

The Committee divided: — Ayes, 120 Noes, 155. (Division List No. 306.)

AYES.
Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire
Ambrose, Robert Doogan, P. C. Jordan, Jeremiah
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Joyce, Michael
Atherley-Jones, L. Duncan, J. Hastings Lambert, George
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Dunn, Sir William Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Boland, John Edwards, Frank Leamy, Edmund
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Emmott, Alfred Leng, Sir John
Brigg, John Esmonde, Sir Thomas Levy, Maurice
Brotherton, Edward Allen Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Farquharson, Dr. Robert Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham
Bull, William James Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lough, Thomas
Burns, John Furness, Sir Christopher Lundon, W.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Gordon, Hn. JE. (Elgin&Nairn) MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Caldwell, James Goulding, Edward Alfred Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Grant, Corrie MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Griffith, Ellis J. MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton Gunter, Sir Robert M'Crae, George
Causton, Richard Knight Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton M'Kean, John
Channing, Francis Allston Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B. M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Clancy, John Joseph Harrington, Timothy Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hayden, John Patrick Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale Murphy, John
Craig, Robert Hunter Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Nannetti, Joseph P.
Crombie, John William Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Jacoby, James Alfred O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Delany. William Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Thorburn, Sir Walter
O'Malley, William Roe, Sir Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Wallace, Robert
Paulton, James Mellor Runciman, Walter Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Russell, T. W. Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
Pemberton, John S. G. Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Pirie, Duncan V. Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Wilson, Chas Henry (Hull. W.
Power, Patrick Joseph Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Rea, Russell Smith, James Parker (Lanarks. Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Soames, Arthur Wellesley Younger, William
Renshaw, Charles Bine Strachey, Sir Edward
Rigg. Richard Sullivan, Donal TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Tennant, Harold John Captain Norton and Mr.
Cremer
NOES.
Acland-Hond, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Galloway, William Johnson Pierpoint, Robert
Allhuson, Augustus H'nry Eden Gibbs. Hn A. G. H.(City of Lond. Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Anstrnther, H. T. Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Plummer, Walter R.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Arnold -Forster, Hugh O. Greene, Sir EW(B'ry St Edm'nds Pretyman, Ernest George
Arrol, Sir William Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs. Purvis, Robert
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Groves, James Grimble Rankin, Sir James
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Hain, Edward Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Bailey, James- (Walworth) Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F. Ridley, Hon M W(Stalybridge)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Hare, Thomas Leigh Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Bird, John George Alexander Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Balcarres, Lord Hay, Hon. Claude George Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Baldwin, Alfred Henderson, Sir Alexander Royds, Clement Molyneux
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Horner, Frederick William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen. Hoult, Joseph Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles
Banbury, Frederick George Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Beresford, Lord Charles Win. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Seton-Karr, Henry
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Hudson, George Bickersteth Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew
Bignold, Arthur Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton Simeon, Sir Barrington
Blundell, Colonel Henry Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex) Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)
Bowles Capt. H. F. (Middlesex Kimber, Henry Spear, John Ward
Brodrie'k, Rt. Hon. St. John Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th) Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk
Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire Lawson, John Grant Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart
Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie Strutt, Hon. Charles- Hedley
Chapman, Edward Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Thornton, Percy M.
Charrington, Spencer Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw M'rray
Coghill, Douglas Harry Lonsdale, John Brownlee Tritton, Charles Ernest
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Loyd, Archie Kirkman Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth Valentia, Viscount
Cripps, Charles Alfred Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.
Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Macdona, John Gumming Warde, Colonel C. E.
Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton) M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Crossley, Sir Savile Majendie, Fames A. H. Welby, Lt. -Col: A. C.E. (T'nton
Cubitt, Hon. Henry Manners, Lord Cecil Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.
Dewar Sir T. R. (T'wer H'mlets Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Whitely H. (Ashton-und. Lyne
Dickson, Charles Scott Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'th'sh. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Dixon Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n Morrell, George Herbert Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas Muntz, Sir Philip A. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute Wylie, Alexander
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Fisher, William Hayes Myers, William Henry
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Nicholson, William Graham TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Finlay, Sir Fortescue Nicol, Donald. Ninian Mr. Whitmore and Mr.
Flower, Ernest Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley W. F. D. Smith.

It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.