Lords Sitting of 18 May 1896

SHERIFFS AND UNDER-SHERIFFS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to regulate the duties of Sheriffs and Under-Sheriffs—Was presented by the Earl of Camperdown; read la; and to be printed.—[No. 98.]
FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Fisheries Acts—Was presented by the Earl of Dudley; read la; and to be printed.—[No. 99.]

HORSE AND FIELD ARTILLERY GUNS.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHasked the Secretary of State for War what progress had been made in the re-arming of batteries of horse and field artillery with the new 12-pounder and 15-pounder Mark II. equipment respectively, and how many batteries were at present without any serviceable guns whatever. He also called attention to serious defects in the new equipments issued to certain batteries of the First Army Corps. He said that their Lordships would remember that the horse and field artillery batteries were not long ago armed with the 12-pounder breechloading gun. It was an excellent gun, found to be too heavy for horse artillery and not heavy enough for field artillery; and it was decided to convert the old 12-pounder into a 15-pounder for the field artillery, not by altering the size of the gun but by giving a longer and heavier shell, while the horse artillery were to be armed with the new 12-pounder gun. Several field batteries were re-armed with the new 15-pounder shell gun, but it was found that this long shell did not suit the gun, and the shooting was bad. Accordingly, it was decided to reduce the length of the shell, and make it a 14-pounder instead of a 15-pounder.
1510
But they did not call it a 14-pounder because for some reasons—he was told for Parliamentary reasons, whatever they might be—it was decided to still continue the name of 15-pounder, but it was christened "15-pounder Mark II." He mentioned this in order to emphasise what he had said with regard to it, because it was not enough for the noble Marquess to inform the House how many 15-pounders had been added to the Royal Artillery, but how many 15-pounders Mark II., of the latest approved pattern. He was sure that the result of this change of ammunition in the midst of the process of re-arming an important branch of the Service had caused a considerable amount of confusion. There were three batteries of field artillery of the First Army Corps now stationed at Woolwich. One of these was armed with the 15-pounder Mark II., with a 14-pounder shell, and their sights were the same as designed for the 15-pounder shell. The other two batteries, belonging to the First Army Corps at Woolwich were still armed with the 15-pounder shell, and with limbers and equipment for the 15-pounder. Those two batteries were high up in the list of service; they stood third or fourth on the list for foreign service, and they were batteries which were supposed to be ready for mobilisation at any moment. Either they would have to go on service with 15-pounder shells, or else they would have to get their limber boxes altered at the last moment and go with 14-pounders or fall back upon 12-pounder ammunition. At the present time he understood that they were going to practise with the old 12-pounder ammunition for the purpose of using it up, so that they would have guns intended for 14-pounder shells going to shooting practice with 12-pounder shells, and using sights designed for 15-pounder shells. To add to this, there were two batteries, also belonging to the First Army Corps, one of which was armed with a 14-pounder shell and the other with a 15-pounder equipment. When the guns were sent down to Woolwich Arsenal it was found that the limber boxes of those batteries would not remain shut; the ammunition fell out on the road; and the result was that artificers had to be sent from Woolwich to put them right. He was

1511
aware that allowance must be made for certain mistakes which might be made with regard to guns issued in the hurry in which the present equipment was being issued, but he thought that in the case of those batteries of the First Army Corps, which were supposed to be absolutely ready for service, it was a mistake to forget the old maxim of "great haste less speed." He did not wish to impute any blame to the noble Marquess or to those under him with regard to these matters, because he knew that since the noble Marquess assumed office he and those under him had done their best to remedy the somewhat disastrous condition which the field and horse artillery armaments were then in. But he thought there was serious ground for complaints against the want of foresight exhibited by those who went before him, and he maintained that it was a great mistake to decide upon the rearmament of the artillery with a certain gun and then find out, after a considerable number of guns were made, that it shot badly, and then change it in the middle of the process. He should also like to know how many batteries were without any guns at all? There were nine batteries of field artillery at Woolwich, three of which belonged to the First Army Corps. The other six had not a gun of any description, except that the other day they were armed with the guns of the old pattern for the purposes of driving drill. Another battery at Coventry had been without guns of any description for two-and-a-half months, and he hoped that the noble Marquess would be able to give some satisfactory assurance that the resources now at the command of the Arsenal authorities were such that the field artillery might soon be armed with a satisfactory gun of uniform pattern.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): The rearmament to which the noble Earl's question refers is that which was mentioned in the explanatory Memorandum laid upon the Table with the Army Estimates for this year. It was explained in that Memorandum that two operations were in progress—first the rearmament of the Horse Artillery with the new 12-pounder gun; and secondly, the conversion of the whole of the guns of the Field Artillery from 12-pounders
1512
to 15-pounders. I may say here that, although it is usual to speak of these guns as 12-pounders and 15-pounders, the old 12-pounder shell was, in fact, slightly over 12 lb. in weight, while the new 15-pounder shell does not weigh quite so much as 15 lb. It was decided that out of the ten new batteries required for the Horse Artillery, six batteries, or 36 guns, should be provided by the ordnance factories, and four batteries, or 24 guns, by the trade. It was also decided that the whole of the conversion of the Field Artillery guns, numbering in all 306, should be carried out by the ordnance factories. In the explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Estimates we undertook that the six batteries of Horse Artillery to be provided by the factories should be ready by the beginning of June, and it was hoped that the four batteries which were given to the trade would be ready about the end of the month of August. I am glad to say that the factories have been as good as their word. Five out of the six batteries for which they are responsible have already been issued, and the remaining battery is now ready for issue. Whether the trade will be equally successful in fulfilling our expectations I am not yet able to say. As to the Field Artillery, we undertook that guns sufficient for two Army Corps—that is for 30 batteries, or 180 guns—should be ready by the beginning of June, and that the remainder of the conversion should be completed as rapidly as the engagements of the factories would permit. Here, again, I am glad to say, that the factories have not disappointed us. They promised 180 guns by the beginning of June, and they have already converted and issued 204 guns, or 34 batteries, instead of the 30 promised. These batteries are complete in their equipment with carriages, limbers, ammunition wagons, and all accessories. The remainder of the Field Artillery guns will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, and there will be sufficient guns for three Army Corps by the end of June. When the whole of these operations have been completed we shall have for the Horse Artillery the full equipment of 10 batteries of six guns each, with a reserve of eight guns, and for the Field Artillery the full equipment for three Army Corps, or 45 batteries of six

