Sitting of 8 December 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PETITIONS.
  LIQUOB TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) BILL.
  Petition from Beccles, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
VIVISECTION.
Petition from Teignmouth, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 5, 1902).
  Copy presented, of Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TREATY SERIES (No. 16, 1902).
Copy presented, of Treatise between the United Kingdom and Ethiopia, and between the United Kingdom, Italy, and

205
Ethiopia relative to the frontiers between the Soudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea [signed at Adis Ababa, l5th May, 1902. Ratifications delivered at Adis Ababa, 28th October, 1902], with a map [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2919 and 2920 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UGANDA RAILWAY [Grant]UGANDA RAILWAY [Grant]. Committee to consider of issuing a further sum out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Uganda Railway (King's Recommendation signified), tomorrow.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIHCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Island of Lewis—House Acommodatiocn.
  MR. WEIR (): To ask the Lord Advocate if he will grant a Return of the number of houses in the Island of Lewis where the dwelling-room of the occupier is only separated from the cattle by a low partition or rail.
  (Answered by Air. A. Graham Murray.) According to the Census of 1901 the number of separate families in the rural districts of Lewis was 4,846, and the number of inhabited houses 4,790. There were eighty-five uninhabited houses, and forty-seven building. Of the inhabited houses the great majority is of the type described in the Question. Under the circumstances it is not considered that a separate Return would serve any useful purpose.

  Roads and Bridges in Ross shire.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet authorised the Western District Committee of the county of Ross and Cromarty to expend the sum of £40 out of the Western Districts' share of the equivalent grant for the current year upon the maintenance and repair of footpaths and foot bridges.
  206
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.)No application in this matter has reached the Secretary for Scotland, and consequently no authority has been given.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state what progress has been made with the construction of the proposed road between the townships of Achnahaird and Altaudhu, Ross-shire.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) On. 5th instant the Congested Districts Board received from the County Clerk a letter stating that the County Council had resolved to accept a tender for the construction of this road on certain matters being approved by the Congested Districts Board. The decision of the Board will be given in due course.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Congested Districts Board have received a revised estimate of the cost of construction of the Cromore-Gravir Road, Island of Lewis; and will he state whether the Board are now prepared to provide a grant such as will enable the local authorities to proceed with the construction of the road.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they have not yet received the revised scheme the lion. Member alludes to.

  Imports of Canadian Cattle —Slaughtering Regulations
  SIR JOHN LENG (): To ask the President of the Board of Agrieultuire whether he will lay upon the Table of the House communications that have passed between himself and the Canadian Government respecting the extension of the time limit for the slaughtering of Canadian cattle at landing ports in this country.
  (Answered by Mr. Haubury.) I can give no promise on this point until the correspondence is completed.

  Police Provision, in the Metropolis.
  Sir GEORGE BARTLEY (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that three

  207
  burglaries have been committed on the same premises in the City Road within two years; and whether steps have been taken to strengthen the police protection in that street.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I understand that it is the fact that certain premises in the City Road have been broken into, or have been the object of attempts, on four occasions. In two cases the criminals were arrested with the property in their possession and were convicted. In a third case they were found concealing themselves in the area, and were prosecuted and convicted. In the fourth case no arrest was made. I am advised that the division in which the City Road is situated is adequately provided with constables, and I do not think that the above facts prove the contrary. It would be impossible to increase the police force to such an extent as to prevent all housebreaking in any given spot.

  Factory Acts—Spirit Bottling Establishments
  Sir THOMAS DEWAR (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that although under the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, employers engaged in the bottling of beer are entitled, in pursuance of the special exception under Section 49, to employ women on overtime, no such provision is made in favour of employers when engaged in the bottling of spirits; and, in view of the effect of this omission when there is pressure of bottling business in spirit trades, will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to include bottling of spirits in the special exception list under the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have not received any application from the spirit trade for the grant of overtime for women engaged in bottling spirits, and I have no information leading me to think that any such special exception from the provisions of the Factory Act is required. If I should receive any application from the trade generally I would give it careful consideration; but it should be understood that the multiplication of
  208
  these exceptions is very undesirable, and they will be given only if a clear case of necessity can be shown.

