Lords Sitting of 16 March 1896

MILITARY EXPEDITION TO DONGOLA.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Before we proceed with the business on the Paper, I must say on behalf of those who are with me, that we came here to-night rather hoping that a statement would be made in this House similar to that which I understand is to be made in the other. I know the respect with which Her Majesty's present Government are anxious to treat this House, and I think they would be failing in that respect if they were not to make a concurrent declaration of policy. I fail to see the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, in his place, and I must confess that failure is attended, in my case at any rate, with some disappointment. ["Hear, hear?"]

PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
Ordered, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next.
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order in pursuance of a Report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 28th day of April next.
That no Bill originating in this House confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a first time after Tuesday the 28th day of April next.
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order in pursuance of a report of the Board of Agriculture relating to the enclosure or regulation of a common, or
966
confirming any scheme certified by the said Board relating to a Metropolitan common, or confirming any scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next.
That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next.
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.
That this House will not receive any Petition for a Private Bill after Tuesday the 21st day of April next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice; nor any Petition for a Private Bill approved by the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice after Friday the 1st day of May next.
That this House will not receive any report from the Judges upon Petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Friday the 1st day of May next.
Ordered, That, the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall.—[No. 39.]

GLAMORGANSHIRE EDUCATION SCHEME.
THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF*THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her consent from the following portions of the Glamorganshire Education Scheme, Clause 90, sub-section (b):—The words 'of an undenominational character,' and the words 'in such a manner as may from time to time be directed by the school managers.'"
His Lordship said: My Lords, if this Motion is carried, it will bring the Education Scheme, for Glamorganshire into agreement, so far as the regulation of religious worship in hostels is concerned,

967
with the schemes for three other Welsh counties which have received the approval of your Lordships. In the case of schemes for four Welsh counties there are no provisions for the regulation of religious worship in hostels. In three it is provided that the family worship shall not be exclusively denominational, so that of 11 education Schemes for Welsh counties, the Glamorganshire Scheme is the only one which is absolutely prohibitive of such worship. But this is not the only ground upon which I ask your Lordships to agree to this Motion. I do so because Clause 90, as it stands, will inflict a cruel, and, as I venture to think, an uncalled-for hardship on the children of Church of England parents, who may desire to enter an intermediate school as boarders, because it will deprive them of the privilege of listening, in the family worship of the hostel to which they may be admitted, to any one of those beautiful prayers in which they have been accustomed to join in public worship at their parish church, and many of them, I doubt not, in family worship in their own homes. I would remind your Lordships that the religious body upon whom it is proposed to inflict this hardship is the largest religious body in Wales, and that in my diocese, which embraces three-fourths of the county of Glamorgan, it is increasing with a rapidity probably without parallel in any other diocese. So that the sufferers, if this clause remains unaltered, are every day becoming more numerous. Your Lordships will be able to form some idea of the rate of this increase if I inform you that the number of candidates presented for confirmation in the diocese of Llandaff during the triennial period ending on the 31st of December, 1883, was 7,200, whereas in the triennial period ending on the 31st of December, 1894, it had reached 12,900, of whom it is more than probable that the great majority were just of an age to attend an intermediate school. My Lords, in asking you to remove this hardship, I am not asking you to do any injustice to the members of other religious communities. Indeed, it is my firm belief that if you accept this Motion your action, will receive the cordial approval of all the more serious and thoughtful amongst them, who are now to be found in vast numbers constantly worshipping
968
in our parish churches and joining heartily in the prayers of the Church, of the beauty of which, and the devotional spirit which breathes through them, not a few have spoken to me in terms of the greatest admiration. It will serve to show your Lordships how the prayers and formularies of the Church are regarded by thoughtful and unprejudiced Dissenters if I state that three weeks ago I met the headmistress of an intermediate school near to my house, when she informed me that a Nonconformist minister had lately brought his daughter to be admitted to the school, and on her asking him to let her know the place of worship which he would wish her to attend he replied, "I should like her to attend the services at Llandaff Cathedral." Three weeks ago I opened a mission church in a populous parish in my diocese, when the three Nonconformist, ministers in the resident neighbourhood were all present amongst the worshippers. More recently, when holding a Confirmation in another parish, I was informed by the incumbent that a funeral was conducted a few days before my visit by a Nonconformist minister in his parish churchyard, when the prayers used at the grave were taken from the Burial office of the Church. My Lords, I believe that the views of these worthy men are shared by the more serious members of their flocks, and I would venture to ask if it is likely that they would object to the use by their children of prayers which they themselves so highly appreciate? This Scheme, therefore, in its present form, while naturally offensive to Church people, will meet with scant favour at the hands of those whom I suppose it is intended to gratify. My Lords, there have been periods in the history of your country when a fierce spirit of intolerance prevailed, and hatred of the prayers and formularies of the Church, and when those in authority did their utmost to stamp them out of existence. Macaulay, writing of the days of the Commonwealth, observes that:—
"It was then a crime for a child to read, by the bedside of a sick parent, one of those beautiful Collects which have soothed the griefs of forty generations of Christians."
My Lords, these are the Collects of which the framers of the Glamorganshire county Scheme would forbid the use in