1513
guns each, with a reserve of 24 guns besides some surplus guns. The noble Earl has called attention to what he describes as certain "serious defects" in the new equipment issued to certain batteries. Considering the rapidity with which the rearmament has taken place and the fact that these changes were, in the first instance, to some extent experimental, it would be surprising if no hitch had taken place. The noble Earl has, in the first place, mentioned the confusion which he believes has arisen in regard to the sighting of the field guns. I will state exactly what has happened. It was decided, as I have already said, to adopt a heavier shell for the 12-pounder gun. The shell first issued, and which weighed 14½ lb., was found to be slightly too heavy. This shell, which is known as "Mark I." shell, was given up after a very small number only had been manufactured, and a lighter shell, weighing very little over 14 lb., known as "Mark II." shell, was adopted in its place. The whole of the Field Artillery will have this shell, and we are now turning them out at the rate of between 3,000 and 4,000 a week. No Field Artillery guns have been sighted for "Mark I." shell, and no sights have been or will be issued for that shell. These guns all retain their old 12-pounder sights, and they will also be sighted for the 15-pounder "Mark II." shell. I can explain why, for the present at all events, it has been thought desirable to retain the old as well as the new sighting. It is intended that the whole of the Field Batteries should practise this year with the 12-pounder shell. This decision has been come to, first, because we have a considerable quantity of that shell in stock and do not desire to waste it, especially as it is held that instruction gained with it at gun practice is, for general purposes, equal to that gained from the new ammunition; and, secondly, because it is not thought desirable that we should begin using the new shell until we have accumulated an adequate supply of it to complete our ammunition columns. The noble Earl has mentioned cases in which limbers fitted for the "Mark I." shell have been issued, although, as he correctly says, it is not intended to use that mark. I have ascertained that the eight
1514
Field Batteries first issued after conversion had limbers fitted to take the "Mark I." shell, but the alteration required is extremely simple, and by the time the "Mark II." shell is ready for issue, limbers will have been fitted for them. The noble Earl spoke of batteries which, he said, had been without guns since the month of March. Those batteries are included amongst those referred to in the earlier part of my statement. At the present moment there are seven batteries without guns; these are the seven batteries which were raised in April 1895, and their guns, which have been withdrawn for the purpose of conversion, will very shortly be returned to them. Meanwhile, they are using some older guns for drill. I think I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships, first, that the rearmament has made good progress in a comparatively short space of time, and next, that, if there have been some slight hitches or imperfections in the equipment issued, they are not of a serious character, and can be easily remedied.

METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
[The EARL of MORLEY in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—

CONSTITUTION OF WATER BOARD.
The members of the Water Board shall be appointed as follows:—

Sixteen by the London County Council,

Two by the Common Council of the City of London,

Two by the Council of the county of Middlesex,

Two by the Council of the county of Essex,

Two by the Council of the county borough of West Ham,

One by the Council of each of the other metropolitan counties,

One by the Conservators of the River Thames.

One by the Lee Conservancy Board.

LORD ALDENHAM*LORD ALDENHAM moved an Amendment with the object of increasing the representation of the Common Council of the City of London on the Board from

1515
two to four members. He said the Corporation of the City of London stood in a peculiar position as having done more in the matter of regulating water than any other body. Up to 1892 it was the only body that had any right of initiative, and they used their rights as fair intermediaries between the consumer and the water companies. Whether regard was had to rateable value or population, he contended that the representation given to the City in the Bill was too small. In all other particulars the Bill was a good and a just Bill, but in respect of the present question he was representing the views not only of the Corporation of the City, but also, he believed, the interests of the consumers of water. The City paid more and used less than any other class, because its population consisted of day dwellers only, and it would suffer more in the event of any increase in the price of water. Consequently it would be in the interests of economy that the City should be well and largely represented on this Board. Nothing was further from his intention than to impute extravagance to the London County Council, as Lord Monkswell on the former occasion had rather taunted him with doing. He had not the slightest thought of giving them a monopoly of extravagance. What he maintained was that any body of men whatever, even this Water Board, however constituted, having the power to dip its hands into the rates, made for extravagance, whereas any constituent of that Board, any member of it who would himself suffer from extravagance, might be trusted to do his best to keep to the lines of economy. Under the Bill as it stood, the County Council would have a majority on the Board. With the Amendment, the County Council would have a representation equal to that of all the other bodies together. There was another reason for the Amendment. When certain of the water companies desired to increase their borrowing powers, and, therefore, to increase their profits, the Corporation thought it reasonable to ask Parliament to provide that, after allowing a fair proportion of the profits to those who had made the improvements, the remainder should be reserved for the benefit of the water consumers. Parliament assented to this proposition, and as a result of it, a sum of £267,000 a year had been
1516
saved for the consumers. The Corporation had the responsibility of investing this money, and ultimately of employing it in the purchase of the companies for the good of the consumer. Therefore, if Parliament had put so great a responsibility on the City, it was but reasonable that it should have a greater representation on the Water Trust.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, that as the only County Council representative of the City in their Lordships' House, he should support the Amendment. A strong feeling existed in the City as to its inadequate representation on the proposed Trust. In view of the fact that the rateable value of the City bore such a large proportion to equal areas in other parts of London; and in view of the fact that the City had been such a great sufferer by the inequitable system of water-rating which had prevailed so long in the Metropolis, he hoped that the Amendment would be accepted.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD)said, that since the Bill was read a Second time he had had communications with a great many representatives of different areas, and he had endeavoured to meet the demands which they had made. He wished he could accept the Amendment of his noble Friend, but he could not do so at the present stage of the Bill, at any rate. If the Amendment were accepted the whole composition of this proposed Trust would have to be altered. The number of members under the Bill would be 30, and, looking to the relative population and the relative rateable value of the London County Council area, it was felt to be impossible to do otherwise than give to the London County Council a majority on the Trust—16 members. The Amendment would increase the total number of members from 30 to 32, and would then leave the County Council without a majority. The only hope he could hold out to his noble Friend was that he should endeavour to get rid of some of the representatives of other bodies—for instance, the Conservators of the River Lea—and then to fill their places by representatives of the Corporation, so that the total number of 30 members of the Trust would not be increased. The City of London, he must admit, might, from one point of view, well urge a claim to larger