  Police-Constable William Drake, of Devonport
  CAPTION NORTON (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will see that further consideration is given to the case of ex-Police Constable William Drake, who met with an accident in the execution of his duty as a water policeman at Devonport in 1898, and was invalided with a small gratuity in lieu of a pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) The case was dealt with in the year 1900 by my predecessor in office under the provisions of The Police Act, 1890. I have inquired into it and find that the Chief Surgeon of the Metropolitan Police has advised that no connection has been established between the slight injury on duty sustained by the ex-police-constable and the disease which caused him to be returned as unfit for further service. In these circumstances a pension could not be granted. I may add that the gratuity awarded was the maximum authorised by the Act.

  Education Bill — Rating of Provided and Non-provided Schools
  Mr. HARWOOD (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that in consequence of Section 3 of The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, it will follow that under the new Education Bill public elementary schools founded by the new local education authority will be rated for local purposes, whilst those not so provided will be exempt from such rating; and whether he will take steps to remove the inequality which will thus be caused between one township and another in the same union, as the township with non-provided schools will escape that portion of their assessment to the common fund.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Under Section 3 of The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, no person can be assessed or rateded

  209
  to any local rate in respect of lands or buildings used exclusively or mainly as schoolrooms, offices, or playground of a voluntary school, except to the extent of profits derived from any letting. This exemption does not apply in the case of a school provided by a School Board, and it will not apply to a school provided by a local education authority under the Education Bill. That Bill does not alter the law on the subject. It could only be dealt with by an Act of Parliament, and I could not give any promise to introduce legislation with regard to it.

  Education Bill—Audits
  SIR CHARLES DILKE (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet considered the arrangements to he made under the Education Bill for the audit of the accounts of the managers and of the education authorities; whether it is proposed that a single audit should be held for counties by the same auditors who audit the rest of the County Council accounts, or whether these audits will be held by the auditors who now audit School Board accounts; where the audits of managers' accounts will take place, and what notices of the audit will be published, and whether notices will be affixed on school doors as at present; whether the Local Government Board will issue an Order prescribing the form of accounts of local education authorities in counties under The Local Government Act, 1888; and whether it is intended that a similar Order shall be applied to the accounts of a Borough Council under Clause 19 (3) of the Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The accounts referred to in the Question will not have to be audited until after the close of the financial year following the appointed day. I am not at present in a position to state precisely what arrangements will be made in this matter, but in considering them I will bear in mind the points to which the right hon. Baronet draws attention.

  Belfast Post Office—Despatch of Telegrams
  MR. NANNETT (): To ask the Postmaster General whether the rule providing that the
  210
  despatch of public telegrams shall be strictly inturn in accordance with the time at which they are handed in by the public has been rescinded or amended; whether the further instructions contained in Post Office Circular 293, dated 25th September, 1900, have also been rescinded; and, if not, will he explain why the telegraph superintendent at the Belfast Office has instructed the assistant superintendents to inform the staff that the telegrams are not to be sent in code turn; and will he have instructions given the Belfast staff for their guidance in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The rule providing that the despatch of telegrams shall be strictly in accordance with the time at which they are handed in has been neither rescinded nor amended, nor has the caution against favour and priority given in the Post Office Circular of the 25th September, 1900, been withdrawn. I cannot find that any instructions to the contrary have been given at Belfast or elsewhere.

  Belfast Post Office—Employment of Several Members of one Family
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster General, in view of the general rule of the service that two or more members of the same family should not be employed in the same office, whether he will explain why in die Belfast telegraph office this is violated; and whether he will take steps to have the rule carried out in that office.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I find that the relaxation of the usual practice is mainly due to the fact that the majority of vacancies at Belfast are filled by open competitive examination and that when a candidate enters the service under that system inquiry is not always made whether any relatives are already employed in the same office.