969
the hostels of our intermediate shcools. It is possible that there may still be found a few persons in whose breasts such a spirit works, but I am persuaded that no such spirit will be found within the walls of your Lordships' House, and I am, therefore, satisfied that this Motion will meet with no opposition at your Lordships' hands.
The PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE),said, tin right rev. Prelate, appeared to be under some misapprehension as to the meaning and effect of the clause, which was not very much to be wondered at, as its terms were not extremely clear. Clause 89 of the Scheme contemplated the establishment in connection with schools of boarding-houses, in which worship of a denominational character might be allowed. It provided that if persons in charge of such boarding-houses were un willing to exempt any scholar from attendance at any form of religious worship of which the parents disapproved, the managers were to make proper provision to enable such scholar to attend the school. Clause 90 contemplated the establishment, not of ordinary boarding-houses, but of hostels to the schools, which would be under the control and management of the managers themselves, and in that way be distinguished from boarding-houses which were to all intents and purposes, private houses. Clause 90, subsection (b), which the right rev. Prelate objected to, provide that in such hostel Christian family worship should be allowed, but as the managers were an undenominational body, such family worship must, he thought, necessarily be of an undenominational character. If the words were left out, there would still be nothing to prevent the school managers from regulating the family worship within their own hostel in any manner they might think fit, but if the words were left in, they were intended to be a security to Church parents on the one hand, against family worship which might be of a distinctive Calvinist, Methodist or Baptist character, and a security to Dissenting parents against religious worship in such hostels of a distinctive Church character. There was nothing in the provision intended to interfere with the denominational character of religious worship in the ordinary boarding-house. The omission of the
970
words, therefore, seemed to be undesirable. Even if the words were omitted, the managers would still retain complete control over their own hostels, as it seemed to be necessary and inevitable that they should.
The ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that this distinction between, hostels and boarding-houses was a completely new one. They had had 10 schemes before them and they had never heard of it before, and he was at a loss to know how hostels and boarding-houses could differ in principle upon such a matter as this. According to the Welsh Intermediate Act, clauses of this kind had no business in these schemes at all. In the Welsh Intermediate Act, it was settled that they should not take powers beyond the Endowed Schools Act, and in the Endowed Schools Act, there was nothing said about the religious training of boarders at all in any place nor was anything said in the Welsh Intermediate Act, beyond just the exemption of such scholars as objected or such as had objecting parents. As regarded hostels, it must be competent for different religious bodies to build hostels. There would be hostels founded, as they all had looked forward to and hoped, by Baptists, Methodists, and Roman Catholics, and certainly by the Church. Churchmen undoubtedly looked forward to building hostels for the reception of children belonging to their own body, and if this prohibition about hostels were universal, it would prevent the building of any such Church hostels. The Glamorganshire scheme itself, in Section 64, spoke of accommodation for boarders to be provided otherwise than from the general fund. It had always been in their minds that such accommodation would certainly be provided, not only in the way of hostels opened by private enterprise, but also by bodies founding hostels for their own purposes. This question had been three times before the House of Lords, and no distinction whatever had been drawn between hostels and boarding-houses. In the Denbighshire, Flintshire, and Merionethshire Scheme the House gave liberty to boarding-houses and hostels; they cut out the prohibition from both. The words now were: "Christian family worship shall be held daily in the hostel or boarding-house." What was the case with regard to the other