1517
representation; but so did other bodies. The county of Surrey, with its growing population, complained that it only had one representative while the City of London had two. How could he meet the demand of the county of Surrey if he increased the representation of the City? In some sense the view of the City had been followed in the Bill. In 1891 the City of London and the London County Council entered into a kind of compact that a Commission should be formed, and then the City asked for one-eighth of the representation of the County Council. The present Bill gave the City two members to the Council's 16; but his noble Friend was now asking for one-fifth instead of one-eighth of the County Council's representation. Looking to the only two tests which could be applied, the City hardly made out its case. According to the census of 1891, the population of the County Council area was 4,200,000, and that of the City of London was only 37,000; though, of course, that was the population resident in the City throughout the 24 hours. Again, the rateable value of the County Council area was about 30 millions, and that of the City of London was £4,200,000, or less than one-seventh. The proposal in the Bill was more in accordance with any rule which the noble Lord could lay down than was the Amendment. Then, the City of London had its representatives on the London County Council as well as its representatives on the Water Trust. It was true that under the Bill as now drawn the City's representatives on the County Council could not vote in the election of the Council's representatives on the Water Trust. But the moral weight of the City's representatives on the Council would be very great.
LORD ALDENHAMsaid that in the Bill of 1891, which was agreed to by the County Council, though it was not passed, the City was to have eight members out of a total of 48. His Amendment asked, not for one-fifth, but for one-eighth of the whole number of representatives.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4,

NEW POWERS OF WATER BOARD.
(1.) The Water Board shall have power to inquire into and enter into negotiations and make and adopt provisional agreements respecting any matters relating to the water supply of the metropolitan water area, and to take such steps for promoting or opposing any Bills in Parliament as may appear to the hoard necessary or expedient in relation to the water supply to the area, and any such Bill may provide for altering the extent of the metropolitan water area and for making any consequential alteration in the constitution of the Water Board.
(2.) Any such Bill promoted by them may be introduced as a private Bill, but if opposed shall be referred to a Select Committee of which some Members may be nominated by the House in which the Bill is pending.
(3.) The Water Board shall have the same power of making a complaint with respect to the quantity or quality of water as is given by section nine of the Metropolis Water Act 1852, to the householders mentioned in that section, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly.
(4.) The Water Board may aid any inhabitant of the metropolitan water area in obtaining the determination of any question which appears to the Board to be of general interest to consumers of water or to any class of such consumers with respect to the rights and liabilities of any of the metropolitan water companies or otherwise with respect to the supply of water given and the charges made by those companies, and may take such legal proceedings as may appear to the Board necessary or expedient for the protection of the interests of consumers of water in respect of the matters aforesaid.
(5.) Any person authorised by the Water Board in that behalf may enter and inspect any premises within the metropolitan water area for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any violation of the enactments with respect to the supply of water within that area.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD*VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD moved, in Sub-section (4), to leave out all the words after "may" in the first line, to the words "and may." He said that the object of the Amendment was to provide that the Water Board should themselves, of their own motion, institute any proceedings which they might think necessary to protect the general interest of water consumers, and should, of course, be empowered to defray the expenses of such litigation out of the rates. That was in substitution of the power proposed to be conferred on the Board by the Bill, namely, to aid individual litigation out of the rates. The clause, as it stood, had a strong flavour of a doctrine known

1519
to the law as "maintenance," and some learned judge had declared that doctrine to be hateful to the law and contrary to justice. He regretted that, after a long and glorious professional career, his noble Friend should have had to introduce into the House a clause which put forward in the baldest manner this "hateful" doctrine of maintenance. Further, the clause as it stood was, he believed, absolutely without precedent. The Amendment did not limit but extended the power of the Water Board, who would have the power under it of seeing that the litigation was properly conducted; and this was a not unimportant point, for it might be safely assumed that private litigation would be carried on with less regard to cost when the expense was to be borne out of public money. He would be told that the Water Board could only aid an individual litigant when the subject was a matter of general interest to water consumers. It was not very easy to define what question was of sufficient general interest to justify the rating of persons who have no direct interest in the matter. But the clause did not stop there. It provided that the Water Trust might aid a private litigant not only in a matter of interest to the whole body of water consumers, but in a matter of interest "to any class of such consumers." That increased the difficulty of deciding what was of "general interest," and increased the hardship upon those ratepayers who were to be called upon to pay, although they had really no interest in the matter. He would give an instance of this. Supply of water by the companies is either constant or intermittent. Speaking generally, about 82 per cent. of the water supplied is supplied on the constant system, and no cisterns are necessary. Now, supposing some question arose as to the supply to a cistern; that might affect a small class of consumers—decreasing in number year by year—but surely it was hard to make all the ratepayers liable for the expenses of such litigation. Again, in some districts the question arose—what was a trade supply and what was a domestic supply? The question might affect a certain class—the consumers in the district; but if a few of the consumers thought fit to go to law on the question, why should the rest of the ratepayers who were not
1520
interested in it in any way be charged with the expenses of the litigation? If the noble and learned Lord found himself unable to accept the Amendment, he would earnestly press on him, at all events, to omit the words, "and to any class of such consumers." At least, let the litigation be in a matter that affected the whole body of the consumers, and not merely a class of the consumers. But the proper course to adopt was that proposed by the Amendment—to remove the taint of maintenance from the clause—not to let the litigant take his chance of getting his expenses paid out of the rates; but to let the Board take the responsibility of deciding whether the case was one that affected the general body of consumers, and, if it were, to let them then conduct the litigation.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid, he regretted he could not accept the Amendment. He thought it should be made clear who it was his noble Friend represented. His noble Friend urged the adoption of the Amendment in the interests of the water consumers, but he spoke really as the representative of the water companies of London, who objected to the sub-section because they feared they would be harassed by litigation. But that was not the object of the sub-section. It constantly happened that an invasion of great rights could only be dealt with by the litigation of an individual. If an individual water consumer had some right which had been interfered with by the water companies, and if that interference had injuriously affected the whole body of water consumers, it was surely unjust that that individual should bear all the cost of expensive litigation, undertaken really on behalf of the whole body of consumers against the water companies. What the clause provided was that if the Water Trust found that there was a question of general interest to the consumers—and they could not act unless in a question of general interest to the consumers—they should have power in their discretion to say, that instead of allowing a private litigant to be stopped in his litigation for want of funds, or, if he went on, to be compelled to pay all the expenses out of his own pocket, they would aid him in the action he had undertaken in the interest of the whole