  Birr (King's County) Post Office.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in the erection of a new post office at Birr, King's Count, the adjoining premises of Mr. Morrison have been injured; and if steps will be taken to make good the injury caused.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). I am informed by the Board of Public Works, which is the Department

  211
  responsible for building the new post office at Birr, that the damage complained of by Mr. Morrison has been the subject of arbitration between him and the contractor who is erecting the new building; and that an award has been given imposing upon the contractor the execution of certain specific works, which will be duly carried out as speedily as possible.

  Parcels Post with America
  SIR SEYMOUR KING (): To ask the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the case of a parcel sent by the new American Parcel Post, the true duty payable on which was 33s. 9d., while the Post Office accepted as security for this sum a deposit of 4s., or less than one-eighth of the amount payable; and will he consider the advisability of increasing the sum required to be deposited to guard against the risk of the consignee not being discoverable when the balance has to be collected.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  My attention has been called to the case referred lo. The senders of parcels for the United States undertake in writing to pay the Customs duty on demand; and I see no reason to suppose that any appreciable loss is likely to be incurred under the present system, which appears on the whole to be working quite smoothly. In nearly one-half of the whole number of cases the deposit is; sufficient to cover the total charge for Customs duty.

  Postal Circulation of Betting and Lottery Circulars
  COLONEL WELBY (): To ask the Postmaster General whether he can see his way to prosecute senders of betting and lottery circulars in closed envelopes, if persons in official positions certify or state on oath that they have so received them.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  The sending of lottery circulars through the post is not an offence against Post Office Regulations but against the lottery Acts. The Postmaster General is not the proper person to enforce the provisions of the Lottery Acts, but I shall, of course, be happy to give any assistance in my power to the proper
  212
  authorities in any action which they may think it right to take. As to betting circulars, I am advised that I have not at present any authority to stop them.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the Postmaster General whether, to prevent instituting inquiries into the contents of closed letters, he will issue a regulation requiring the name and address of those presenting letters for repayment, as in the case of those transmitting money by post office order.
  (Ansicered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The course which the hon. and gallant Member advocates is already followed.

  Education Bill—Bentham (Yorkshire) Endowments
  MR. HENRY WILSON (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if ho will state what will become, under the provisions of the Education Bill, of the endowments at Bentham, in the West Riding, which are used in part for the support of the three elementary schools of the township and in part for the support of the Bentham Grammar School, all being managed under the same Charity Commissioners' scheme and by the same Board of Governors.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.)
  I think it would lie premature to answer a Question of this nature, on which the Board of Education may have to adjudicate officially if, and when, it arises.

  Westmeath Hunt—Conduct of Police
  MR. SULLIVAN (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police in the County Westmeath are visiting the farmers in that county who object to certain persons hunting over their land, and taking their names and addresses, and that Sergeant M'Donnell and another constable, on the 13th November, in the neighbourhood of Streamstown, threatened one of the farmers there who had poisoned his land; and will he say what authority they had for their action; and will he give directions to the constabulary to cease this practice.

  213
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Question has reference, apparently, to some inquiries made by the sergeant named in the ordinary discharge of his duty, with the view of ascertaining whether intimidation had been used by a prominent member of a local organisation in the endeavour to prevent hunting. There is no foundation, otherwise, for the statements in the Question.

  Rathcormac Gaelic Tournament
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many policemen attended the Gaelic Tournament at Rathcormac on the 9th of November without paying for admission; on how many occasions have disturbances arisen out of meetings for Gaelic sports held in the town since their inception; and whether he will explain on what authority the police claim a right to attend these sports without payment, when a charge is made for admission.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A head constable and ten men. No disturbances have hitherto taken place at sports held at Rathcormac. When the police attend race meetings and sports they do so with the object of preventing disorder. Their attendance on such occasions is almost invariably desired by the promoters, and it is the practice on such occasions to exempt them from payment of the entrance fees.