971
county schemes for Wales? In Montgomeryshire, Pembrokeshire, and Carmarthenshire the prohibition was never inserted. There were 10 schemes in which this prohibition did not exist, and they were asked to apply it in the eleventh scheme.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the right reverend Prelate, if he might say so, did not grasp the distinction sought to be established. There was nothing in the Act to prevent the founding of hostels of a denominational character, but hostels being under the direction of school managers would be, naturally, of an undenominational character. Therefore, a part of the speech of the right reverend Prelate who made the objection was a little beside the point. He said that under the scheme, as framed, it would be forbidden to read any of the beautiful Collects of the Church of England. He did not believe that view to be well founded. He did not believe there was anything in the scheme which forbids the use of the Collects. If that was so, the most effective part of his objection fell to the ground. There was only one other remark which he wished to make on this point. It was this; that the Archdeacon of Monmouth, who was a Member of the Joint Education Committee of Glamorgan, by whom the scheme was framed, cheerfully gave his assent to the clause to which the right reverend Prelate objected. He seemed to see a smile on the face of the right reverend Prelate. He did not know whether there was anything in the character of the Archdeacon to cause that smile. Their opinion was that there was nothing in this clause detrimental to the highest interests of the Church of England.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid, that they believed if the clause was allowed to remain as it wan now it would be applied to all hostels.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, the right reverend Prelate was mistaken on the point as to whether this principle had been decided in the House on a previous occasion. They were dealing, not with a hostel founded by any particular denomination, but one founded by managers themselves. He must say he failed to see that in a hostel controlled by an undenominational body they could direct that religious worship of
972
a denominational character should be held in that hostel under their management.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, if there was to be this Rule laid down there ought to be some very distinct permission given to the denomination to set up a boarding-house in which this provision would not hold good.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that was a different question, and he should say that the Collects were much broader and greater than a denomination. They might be gladly taken part in by those who did not belong to the Church of England.
Resolved in the negative.

LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (PAYMENT INTO COURT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD MACNAGHTEN,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, the object was to allow assurance companies to pay money into Court in certain cases, so that parties might obtain a speedy settlement. The Bill in its present form was passed through the House last Session.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES OF HEREFORD): My Lords, the great public interest taken in the question of the supply of water to the Metropolis renders it desirable that a short explanatory statement should be made of the nature and the provisions of the Bill now presented to the House on that subject. Her Majesty's Government have framed this Bill upon the assumption that there exists a great and growing opinion that the time has come when the management of the water supply of the Metropolis and the surrounding districts should be vested in the hands of a responsible and a public representative body. That assumption is not founded on the view that the

973
water companies have neglected their duties to the consumer, but at the same time it is somewhat anomalous that interests so vast should be placed in the hands of trading companies which must have the duty cast on them of considering their shareholders' as well as the consumers' interests. This view of giving the management of the water supply to a public body has received a great deal of Parliamentary sanction. Thirty years now have nearly passed since the Commission presided over by the, Duke of Richmond recommended that, this body should be created and the powers vested in that body. In 1880 Sir W. Harcourt's Commission made the same Report to the other House, and there have been similar reports from different Committees. Under these circumstances I hope there will be a concurrence of opinion that this public body has to be created, and I shall assume a like agreement that the body must be a municipal body. I do not think that anyone would suggest that it should be the duty of the Imperial Government to take the charge and control of such a matter as the water supply of a community, however important it might be, and assuming this right to be vested in the municipal body I presume it will be agreed that this municipal body should be representative of the water consumers' interests. In the first place, we naturally look to see whether there is a body in existence ready at hand to take charge of these great interests. Very often we find that the power of controlling the water supply passes into the hands of the large municipal authorities, but in the case of London we find that the only body in whom it can be suggested such power could be vested would be the London County Council. In determining whether we could invest the London County Council alone with these great powers, we have to ask over whom such powers would have to be exercised. The water supply of London now proceeds from eight different trading companies, which supply not only Central London, an area under the control of the London County Council, but that outside area over which the London County Council has no jurisdiction—an area which has been termed "Water London.' That is a very extensive
974
area. It extends into the, different counties of Middlesex, Surrey, Essex, Kent, and Hertford, and includes part of the borough of Croydon and West Ham. It stretches from the centre of London to Romford in Essex, as far as Esher in Surrey, to Ware in Hertfordshire, and in Kent it reaches to Chevening. This area includes some, 620 square miles. The area over which the London County Council has jurisdiction within. Water London includes 121 square miles. Therefore I am sure that it will be brought home to your Lordships' minds that there are large areas outside of the jurisdiction of the London County Council that we have to deal with. It is difficult to suppose that these outside areas would be content to be governed and rated, for the purposes of their water supply, by the London County Council, upon which body they have no representation. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that we cannot accept the London County Council as the body to control the water supply of the areas outside their jurisdiction, and we have determined to create a new representative body which shall be elected by all the various areas affected in certain proportions. Having come to that conclusion, the question arises, how shall that body be formed? The first point to be determined is as to the numbers of the new body, and we have thought that, upon the whole, 30 will be the best number to fix upon, which would enable a fairly representative body to be constituted, not too large to relieve the individual members of their responsibility, while it would enable the duties imposed upon them to be properly discharged. Then comes the question, by whom shall the members of the body be elected? I have said that we cannot place these powers in the hands of the London County Council alone, but we cannot, of course, take exception to the view that the London County Council is entitled to the very greatest consideration when we are forming this new body. In introducing permanent legislation of this character we must look not only to the present but to the future population of the whole of the area that will be affected, and also to the properly that is comprised within that area as shown by