1521
community. He believed that was a valuable provision, and he must adhere to it. The words "or to any class of such consumers," which his noble Friend had also appealed to him to strike out, were possibly not required, because they might be held to be included in the word "consumers." He would, therefore, consider the question of omitting them at a subsequent stage.
LORD KNUTSFORDsaid, the promise of the noble Lord to omit the words "or any class of such consumers," made some difference. All he wanted was to prevent unnecessary private litigation. He would give free powers to the Board to conduct litigation where they thought it desirable in the interests of water consumers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid, that representations had been made to him that it would appear to be the intention of the Government to give power under the Bill of interference with independent water companies who supplied water to different areas. The Government had no wish to interfere with any independent company. In order to make that clear, he moved the insertion in Clause 4, Sub-section (5), after the word "violation," the words "by any metropolitan water company." Those words would prevent any interference with any other companies except the eight metropolitan water companies.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5,—

EXPENSES OF WATER BOARD.
(1.) The expenses of and incidental to the exercise by the Water Board of their powers and duties under this Act shall he defrayed by the councils of the metropolitan counties in proportion to the total annual value of the parishes in each county situate within the metropolitan water area, and supplied wholly or partly with water by any of the metropolitan water companies, but any parish which is not so situate or so supplied shall be exempt from contribution towards those expenses.
(2.) For the purposes of this section, "annual value" shall mean the value as determined for the purpose of the county rate, or in the case of a county borough, for the purposes of the borough rate.
EARL COWPERsaid, that as the Bill now stood there was a certain amount of injustice inflicted upon several districts in Hertfordshire, of whose county council he was chairman. In that county there were many parishes in which two or three or sometimes 10 of the houses were supplied with water by the metropolitan companies, but in which the great bulk of the inhabitants derived their water from local companies, or from other sources. According to the Bill the inhabitants of all those parishes would be rated in order to pay the expenses of the new Water Trust. In Stanstead, for instance, with 140 inhabitants, only two houses were supplied with water by the London water companies. Again, in Broxbourne, with 780 inhabitants, only 20 houses were supplied by the London water companies. In the town of Cheshunt, only 34 houses, representing about 200 people out of 9,600, were supplied with water by the London companies, and yet if the Bill were passed, the whole town would be rated for the expenses of the Board. Again, in Great Amwell, with 2,000 inhabitants, only 23 houses were supplied by the London water companies. The Bill therefore, as it stood, would be a manifest injustice to the general body of the ratepayers of those towns and villages in Hertfordshire, and he was sure the noble and learned Lord would apply a remedy if he could. What he would suggest was, that the inhabitants should not have to pay rates to the Board unless one-half of the houses were supplied with water by one of the eight metropolitan companies. If one-half should be thought too high a proportion, he was willing to say one-third or any number or proportion that might be thought fair. It had been suggested that it was not easy to arrive at the exact quantity of water used in a parish; but he had no objection that, if a parish wished to be exempt, the onus of proof of the quantity used should be thrown upon it. Perhaps no arrangement was possible that would be entirely free from small injustice; but even if a few persons who ought to pay escaped, that would be a less evil than the injustice that would be perpetrated by the Bill as it stood. He hoped the noble and learned Lord would see his way to meet the cases which he could do without in any way interfering with the principle

1523
of the Bill. His Lordship moved to leave out all the words after "or partly with water" and to insert instead thereof:—
"Provided that no parish shall be liable to contribute towards such expenses unless at least one-half of the houses in such parish are supplied by some or one of the metropolitan water companies."
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid, the noble Lord had called attention to what he admitted was a practical grievance. He might explain to their Lordships that, as soon as the Trust was formed, Bills would probably be promoted, the cost of which would be small compared with the rateable value of the Metropolis, and involving a charge of something less than a farthing in the pound. Still, even a small charge might be objected to on principle if it was not strictly just. He quite accepted the view that, if this could be avoided, it ought to be avoided. In many cases water companies had power to supply a whole parish, even although they supplied only a part of it, and in these cases the whole parish was interested. Then there was no means of rating half a parish. The question was one of great difficulty, but he would do his best to try and find a remedy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6,—

EXTENSION OF OPERATION OF METROPOLIS WATER ACTS.
"The Metropolis Water Act, 1852, except Section three thereof, and the whole of the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, shall extend to the whole of the metropolitan water area, and shall have effect as if the expression 'metropolitan water area' were substituted therein for the expressions 'Metropolis,' and 'limits of this Act,' respectively."
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved, after the words "water area, and shall," to insert "as respects the metropolitan water companies."
Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7,—

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF WATER BOARD.
(1.) The Members of the Water Board shall be appointed at such times, and in such manner, and shall hold office for such time as may be fixed by the Council or other authority appointing them: Provided that—

(a.) One-third, as nearly as may be, of the Members appointed by the London County Council shall retire in every year.

(b.) The Members appointed by any other council shall not continue in office for more than three months after the next triennial election of councillors of that council, or in the case of a county borough or of the City of London, or of any other authority for more than three years.

(c.) A retiring Member may be re-appointed.

(d.) The County Councillors elected for the City of London shall not vote in the appointment of Members by the London County Council.