  Irish Land Commission—Separate Certificates of Valuation
  MR. WOOD (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in a number of cases to fix fair rents in the Land Commission Court, delay is caused by the rule of court requiring separate certificates of valuation: and, seeing that a valuator is sent from the General Valuation Office only once a year to inspect and separate the valuations, and in view of the delay occasioned thereby in fixing a fair rent by the court, he will take steps to have a valuator sent down once a month.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Land Commission cannot comply with the provisions of Section 55 of the
  214
  Local Government Act, 1898, when fixing a judicial rent, unless the certificate in question for the holding is produced. At the present moment there are comparatively few cases awaiting decision by the Sub-Commissions through absence of these certificates, which in many instances require revision by reason of change of boundaries, etc. In the majority of these cases revised certificates have recently been received. In the remaining cases the Commissioners have communicated with the Commissioner of Valuation with a view to a revision. Any delay that is occasioned on the grounds stated is due to the fact that the parties have postponed applying for the revision of the valuation until after their notices to have fair rents fixed have been served. The Commissioner of Valuation has no power to revise valuations except annually.

  Steam Trawling on Irish Coasts
  MR. WOOD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to complaints of the fishermen and others on the Ardglass shore of the destruction of spawn by steam trawlers coming within the three mile area; and will he consider the advisability of introducing a Bill to increase the limit to seven miles.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No such complaints have recently been received. It is not proposed to extend the limit within which steam trawling may now be prohibited.

  Irish Agriculture—Glasnevin Model Farm
  MR. KENNEDY (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for tile last two years a number of experiments have been carried on at the Glasnevin Model Farm, some of which are of great importance to Irish agriculture; and whether, seeing that such experiments are conducted at the public expense, he will request the Department of Agriculture to publish the results of those experiments in such a manner that they may reach the farmers in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The results of the experiments conducted at

  215
  Glasnevin in 1901 have already been published in the Journal issued by the Department, and also in the form of & pamphlet, which has been extensively circulated amongst farmers and local bodies and organisations. The results of the experiments carried out in 1902 will be circulated, if of value, in a similar manner.

  Scarva (Down) Police Provision
  MR. MACVEAGH (): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie is aware that a statement has been made from the Bench by the local magistrates with reference to the suggestion that a police barracks should again be established at Scarva, County Down; will he state whether the local Constabulary will be asked for a confidential report as to the identity of the organisers of disturbances in that district; and what steps it is intended to take to protect the lives and property of the Roman Catholics of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A statement was made by the local magistrates to the effect mentioned. The sub-district of Gilford, in which Scarva is situated, is remarkably peaceable, and there has been no outrage near the latter place since the police barrack was disestablished. There are three other barracks within a radius of three miles. Ample protection will be afforded to the lives and property of all persons in the locality.

  Shanghai—Withdrawal of International Troops
  MR. BECKETT (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements have been concluded for the complete and simultaneous withdrawal of the troops of all nations from Shanghai and the Yangtsze Valley at an early date; and whether the assurance given by China in February, 1898, to Great Britain that she will never alienate any territory in the provinces adjoining the Yangtsze to any other Lower, whether under lease, mortgage, or any other designation, still holds good in letter and fact.
  (Answered by Lord Orcmborne.) The Japanese troops have already been withdrawn and the British contingent is under orders to leave on the 20th instant. His
  216
  Majesty's Government are informed that the German force will also leave by that date, or, failing this, early in January.
  The French troops will leave on the 22nd of December. The British Commandant reports that the German and French Commandants will as a temporary measure leave behind certain details for the purpose of winding up business. The British Commandant has reserved the same right if necessary. As regards the second part of my lion, friend's Question, the assurances given by the Chinese Government to His Majesty's Government on 11th February, 1898, with regard to the non-alienation to any other Power of territory in the Yangtsze region remain fully binding.