975
its rateable value The population of what we term Water London is about 5½ millions—the numbers are only approximate, because I am taking those shown by the census of 1891—while that of the area under the control of the London County Council is 4,232,000. The rateable value of Water London is £41,745,000, while that of the London County Council area is £30,000,000, making the rateable value of the outside area £11,745,000. Of course these figures show that the London County Council has a predominant claim to representation on the new body. In order to estimate the future growth of the population of Greater London, an area somewhat larger than Water London, we must see what has been its growth in the past. In 1841 the population was 2½ millions, and in 1891 it had increased to 5½ millions, and in the Report that was presented by Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee in 1893 it was estimated that in 35 years hence—that is to say, in 1931—the population will have increased to 11 millions, or more than double its present number. In shaping this legislation, therefore, we must provide a mode of representation that will satisfy the future rather than the present population of Water London. In that view, then, we must look to where the great increase in the population is likely to take place throughout the whole area to be affected. No doubt the great increase in the population will take place outside of the area under the jurisdiction, of the London County Council, which is at the present time densely populated. There will be a growing tendency in the future for working men to avail themselves of railway facilities and to live in the suburban rather than in the urban districts, and this circumstance will cause a greater proportional increase in the population of the outer areas as compared with that of the population of the central areas. We may be told that we ought to wait until that proportional increase in the outer districts has taken place before we provide for its representation on the new body. In our opinion, however, that would not be the just course to take, and the body that we propose to create will be formed in view of the future growth of the population. We,
976
however, have treated the London County Council as having a predominant interest in the new body, and we have accordingly taken care that they shall have a majority on this board. I have mentioned that there are to be 30 members on the new board, and of these 28 seats will be ascribed to the different areas representative of the consumers. Of these 28 seats we propose to give 16 to the London County Council. We give to the Corporation of London, which is a body separate from the London County Council, for all such water powers as exist at the present time, two seats. We propose to give the County Councils of Middlesex, Essex, and West Ham, two seats each, and to the County Councils of Surrey, Kent, Hertford, and Croydon, one seat each. This leaves only two seats undisposed of. Of these two we propose to assign one to the Thames Conservancy, which requires to be represented upon the new board as being a body representing a great interest, inasmuch as your Lordships are aware that the greater proportion of the water supply of the Metropolis is obtained from the Thames. The remaining seat we propose to allocate to the Lea Conservators, although their claim to representation upon the new body is certainly not so strong as that of the Thames Conservators. Then a great question arises as to whether the representation upon the new body should be direct or indirect. Direct representation of course would mean an appeal to the ratepayers in all these areas to elect a certain number of representatives. In the first place we came to the conclusion that the inhabitants of the Metropolis were under the feeling that they have had quite enough of local elections for the present, and we also felt that there would be more difficulty in selecting by the ratepayers the proper persons from all portions of the districts as members of this body. We may have a vast number of candidates nominated, we may have contested elections, and yet you may not always obtain the election of the best and truest representatives of business interests. In these circumstances, we have felt that the County Councils can be trusted to select the members to be placed on this Trust. In former times it was objected that the old