(2.) A Member of the Water Board need not be a Member of the Council or other authority by whom he is appointed.
(3.) A person interested otherwise than as ratepayer or consumer of water in any metropolitan water company shall not be qualified to be a Member of the Water Board.
(4.) The Water Board shall, with respect to their proceedings and quorum, the appointment and powers of a Chairman, the appointment, powers and proceedings of committees, the provision of an office, and the appointment of officers for the execution of the duties of the Board, be in the same position as if they were a County Council.
(5.) The accounts of the Water Board and their officers shall, for the purpose of the enactments relating to the audit of accounts of County Councils, be deemed to be accounts of a County Council and their officers.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD*VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD moved an Amendment to provide that members should hold office for such time "not exceeding three years," as might be fixed by the council or other authority. Without this Amendment some members might remain on the Board for a considerable number of years, for, as the clause stood, there was no provision for retirement by rotation. Some such provision should be made, and he would refer the noble Lord to the provision made for retirement of Aldermen by (51 & 52 Viet., c. 41, s. 104). He ventured to suggest that as regards all County Councils their representatives on

1525
the Water Board should be elected for three years and they all retire together, being, however, eligible for re-election.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid, no member of a county council could remain a member more than three years without being re-elected; but the effect of the Amendment would be to say that an outside expert, who had been chosen as such, having served for three years should serve no longer even if re-elected.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid, his object was simply to secure that no one should be appointed for longer than three years; and it was subsequently provided that a retiring member may be re-appointed.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid, the Bill provided that one-third, as nearly as may be, of the members of the London County Council should retire every year, and at the end of the third year all would have retired. In other cases, too, the term of service was practically limited to three years. It was suggested that no one should be in office more than three years. His noble Friend asked why, if some one were elected from outside these bodies—an expert—should he be unable to serve more than three years. If the expert was a good man, why should he not serve more than three years?
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid, he could not serve more than three years under the Bill, so he would have the same treatment both under the Amendment and the Bill. Arrangements might be made by which he might continue to serve even after the three years.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDin moving the next Amendment said, the Bill proposed that the London County Council should appoint 16 representatives on the Water Trust. Whether the majority of the Council was Progressive or Moderate, he did not think it ought to be able to appoint the whole of the 16 members. It was tolerably certain what the majority of the Council would do. As far as he could judge from proceedings of the London County Council, no mercy was shewn to the minority. To secure that the minority should have some share in the election of these representatives on
1526
the Water Board, he moved at the end of sub-section (a) after the word "year" to insert—
"and on the occasion of the voting (if any) for the appointment of the first sixteen members to be appointed by that council, no member of such council shall vote for more than ten of the members then to be appointed, and on the occasion of the voting (if any) for any subsequent appointment of members to be appointed by that council, no member of such council shall vote for more than four members then to be appointed"
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, this Amendment, which involved an important change in the structure of the Bill, was only in his hands on the previous day, though the Bill was read a First time on 16th March and a Second time on 30th April. Minority representation had often been suggested in various bodies from Parliament downwards, but he did not think it had ever met with any considerable favour at the hands of Parliament. The London County Council might elect all the Members of the Board of the same politics as the majority, but at present the Chairman and Vice Chairman were members of the majority in the Council, but the Deputy Chairman was a member of the minority. All the more contentious committees consisted of 15 members, eight of whom represented the majority and seven the minority. Therefore, the noble Lord would probably find his fears were not justified. Of course a change might take place and the party now in a minority in the Council might find itself in a majority, and he could understand his noble Friend wishing to take precautions against the Water Trust being packed by the Unionist Party on the Council. But he asked for time to consider the matter further, and begged his noble Friend to withdraw the Amendment for the present.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid that he had been, anxious on the Second Reading of the Bill to point out some details in which he thought Amendments might be made, but he had been unable to do so. At the request of his noble Friend he would withdraw this Amendment for the present. Much consideration had been given outside to the question of minority representation, and perhaps it was as well that the London County Council should consider the matter too. He would only observe that this case

1527
differed from those referred to by the noble Lord, as this was an election for an outside Board, not for committees of the Council itself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved the insertion of two new clauses after Clause 7. He said, these new clauses were prepared in pursuance of a promise made on the Second Reading, and he wished to briefly explain their object. To understand the clauses it was necessary to read the objects and motives of the Bill. It was not an attempt to give one great body a centralising power. The object of calling this Water Trust into existence was that it was the best mode in the view of the Government of effecting an end. There was opposition to the London County Council Transfer Bill, because it was sought to give the Council alone the power of dealing with its own water and that of the outside areas, and it was thought this would create such an enormous municipality for water purposes that the interests of the consumer would not be properly attended to. The Government were anxious now to act on that view, not merely to the extent of opposing the London County Council proposal, but to carry into effect what they believed would be the proper treatment of the water supply. The view of the Government was that the Trust representing different communities would be able to come to agreements among themselves, and also it was hoped with the Water Companies. As soon, as this was done it would be absolutely necessary legislation should be obtained to give sanction to those arrangements, and give rating powers to the newly-created bodies, which, hitherto, had not had any power over water. So it would be the duty of the Water Trust to be a kind of clearing-house which would start the supply of water with the hope, at least, that the different responsible governing bodies of the different communities would have the power of managing their own water supply on behalf of their own communities. With that object, and having heard what the different representatives of these communities wished—and they had expressed their views in moderate, practical language—he had done his best
1528
to see what the intention of the Legislature was at the present time, and he had drawn a preamble to the clause stating this, which preamble he would move at a subsequent stage of the Bill. The first of the proposed new clauses was as follows:—
"The Council of any metropolitan county may promote a Bill in Parliament for the purpose of providing or controlling (whether by virtue of any agreement with the Water Board or otherwise) a water supply for their county or any part thereof, and any such Bill may provide for the withdrawal of the representatives of such Council from the Water Board, and for making any consequential alteration in the metropolitan water area and in the provisions of this Act."
He had explained the object of the first part of the clause. The second part was necessary, for this reason: This was a public Bill creating a statutory body, and although it might be legal for private Bill legislation to repeal this so far as to alter the constitution of a public body, yet it was inconvenient, and perhaps unconstitutional, that a body created by a public Act should be done away with or altered in its power by private legislation. Therefore, it had been decided that such power should be given, so that a county, having obtained power to manage its own water, could withdraw from the Board through the agency of private Bill legislation. He hoped this would show the intention of Parliament in placing the Measure on the Statute Book. The hope of the Government was that each responsible community would be able to take charge of its water supplies. The second new clause was framed with the object of giving further facilities to any of the outside ones to leave the Trust. The Water Trust might promote a Bill to acquire the undertaking of the Metropolitan Water Companies or procure a further supply of water to any part of the Metropolitan area. In such case the Council of any Metropolitan county might say, "We object to this. We do not want to be saddled with this great taxation, for we have a water supply from our own wells or river. We wish to withdraw from the Water Trust and get rid of that obligation." But they would not be allowed to withdraw unless it was satisfactorily shown that those they represented were supplied with sufficient