  Crimean War and Indian Mutiny—Present Recipients of Pensions
  MR. PIRIE (): To ask the Secretary of State for War can he state the number of non-commissioned officers and of privates respectively who have served in the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny receiving pensions for such service at the present time, and the total amount received by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of men drawing special campaign pensions was on 30th September, 3,097, and the total received by them amounted to £41,856 a year. These figures do not include men drawing ordinary pensions, who may have served in the Crimea and Indian Mutiny, and whom it would be impossible to trace without going laboriously through all the records.

  Average Annual Cost of Various Arms.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the average annual cost to the public of each private soldier in the Line on a peace footing, including in such cost, pay, deferred pay, gratuities and allowances, travelling expenses, outfit, uniform, and equipment, maintenance, rations, fire and light, but exclusive of interest on the cost of barrack and manoeuvring accommodation; what is such average annual cost in the case of the private soldier in the Militia, and what of each individual Volunteer; and whether, in view of the higher degree of efficiency now expected from Volunteers, an increased grant is in contemplation by His Majesty's Government.

  217
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) As regards the first part of the Question, the hon. Member will find the information he requires in the reply given to a similar Question put by the right hon. Member for Exeter on the 7th ultimo.† As regards the Militia and Volunteers, the figures there given included the cost of the permanent staff employed in training them; if this item be omitted the totals would be less by £6 and £1 10s. 6d. respectively. Considerable increases in the camp allowances were made last year to meet the additional training. No general increase is in contemplation.

  Volunteer Statistics
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War will he state the number of the Volunteer recruits during the twelve months ending 31st October last, and of the Volunteers resigning or struck off the rolls during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Returns giving the details required are only received quarterly, and the information will not therefore be available until after the 31st December.

  Billeting at Winchester.
  MR. MYERS (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the increase of billeting in the city of Winchester during the last few years; and whether, in view of its effect on the licensed victuallers, he will consider the advisability of increasing the billeting allowances or establishing a rest camp outside the city.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) My attention has been drawn to this matter and the whole question is at present receiving careful consideration.

  South African War—Medals for Garrison Artillery
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL (): To ask the Secretary of State for War if the medal granted under Army Order 32, of 1902, to Militia units which served in Gibraltar, Malta, and Egypt during the war in South Africa, will be extended to the Officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery Militia
  † See (4) Debates, exiv., 385.
  218
  who volunteered and were attached to Royal Garrison Artillery in Malta, having regard to the fact that officers who were employed with their own units, more especially the adjutants and the permanent staff who are Regulars, received the medal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The grant of the medal was confined by the Army Order to Militia units which volunteered and went out, and I fear it cannot be given to individual Militiamen.

  Afghanistan—Consignments of Armaments from Germany and England.
  Sir LEWIS Mi VER (): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can explain why supplies of warlike stores for Cabul, ordered by the late Amir and forwarded by his agent in London, have been detained for many months at Peshawur, while similar goods from Krupp'sfirm in Germany, including heavy guns, have been allowed to be sent on to Cabul.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) Permission to import the Krupp guns in question was given to the late Amir by the Government of India in May, 1901, at His Highness's request. These munitions of war are therefore not on the same footing as those ordered elsewhere. As to the latter, the Amir is in correspondence with the Government of India.
  (2.15.)

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Cost of Troops now in South Africa
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated cost per week of the forces employed in South Africa.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The total cost of the forces now in South Africa may be taken at £150,000 a week, but the bulk of this would be incurred if the troops were at home. If the hon. Member alludes to the extra cost occasioned by the increased garrison now in South Africa, it may be put at about £60,000 a week, but further economies are in contemplation.

    Cape Parliament—Charges by Mr. Merriman against British Officers
    MR. PIRIE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Report called for in reference to the charges made in the Cape Parliament on the 28th of August has now been received: and, if so, will it be published; are the cases being investigated; and, if so, by whom; and will he make a statement to the House on the subject.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Report has not yet been received. I cannot give any promise of publication till I receive it, which I expect will be some time this month.