977
Metropolitan Board could not make such a selection, because it was not a popularly elected body. That cannot be said, I think, of the County Council. The election of the County Councils is a popular election, so as to make the indirect representation upon this Water Trust sufficiently in touch with the ratepayers to justify the selection of the members of the Trust by the County Councils. We have felt that it is not necessary that the selected members of the Water Trust should be members of the respective County Councils. We have heard it said that the members of the London County Council have very great and important duties cast upon them, and, however meritorious their efforts to discharge them may be, they press heavily upon them. It may be under these circumstances that the County Councils may wish to select from outside their own bodies some persons of great knowledge and experience in these matters, and therefore we have not limited the members of the Water Trust to members of the County Councils. One other great question remains. Having formed your body under this Bill, what are the duties and powers you are going to vest in it? I know there are many who have anticipated that this Bill will solve every difficulty. We have made every attempt to see how far this Bill could solve the difficulties that have arisen, and it has been found impossible by a public Bill to bring all these matters to a solution. When what we have to deal with is considered, it will be recognised that this cannot possibly determine every matter and solve every question that has arisen. The interests of the water companies must be acquired in some way. The water companies must receive compensation, the terms under which the transfer of their interest is to take place must be arranged; and I say with great deference, that these are matters which cannot be dealt with by a public Bill, but will have to be dealt with by subsequent private legislation. This body being created, we have endeavoured to give it very wide power, and we shall trust to its judgment and discretion entirely. It will be for this body as soon as it comes into existence to meet and deliberate, and determine how far it can acquire the great interests the care of which
978
will be placed in its hands. Of course it must do this subject to the sanction of Parliament. We cannot give it compulsory or rating powers until the powers it seeks are known. When the new body says, ''Give us this power or that,'' it will be for those who are interested in relation to the exercise of those powers to be heard also, and for Parliament then to give its final judgment. With this object in view we give to this body the power to enter on any negotiations and make or adopt any conditional agreements they may think right; and we have purposely left this discretion and power in as general terms as possible in order that the new body may be unfettered in its action. As a preliminary matter we place in their hands all the existing powers of control over the water companies now in the hands of the London County Council under the Metropolitan Acts, and which may be usefully exercised until the property passes into their own hands. We are aware that when we propose that this body should come into existence we should have some objection made to it, probably by the representatives of the outside areas. They may say, in their criticism: "You are joining us too closely with central London. We represent rural districts. Let us manage our own water. Let us be free to make our own arrangements. We do not want to go far afield to supply our rural districts." There may be great force in all that, but we cannot leave them out at present. We cannot dissect the water supply, and say that one county shall take so much and another county so much. That must be a matter for arrangement and the approval of Parliament. Therefore we have put in this Bill a clause which will enable the outside districts to make arrangements for autonomous rights and so to fall out of the Trust. This clause is inserted in the hope that it may facilitate these local bodies in maintaining their freedom of action. I believe now I have mentioned the principal provisions contained in this Bill. There are other provisions in the Bill for the purpose of facilitating the working of the new machinery where created, but I do not think it is incumbent on me to further detain your Lordships on them. In conclusion, I would

979
only say that the Government have had but one object in view. They have been aware of the numerous interests actively called into action in relation to this matter of the water supply, and they are fully cognisant of the many contentions that have taken place in past years in relation to those interests. The view of the Government has been that the time has come for these contentions to be brought to an end, and their wish has been to act as arbitrators, as it were, between the different interests. Having that object in view, in now presenting this Bill to the House they ask from your Lordships not only that impartial consideration which I know it will receive, but your assistance; and I can assure your Lordships that if any suggestions should be made that will tend to the improvement of the Bill and make it a more workable and useful Measure, the Government will not turn a deaf ear to them, from whatever quarter of the House they may come. ["Hear, hear!"']
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the noble Lord had explained very clearly the main provisions of the Bill, but he would venture to suggest a title for the Measure, and that was "A Bill to exclude the London County Council from all power of dealing with the water question." The provisions setting up this new body to deal with the London water question ran counter to every precedent in this country. Great cities like Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester and Cardiff had dealt with this question by their Corporations. They had had identically the same problems to deal with and had got over them, and their systems worked perfectly well. Setting aside the question of the desirability of setting up a new body in London for rating purposes—and he fancied the noble Marquess at the head of the Government had often denounced the multiplication of these rating and governing bodies—the proposal ran counter to the wishes of the various bodies to be included within the Trust. It also ran counter to Parliamentary precedent and the reports of Parliamentary Committees. He would like to put this question to the noble Lord. Which of the local authorities round London had he consulted? From which had he obtained consent to this proposal? So far as he
980
could judge himself, none of the surrounding authorities wished the Trust to be constituted at all. The London County Council had had some experience with these various authorities. In 1891 it had a Conference with the City, and the result was that the County Council and the City Corporation came to an agreement that a Water Committee should be appointed. Seveneighths of the members were to be appointed by the London County Council and one-eighth by the Corporation of the City. In May, 1891, a Conference took place between the County Council and 20 representatives of various authorities in the water area outside London, and the following resolutions were agreed to:—"(1) That the system of water management and distribution as generally adopted at the provincial towns would be preferable for application to London and neighbourhood, rather than the establishment of a Water Trust as proposed by the pending Bill; (2) that the efficiency of the present supply must be investigated; (3) that the supply of water in each district in the Metropolitan area outside the boundary of the County of London should be, as far as practicable, in the hands of the local authority of such district, and within the County of London in the hands of the London County Council." The reports of the Committees of the other House, by whom this question had been considered, proved that, in the opinion of those important bodies, the County Council ought to be the water authority for London. Upon the Report of Sir W. Harcourt's Committee that sat in 1880 he put an entirely different interpretation from that put upon it by the noble and learned Lord. That Committee reported:—
"That it in expedient that the supply of water to the Metropolis should be placed under the control of some public body which shall represent the interests and command the confidence of the water consumers."
They also said that in the absence of any municipal body to which these functions could be committed, a water authority of a representative character ought to be constituted. The adoption of the words "in the absence of a municipal body" showed that the Committee thought that where there was