1529
water. The justice and equity of withdrawing would be determined before permission to withdraw was given, but county authorities would have the opportunity of being relieved of burdens from which they received no benefit. He proposed to insert these two new clauses with a view to aid each community to obtain its own independent and autonomous life, so that it should not be joined with other communities with which it had no interests in common. There was another clause based on the principle that those who received the benefit should bear the expense. He begged to move the first of the now clauses as given above.
Amendment agreed to.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD*LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved the second of the new clauses to which he had referred, as follows:—

(1.) In the event of the Water Board promoting any Bill in Parliament for the purpose of acquiring or controlling the undertaking of any metropolitan water company, or of procuring a fresh supply of water to any part of the metropolitan water area, the council of any metropolitan county may apply to Parliament for the insertion in such Bill of provisions enabling that council to withdraw their representatives from the Water Board, and to acquire such portion of any undertaking proposed to be acquired under the Bill as is situate in their county, and may reasonably be considered to be exclusively required for the part of the county which was previously supplied by the undertaking, and for making any consequential alterations of this Act.

(2.) A parish in a metropolitan county, but outside the metropolitan water area, shall, until otherwise provided by Parliament, be exempt from contributing to the expenses incurred by the council of such county in promoting, or opposing, or applying for the insertion of provisions in any Bill above-mentioned which does not affect such parish.

EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE moved after the word "Act' at the end of sub-section (1) of the proposed new clause, to insert:—
Provided that, with regard to the county of Kent, the County Council of that county shall have a right of pre-emption of such portion of the undertakings of the metropolitan water companies supplying water within the county of Kent, including the sources of supply.
He explained that he wished to give power to the district of West Kent to retain the water supply which it at present enjoyed. The Amendment
1530
moved by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill went a long way in the direction which he desired, but the inhabitants of West Kent, part of which was 20 miles from the Metropolis, still thought that it would be hard and inequitable if the streams and wells which supplied that district should be exhausted for the benefit of London. They wished, therefore, to have a right of preemption in case it should be proposed to exercise the powers conferred by the Bill in their district.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid, that whilst the Government appreciated fully the special qualities of the county of Kent, they could not consent to treat it with exceptional favour.
Proposed Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord James of Hereford's proposed new Clause agreed to.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD*VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD moved to insert after Clause 7, the following clause:—
The London Water Act 1892 is hereby repealed.
He explained that under the Act of 1892 power was given to the London County Council to incur the expense of promoting Bills relating to the water supply of the administrative county of London, and of undertaking inquiries incidental thereto. Now that the Government had decided that the London County Council was not the proper body to manage the business connected with the water supply in the metropolitan area, and that that business should be managed by a special Water Board, it was evident that the County Council ought no longer to retain the right of expenditure conferred upon it by the Act of 1892. If the Council were to retain the right of promoting Water Bills, their action might not always meet with the concurrence of the Water Board. For example, the County Council might promote a Bill for supply from Wales, while the Water Board might think that no outside supply was necessary, or that it had better be made from Cumberland. Needless expense would be incurred, which the unfortunate ratepayers would have to make good.

1531
He maintained, therefore, that the Act of 1892, which vested these spending powers in the London County Council, ought to be repealed, and that the powers ought to be vested in the new Water Board only.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that if this Bill passed, the London County Council would practically be unable to exercise the rights conferred by the Act of 1892. The question raised by the noble Viscount was a purely technical one. It was best, he thought, to leave the existing statement respecting these powers as it stood upon the Statute-book, and merely to transfer the powers from the Council to the new body. There was also a formal difficulty in the way of the acceptance of the noble Viscount's Amendment. The Act of 1892 was a private and not a public Act, and he was informed that when it was intended to repeal a private Act, notice ought to be given, under the Rules of the House, to the bodies exercising powers under the Act. In the present case no such notice had been given, and unless they were prepared to disregard the Rules of the House, they could not take the course proposed by his hon. Friend.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid, that in the circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8,—

COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.
(1.) The first appointment of members of the Water Board shall be made before the expiration of one month after the passing of this Act.
(2.) The first meeting of the Water Board shall be convened as soon as practicable by the Local Government Board, and the clerks of the several councils and authorities appointing members of the board shall send to the Local Government Board written notice of the names and addresses of the persons elected to represent those councils and authorities respectively; and the board shall be deemed duly convened if notice is sent to the persons of whose names the Local Government Board has so received notice at the address specified in the notice; and the board shall be deemed duly constituted notwithstanding any vacancy in their body or the entire non-representation of any council or authority.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
EARL COWPER*EARL COWPER moved to insert, after Clause 8, the following clause:—
Nothing in this Act shall affect the right of any metropolitan county to be heard against the proposals of any Bill promoted by the Water Board, by its counsel, agents, and witnesses, before any Committee to which such Bill shall be referred in accordance with Section 4 (2) of this Act.
In proposing this clause he had the interests of Hertfordshire specially in mind. There were only a very few parishes in Hertfordshire which were supplied with water by any of the eight water companies. In the south of the county a few houses in some parishes were supplied by them, accidentally, as it were. But the inhabitants of Hertfordshire were greatly interested in the question of the water supply of London, as a very large part of that supply was drawn from the soil of the county. In the opinion of many people the wells and springs of Hertfordshire were being slowly but surely exhausted, and its streams had greatly diminished in volume. The county supplied 71,000,000 gallons a day to London, which were pumped out of the ground by enormous steam pumps, and there was no doubt that in the immediate neighbourhood of these operations the wells were getting visibly lower year by year. It was the opinion of many scientific men that the saturation of the chalk soil was being exhausted to a greater extent than could be made good by any average rainfall. If that was correct the whole basin of the Lea and other rivers, on the banks of which these great pumps were worked, would be gradually drained dry—in other words the whole of Hertfordshire. There were Bills before Parliament at the present time which would have the effect of increasing the evil. He held, therefore, that the people of Hertfordshire ought to preserve their right to appear by counsel before Committees, in case any aggravation of the evil should be threatened. If the new Board were to introduce a Bill proposing that more water should be taken from Hertfordshire, it would probably be said that, as the county was represented on the Board, it would place itself in a false position by attempting to oppose the Bill. A declaration in the Bill of the right of the county to oppose, was, therefore, desirable.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid that the Government would accept the clause if the words "in pursuance of this Act" were substituted for the words "in accordance with Section 4 (2) of this Act."
Clause as amended, in accordance with the suggestion of LORD JAMES of HEREFORD, agreed to.
Clause 91:—

DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
The expression "metropolitan water area" means the county of London and every parish outside that county to the whole or any part of which any metropolitan water company is for the time being authorised to supply water.
The expression "metropolitan water company" means any of the companies specified in the Schedule to this Act.
LORD ALDENHAM*LORD ALDENHAM moved to insert before "county" the word "administrative."
Amendment agreed to.
LORD JAMES*LORD JAMES moved to leave out from "parish" to "or any," and to insert "or part of a parish outside that county to which parish or part."
Amendment agreed to; clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 and schedule agreed to; Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 100.]

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
[The EARL OF MORLEY in the Chair.]
THE EARL OF JERSEYasked his noble Friend representing the Home Office, whether he would consent to postpone the consideration of the Amendments until the stage of Standing Committee was taken? Some modification of clauses in Part II. might, in the
1534
meantime, be made, so that some portion of the Measure might be saved.
LORD BELPERsaid that he had, on the Second Reading, stated the objections of the Home Office as to Part II. of the Bill, and in accordance with those objections Amendments had been drafted. It had been considered whether or not it was possible to modify the objections to the clauses in the second part of the Bill. He could assure the noble Earl that the Home Secretary would wish to give every consideration to any proposals in the direction of modification which his noble Friend might be able to suggest. If the noble Earl put himself in communication with the Home Office, he had no doubt the Home Secretary would do his best to see whether the necessity could be avoided of rejecting the second part of the Measure. It must, however, be understood that when the Bill came before the Standing Committee, and no suggestions were brought forward which could be accepted, he would have to move the Amendment rejecting the second part of the Bill.
Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
LORD HARRIS,in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that its object was to disestablish an establishment which had been maintained for a great many years for the exclusion of plague and yellow fever. In the Debates of 1894–5 on the Estimates attention was drawn to the expense of the establishment which was borne by the Vote of the Privy Council Office, and amounted to £1,700 a year. The Department concerned having had its attention drawn to this expenditure, and having consulted all the other Departments interested, came to the conclusion that it might with safety be done away with; and the object of the Bill was to bring those particular diseases under the same regulations and law as other infectious diseases. The Act which at present applied to plague and yellow fever was the Act of 1825, but all other infectious diseases were dealt with by the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1889. It was held by the authorities

1535
concerned with the detection of infectious diseases on board ships and the tracing of persons who might have been on a suspected ship and the destruction of the articles which might have been in contact with diseased persons, that those were points all dealt with in those Acts. It was held by the Local Government Board and the Port Sanitary authorities and other authorities that those regulations were sufficient to keep the country secure from infectious diseases of this kind, or, at any rate, to detect them so quickly that serious danger of their being spread through the country was removed. There was a provision in the Bill which applied the Act to Scotland. The House had already passed through Committee the Public Health Bill for Scotland. In that Bill there was a similar provision as was contained in this Bill.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY) moved that the consideration of the Third Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be agreed to. He felt sure that the House would share the feelings of regret and sorrow expressed by the Committee at the loss of Mr. Bethell, who for more than 30 years filled faithfully and ably the office of one of the Clerks at the Table. He was also sure that their Lordships would readily and gladly adopt the language expressing the regret of the Committee.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, there was one point in connection with the appointment of Mr. Bethell's successor which deserved notice. The promotion of the Head Clerk of the House of Lords to the Table would result in this, that no sooner was he appointed than probably he would be compelled by the rules of superannuation of the Civil Service to retire. It took some considerable time to become acquainted with the rules and procedure of their Lordships' House, though they were not so complicated as in another place; and he hoped that an exception would be made as to the appointment at the Table.
Report agreed to, with Amendments, and to be printed as amended.—[No. 101.]

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend Clause 138 by leaving out Sub-section 11:—

COMPENSATION PROCEEDINGS.
"(a) Any question of disputed compensation under an Order or Provisional Order made under this section shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbiter appointed by the parties, or if the parties do not concur in the appointment of a sole arbiter then, on the application of either of them, by the Board, and the remuneration to be paid to the arbiter shall be fixed by the Board. An arbiter appointed under this sub-section shall be deemed to be a sole arbiter within the meaning of the Lands Clauses Acts, and the provisions of those Acts with respect to an arbitration shall apply accordingly; and the arbiter shall, notwithstanding anything in the said Acts, determine the amount of the expenses in the arbitration, and such determination shall be final; and
"(b) In construing for the purposes of this section any Acts incorporated with, or put in force under, this section, this Act, together with any Order or Provisional Order under this section, shall be deemed to be the special Act.
His Lordship said, that this sub-section was one of the clauses of the Allotments Act, which was made applicable by this clause to all property which was taken for public purposes. At a former stage of the Bill they struck out all the other parts of the clause which were taken from the Allotments Clauses of the Act, and he submitted that this sub-section should also be left out. The sub-section provided that where there was a question as to disputed compensation, if the parties did not agree to the appointment of an arbiter, there was to be one appointed by the Scotch Local Government Board. It was not desirable to interfere with the ordinary operations of the Lands Clauses Act in this matter. In the event of parties not agreeing on the question of compensation, the Bill placed in the hands of the Board, which was, to the extent of half its members, a purely political Board, the absolute right to appoint an arbiter who was to determine the compensation in cases where private property was taken.