    Martial Law—Mr. Schoeman's Case
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the Report of a Select Committee of the Cape House of Assembly in the case of Mr. J. H. Schoeman, a member of that House, with reference to his trial under martial law and to his sentence of imprisonment with hard labour for six months and a fine of £500 on three charges, of which the military court found him guilty of two; and whether, in view of the Report of the Select Committee that Mr. Schoeman was innocent, and the recommendation that the sentence passed upon Mr. Schoeman should be reversed, the Government will take steps to restore the sum of £500 which Mr. Schoeman was fined.
    MR. BRODRICK: The information at my disposal is insufficient to enable me to reply to the points raised without reference to South Africa. A letter has accordingly been despatched to the General Officer Commanding Cape Colony.
    MR. PIRIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Report of the Special Committee of the Cape Assembly on this matter?
    MR. BRODRICK: This is not one of the matters reported on by the Commission, and I shall have to make further inquiry.

    Irish Remount Scandal—The Studdert Case
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE (): I beg to ask the
    220
    Secretary of State for War whether he can explain the course pursued in the prosecution of Major Studdert and his sons; and what steps he proposes to take on account of the refusal of the Grand Jury at the Munster Assizes to find a true Bill, for reasons concerning the evidence of Colonel St. Quentin given by the Grand Jury in writing.
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not propose to take any further steps in this matter. The other points will be taken up by my right hon. friend the Attorney General for Ireland, in replying to the Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Leitrim.
    *SlR CHARLES DILKE: Do I understand that the Government, thinking this man to be guilty, will take no further steps of any kind?
    MR. BRODRICK: I think the reply of my right hon. friend will deal with that Question.
    MR. TULLY(): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why Colonel St. Quentin was not produced by the Crown before the Grand Jury at the Munster Winter Assizes in the Studdert Remount Case; and whether it is proposed to grant any compensation to the defendants for being subjected to proceedings.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): As I had charge of this prosecution, my right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. It is almost impossible in reply to a Question to state with such fulness as to be intelligible the several considerations which, in accordance with well established principles of law and unbroken precedent, and the express provisions of the Irish statutes now in force (56 Geo. Ill, ch. 87, 1 and 2 Vic.—37), required that the Crown should not send Colonel St. Quentin before the Grand Jury as a witness in the Studdert case; so far, however, as they can be condensed into an answer, I may state they were as follows: Colonel St. Quentin was a most important, if not the most important, witness for the defence. He had been examined on behalf

    221
    of the accused at the preliminary magisterial investigations. His evidence, and his evidence alone, was directed to establish an excuse, or kind of plea in confession and avoidance for the accused, to the effect that though the contract under which the accused was employed as purchasing agent was contained in written documents, a secret, not contemporaneous, arrangement or understanding had been come to between him and Colonel St. Quentin, never disclosed to the common principals, whereby Major Studdert was authorised to purchase horses from his sons, under assumed names, and to falsely represent to his principals that these counterfeited persons were independent, bona fide dealers. To have satisfied the desire of the Grand Jury (which apparently was not to confine themselves to their proper functions, but—to use their own words—to thoroughly investigate the case) and send one of the principal witnesses for the defence before them would, in effect, have been to have consented to transfer the hearing of this issue in the cause from the Public Court to the Grand Jury Room, and to have enabled the Grand Jury to decide it upon its merits, in secret, behind the back of the parties, without affording to the Crown any opportunity of cross-examining Colonel St. Quentin, or of pointing out the manifold contradictions, inaccuracies and other defects in his evidence which, according to their contention, rendered it unreliable, or of insisting on its insufficiency in law or fact to sustain the defence sought to be based upon it. Such a course would have been contrary to law, have been inconsistent with every principle of justice, and been of most mischievous example. I shall be only too pleased, should the occasion offer, to call attention in this House to the nature of Colonel St. Quentin's testimony, and to justify the action of the Crown in reference to him in every particular. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.
    MR. TULLY: Why were not the English culprits prosecuted?
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Has it been considered if a prosecution for conspiracy
    222
    would lie against the Studderts and Colonel St. Quentin?
    MR. ATKINSON. That particular point has not been specifically considered, but I think it right to say, however, that as far as the evidence has been laid before me—and I am thoroughly accquainted with it—I see no reason to suppose that Colonel St. Quentin's action was criminal. I rather think that he was befooled and practised upon.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Has he incurred any civil liability?
    MR. ATKINSON: I decline to give any answer to that.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): Are all proceedings in this case to be abandoned?
    MR. ATKINSON: There is no precedent, in modern times, for going on with proceedings after a Bill has been thrown out.