981
such a body it ought to be constituted the water authority. In 1888 the London County Council was constituted, and in 1891 it was recognised as the municipal water authority for London by the Committee presided over by Sir Matthew White Ridley, the present Home Secretary. The Committee said in their Report:—
"Your Committee consider it most desirable that the problem should be carefully and deliberately examined by the newly-constituted Municipal authority, the London County Council, in the interests of the water consumers of the Metropolis.… Your Committee recommend that powers should be granted to the London County Council to expend such further sums as may be reasonably necessary, in order that they may examine thoroughly for themselves, as the responsible Municipal authority of London, the whole position of the Metropolitan water supply, and come to a conclusion as to the policy which, for financial and other reasons, it is desirable to adopt. That if they should so resolve they should have power to promote a Bill or Bills in Parliament for the purpose of constituting themselves the responsible water authority for London, acting through a Statutory Committee, appointed either wholly by themselves, or partly in conjunction with the Corporation of the City of London, such Statutory Committee to comprise a certain number of members possessing special knowledge and qualifications, not necessarily members of the body or bodies appointing."
These quotations certainly showed that it was the view of the important Committees appointed by the House of Commons that the London County Council ought to be the water authority for London. In the County Council this question of the water supply had been often mooted. It had always been discussed with the utmost moderation and without party feeling, for it had not been made a party question. It had been felt on all sides in the County Council that for this great Metropolis a good and ample supply of water was necessary, that the supply should be provided at a reasonable and moderate rate, and that a necessary of life, second only in importance to air, ought not to be made the subject of commercial profit. The policy of the Council was that it should not be passed over in this matter, that the outside areas should be treated separately, and that their respective authorities should provide them with water. He contended that it was also the desire of the outside authorities that
982
they should have the control over water in their own areas. The petitions received in 1891 and 1895 from Kent, Herts, Middlesex, and other counties and districts proved that. The London County Council also insisted that the Water Companies' business should be acquired on fair and reasonable terms. The Council had introduced water Bills, which were now before Parliament, and its Chairman had been engaged in negotiations with the companies, and those negotiations had progressed most satisfactorily. If the new body which it was proposed to create by this Bill was likely to be set up the negotiations would be broken off. The main power that was to be given to the new body was the power of applying to Parliament in order to promote legislation. With reference to this proposal, he would quote a statement made by Sir M. W. Ridley, as Chairman of the Committee to which the City Bill of 1891 was referred. The Committee met on April 15th, 1891, and adjourned until the 28th, when the Chairman made this statement:—
"The Committee have come to this conclusion—they are of opinion on the opening of the case by Mr. Littler that no Bill can be satisfactory, dealing with the questions referred to this Committee, which merely constitutes a public, authority to promote Bills in Parliament. Practically, that means we cannot see our way to passing the preamble of this Bill."
It was curious that the Government, of whom the Chairman of this very Committee was a Member, should take a course in entire opposition to the doctrine laid down by him. ["Hear, hear!"] To four-fifths of the population affected by the Bill it was proposed to give only a bare majority of one on the new Board. Surely, that was not fair. The noble Lord asked what they would do when London had grown and the population should reach 11 millions. For his part, he thought that London would then do what Glasgow and other towns had done. ["Hear, hear!"] It would extend its area and the County Council would increase the number of its members in accordance with that extension. It was, in his opinion, a pity that the Government should have stepped in to interfere with the good work which was being done by the County Council. They