1537
The noble Marquess the Prime Minister objected to germs. This was a germ of the very largest description, and he could not see that there was any practical reason for the insertion of the subsection.
LORD BALFOURhoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment. There were sufficient precedents for it. Under the Lands Clauses Acts compensation might be settled in one or other of three ways, either by a jury, or by two arbiters who select an oversman, or by a single arbiter if the parties agree. Recourse to a jury was now almost unknown in Scotland. He could find no record of such a case in the last 20 or 25 years. Under several recent statutes the method for providing for the assessment of compensation by a single arbiter had been had recourse to, namely, by the Allotments Act and the Parish Councils Act, though no doubt that method applied to smaller purposes. But under the Lands Clauses Acts themselves, if the two parties did not agree upon an oversman, there was power with the Court of Session to appoint an oversman. They had advanced a good deal since 1845, and precedents were now pretty well established, and he did not think there was any danger at all in leaving the appointment of the arbiter to the Local Government Board for such purposes as were here contemplated.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONwas sorry the Secretary for Scotland disagreed with his noble Friend, because it seemed to him that, when they had a tribunal set up under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, it was unwise to go outside that well-tried machinery, and to have an arbiter appointed by the Local Government Board.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the noble Lord spoke of precedents, but he did not proceed to give a single precedent. The noble Lord said that under certain circumstances an arbiter might be appointed by the Court of Session. If they were to have somebody to make these appointments, he would infinitely prefer the Court of Session to the Scotch Local Government Board. That Board was in its constitution one-half political officers. There was the Secretary himself, the Solicitor General for Scotland, and the Permanent Under Secretary.
1538
It was most undesirable to make political changing functionaries the judges of the value of private property. He was afraid he would have to press his objection to the proposed change.
LORD BALFOURsaid, the noble Lord was mistaken when he counted the Permanent Under Secretary as a political member of the Local Government Board. That was a misunderstanding. He could not say the present practice was entirely satisfactory. It had been found expensive in practice, and for the purposes of the present clause he thought procedure by a single arbiter was much preferable to that of two and an oversman. However, as he was anxious not to delay the passing of the Measure, and in deference to the noble Lord, he would undertake to have an Amendment moved in the other House of Parliament to substitute appointment by the Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session for appointment by the Local Government Board, in the event of the parties failing to agree.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaw no reason for departing from the ordinary practice. Why should they bring the Lord Ordinary into the matter? If he abstained from dividing the House, it was with great reluctance.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)assured the noble Earl that he had taken a deep interest in the clauses which affected the property of proprietors in Scotland, and he could not help thinking that the offer made by the Secretary for Scotland would satisfy every scruple. With a judicial officer like the Lord Ordinary no political considerations would affect the question of the choice of an arbitrator, and expense would be saved.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON,after what had fallen from the Lord Chancellor, advised the noble Earl to accept the proposed compromise. The Lord Ordinary was far better than the Local Government Board.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Not so bad.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Clause amended in terms of the compromise offered by the Secretary for Scotland.
Clause 176,—

SAVING CLAUSES. [ACT NOT TO AFFECT NAVIGATION OF RIVERS OR CANALS, OR IRRIGATION OF LANDS.]
Nothing in this Act contained shall enable any local authority or other person to injuriously affect—

(1) The irrigation of lands in a rural district, or the supply of water used for such irrigation;

(2) The supply of water required for the purposes of any waterworks established by or under the provisions of any Act of Parliament, or of the compensation water required to be given by the owners of such waterworks, unless the local authority shall have previously obtained the consent of such owners;

(3) The navigation on or use of any river, canal, dock, harbour, lock, reservoir, or basin in respect of which any persons are by virtue of any Act of Parliament entitled to take tolls or dues, or the supply of water to the same, or any bridges crossing the same, or any towing-path thereon:

Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for the local authority to execute any works in, through, or under any wharves, quays, docks, harbours, locks, reservoirs, or basins without the consent in writing in every case of the persons entitled by virtue of any Act of Parliament to take tolls or dues in respect thereof, and such persons may at their own expense, and on substituting other sewers, drains, culverts, and pipes equally effectual, and certified as such by the inspector to the local authority, take up, divert, or alter the level of any sewers and drains, culverts or pipes, constructed by any local authority, and passing under or interfering with such rivers, canals, docks, harbours, reservoirs, or basins, or the towing-paths thereof, and do all such matters and things as may be necessary for carrying into effect such taking up, diversion, or alteration.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, after "injuriously affect" to insert as a sub-section:—
(1) Any existing supply of water required for domestic, agricultural or commercial purposes.
LORD BALFOURsaid, that he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. The words were too wide and were contrary to the Act of 1867, which had worked perfectly well for 30 years. The Amendment might be so construed as to defeat altogether the provision of the Bill for taking water; as it could be made out that almost any water was required for agricultural, domestic or commercial purposes. The very object
1540
of these clauses and of the Act of 1867 was to provide a machinery by which water might be taken subject to proper compensation. If the Amendment were accepted there would be a risk of absolutely defeating the whole provisions of the clause.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNpointed out that a great many draftsmen and lawyers had spoken of the Act of 1867 with much disrespect; and the mere accident that difficulties had not arisen under the Act did not make the drafting any better. He was willing to alter the words of the Amendment to any extent, and to make it refer only to water at present supplied to houses, or at present used for agricultural or commercial purposes. It would be very hard if water which was now used by private persons for private purposes were liable to be taken from them. Compensation in such cases might be very difficult. He should not press the Amendment to a Division, if the noble Lord opposed it.
LORD BALFOURsaid, that he regarded the Amendment as striking at the value of the clause altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALFOUR*LORD BALFOUR moved, "That the Privilege Amendments be agreed to."
Motion agreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DERELICT VESSELS (REPORT) BILL.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved the Second Reading of this Bill. He said that it merely enacted that every master who was in command of a British vessel, and who became aware of any derelict ship on the high seas, should notify the same to Lloyd's agent at the next place of call, or direct to Lloyd's. The Bill had been approved by the Board of Trade, and there was no objection to it.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 2a, to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.—[No. 102.]

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): In moving the Adjournment of the House, I wish to say that I understand some curiosity has been expressed as to the views of the Government on the Adjournment for Whitsuntide. We propose, if there is no objection, that we should adjourn on Thursday next and meet again on June 8. It may seem that that interval is somewhat long; but the aspect of affairs in the other House does not lead us to anticipate that we shall be much overwhelmed with work before that time.
House adjourned at Five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow a
quarter past Ten o'clock.