983
might with greater advantage have made the new body a Statutory Committee of the Council, that Council being represented by its own members and outside bodies by their own members. Such a Committee would have possessed the advantage of exercising the powers which were inherent in the County Council both as to borrowing money and the general transaction of business. In conclusion, he recorded an emphatic protest against this proposal to constitute a new authority for dealing with the water supply of London.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD,as the only representative of the Water Companies in that House, hoped their Lordships would allow him to say a few words on this subject. He had for 20 years taken a very active part in the management of one of these companies, and he could claim to be conversant with the working and management of the other water companies. He did not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill. The noble Lord who had just spoken asserted that all who were affected by this Bill were opposed to the constitution of a new Board. He entirely dissented from that view, and on the part of the water companies he was grateful to the Government—and he believed he spoke the general feeling of the companies—for having stepped in and put an end to the designs of the London County Council. [Ironical cheers.] In the first place he thought it was important that there should be a board on which all interests could be fairly represented—interests of the counties from which the water was drawn, the interests of the county councils, the interests of the Thames Conservancy, the interests of the City, and the interests of the water companies. That seemed to him to be a most important element in the case, but such representation could not be fairly obtained on the County Council. He would not at present enter into a discussion of the details of the Bill. The proper time to do so would be when the Measure was printed and time had been given for consideration of those details, and when the Second Reading was moved. He desired, however, with the leave of the House, to state very briefly the general position of the eight great water companies affected by the Bill. He observed with pleasure that the
984
noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that it was not introduced because of the failure of the companies to perform their duty to the water consumers. He would go further than the noble Lord, and say that the water companies were confident and satisfied that they had performed their duties thoroughly and loyally to the water consumers. He was aware that a great many persons dissented from this view, but he had always found that those who dissented were persons who had not studied the great mass of evidence brought before Royal Commissions and Committees. What the water companies relied upon in support of their case was in the first place the evidence given before those Commissions and Committees. They also relied on the annual reports of the Local Government Board, and especially on the recent reports, because great improvements had been made in the last 15 years both in the manner of the filtration and storage of water. They relied on the reports of the Water Examiner of the Local Government Board, Major-General Scott, who had devoted great attention to the subject. He thought that he would not be wrong in saying that if this gentleman was examined he would admit that the water companies had readily and to the best of their ability endeavoured to give effect to all the suggestions which he had made from time to time for improving the water supply. They also relied on the monthly reports to the Local Government Board by eminent analysts. Dr. E. Frankland had perhaps more than any man in the country devoted his time to the study and close examination of the water of the Thames as taken out of the river, and as delivered to the consumers after filtration and storage. They further relied on the reports of Professors Crookes, Dewar, and Odling, who took samples every day of the water from any part of the service of each company, and whose reports were sent regularly to the Water Examiner of the Local Government Board. In addition to all these authorities the water companies relied on the Report of the Royal Commission which was presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and to which he would again refer later on. As to the price of water supplied, and

985
the quantity supplied to each house, he maintained that the position of the London consumer supplied by any of the eight companies compared most favourably with the position of consumers in other large towns of the country like Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, Birmingham, and Bristol. The quality of the Thames water, moreover, was approved by a Royal Commission, as long ago as 1869, presided over by the Duke of Richmond. The Inquiry by that Commission was so exhaustive that it had had formed the starting point of all subsequent investigations and inquiries, and since that time the quality of the water had been strongly uphold by the analysts before referred to. As to the purity and wholesomeness of the water supplied, he confidently relied upon the Report made by Lord Balfour's Commission, which was composed almost of experts. Lord Balfour was Chairman, and the other members were Sir George Bruce, Past President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Sir A. Geikie, Professor of Geology to Edinburgh University, Professor Dewar, Messrs, Hill and Mansergh, C. E., and Dr. William Ogle, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians. The Inquiry held was most exhaustive and the Report stated:—
"We are strongly of opinion that the water as supplied to the consumer of London is of a very high standard of excellence and purity, and that it is suitable in quality for all household purposes."
If, therefore, the reasonable price and the quality and purity of the water were established their Lordships would not be surprised to hear that the companies would prefer to keep the management in their own hands. If, however, it was the opinion of Parliament that the time had arrived for the management to be vested in other hands, the Water Companies, had, of course, no other course but to submit to the decision of Parliament, but then the companies submitted that compensation should be paid on fair equitable principles, such as had been ratified and established by Parliament in the Lands Clauses Acts and other Acts dealing with compulsory purchase. The water companies claimed that as a right from Parliament. A large body of their shareholders were trustees, and a still larger
986
body consisted of persons of moderate means, who had invested their property in the undertakings of the companies and entirely depended on the dividends for their livelihood. Though he did not put this consideration forward as a reason for giving more compensation than was reasonable, he did put it forward as a claim for compensation on equitable principles. He entered a strong protest on the part of the companies against the unrighteous proposals for compensation which had been proposed by the County Council. He thought that the noble Lord opposite was entirely wrong as to the negotiations with the chairmen of the companies. No proposition had been made which the water companies could possibly accept. Every proposition that had been made fell short of any compensation which had been given in the case of compulsory purchase in other cases, and in these circumstances it was idle to talk of negotiations having really commenced. In conclusion he would again state his firm belief that a water board where all parties and all interests could be properly represented was the proper authority to undertake the management of this great work. The County Council had already sufficient work to discharge, and he did not think that they appreciated the close attention and responsibility needed in the management and supply of water to consumers within such an enormous area as that now supplied by the eight Companies. [Cheers.]
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid he had listened with close attention to the able and clear statement of his noble Friend. He thought, however, that the noble Lord had begged the question; he had shown no necessity for his Bill, he had simply indulged in vague prospective possibilities as to a deficiency in the supply of water when the population had increased to a certain figure. When his noble Friend said that some persons were satisfied with things as they were he ventured to cheer. He did so on account of certain facts disclosed in the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Balfour—a very able body, which sat for two years and went fully into the whole question of water supply for the Metropolis. As to the quality of the water he said that he himself was supplied by the Grand Junction

987
Company, and he only wished he had as good a supply of water in Scotland. It was much softer and not so full of lime. The Commission reported that the water was of very high quality for domestic purposes, and it appeared from the evidence of the medical officers that they could not trace a single case of illness to deleterious particles or to organic matter in the water supply of the London companies. There was scarcely a town in the country that could say as much as this. As to the prospective increase of the population the Commission said that from existing and from readily available sources water sufficient to supply consumers at the rate of 35 gallons a head per day could be obtained from existing sources, and easily available for 12 millions of a population. ["Hear, hear!"]
LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the local bodies outside the London area would look with much disfavour upon any interference with the control of their water supply. The noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill proposed to get over this difficulty by stating that under certain circumstances those authorities might contract themselves out of the water trust, but he was perfectly certain that that proposal would not commend itself to their approval. They would say that the water trust was an engine of oppression, and would consider they would be put in a worse position under the Bill in respect of obtaining an autonomous position.
Bill read 1a.—[No. 38.]

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALSBURY)explained that, in accordance with suggestions, two verbal alterations had been made in the Bill, one of which was the omission of the words, "In addition to."
LORD NORTONwas glad those words had been omitted, but he thought a further improvement might be made to the Bill if a provision was inserted to the effect that in certain cases young
988
boys should not be sent to the common gaol for punishment, but to some other place.
THE LORD CHANCELLORasked to what place the noble Lord proposed to send the boys if not to gaol?
LORD NORTONsaid that in the previous Bill some place was suggested.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the noble Lord laid his suggestion before the House in a practical shape they might understand it, but at present there was nothing definite before them.
Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

MILITARY EXPEDITION TO DONGOLA.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): I understand that at the opening of the Sitting, the noble Lord opposite thought that I was guilty of discourtesy to this House because I did not make a statement, whereas a statement has been made by the Under Secretary of State in the other House. But Sir William Harcourt had given private notice to my right hon. Friend that he desired to ask him a Question; he did ask him, and the Question was answered. If the noble Lord had gone through the same ceremony, I should have been perfectly prepared to answer him.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not think that quite exhausts the facts of the case. The Under Secretary promised that he would make a statement to-day on the subject which has attracted universal attention—the advance to Dongola. We were under the hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State would not treat us as unworthy of a similar statement, and we hurried down with that object. If the noble Marquess does not wish to make a statement, he is, of course, quite right in pleading that no previous notice has been given.
THE PRIME MINISTER: We are not in the same position as the House of Commons. There the Speaker would not allow the statement to be made on Motion to go into Committee on the Army Estimates. I shall be glad to answer any question of which the noble Lord may give me notice, but I have no statement now to make.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: We are not under the same restraint as the House of Commons. There they have a Speaker; we have no Speaker here, and the noble Marquess might have a freer opportunity of making a statement.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter past Ten o'clock.