    Indian Army Colonels' Promotions
    CAPTAIN NORTON (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that colonels in the Indian Army are on the same list as colonels in the British Army and are promoted major generals under the new Warrant of 1901, he will explain why the latter have been antedated to 1900, thus superseding the former by three years, their promotion having been stopped since October, 1900.
    MR. BRODRICK: The major-generals of the British service promoted since 1st January, 1902, on which date the new Warrant came into force, have been promoted either for distinguished war service, or on selection for appointments which have been decided upon as carrying major-general's rank. None of the latter promotions have been antedated. The delay in promoting colonels of the Indian service has been caused by the difficulty which has been experienced in settling what appointments in India should carry major-general's rank, so as to give Indian service officers their due share of advancement, but the promotions will shortly be gazetted. It is a

    223
    mistake to suppose that the promotion of colonels of the Indian service under the old Warrant was stopped before the 1st January, 1901.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of six distinguished Indian officers the fact that the old Warrant ceased to operate before the new one was brought into operation has deprived them of their promotion?
    MR. BRODRICKwas understood to reply that that was not clearly established.

    1st and 2nd Army Corps
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men were required to complete the establishment of the 1st and 2nd Army Corps respectively on 1st November, as shown by the Returns in the office of the Inspector General of Recruiting, as regards regulars—infantry, cavalry, and other branches—militia, and efficient volunteers.
    MR. BRODRICK: This information cannot at present be given, for the reasons stated in the reply to the Question put by the hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire on the 25th ultimo, to which the hon. Member is requested to refer.†
    MR. PIRIE: But surely the recruiting officers could supply that?

    Sandhurst Cadets.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain why 2s. a day is charged to Sandhurst cadets for extra messing in addition to 3s. day allowed by the public, seeing that the total cost of messing for Naval cadets is 2s. 3d. a day; and whether he can arrange that Sandhurst cadets shall not be left without food from 1 p. m. to 8 p. m.
    MR. BRODRICK: The first part of the Question has already been fully dealt with in my reply to the Question put by the hon. Member on this subject on the
    † See preceding volume, page 379.
    224
    2nd instant.†
    As regards the last part of the Question arrangements are being made for the provision of additional light refreshments next term.

    Ex-Sergeant Leonard.
    MR. BUTCHER (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that ex-Sergeant Leonard was not called as a witness at the recent inquiry in York, he will consider the propriety of instituting a further inquiry into the circumstances of this case, and the allegations contained in his letter to the Secretary of State for War, at which inquiry ex-Sergeant Leonard will have the opportunity of giving evidence.
    MR. BRODRICK: The military authorities are anxious to make full inquiry into all cases were a grievance is established, and as I have already stated to the House, the general officer commanding made a very full inquiry into the circumstances of the Provisional Cavalry Regiment. Had Sergeant Leonard appealed to the General, which he failed to do, he would no doubt have been called, but the statements made by him were brought to the General's notice, and the Commander-in-Chief has tully satisfied himself as to the position.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Government consider the propriety of calling this man before the Royal Commission now sitting?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Officers' Pay
    Sir THOMAS DEWAR (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet decided to introduce an improved scale of pay for officers in His Majesty's Army; and, if so, will he say when the new regulations on the subject are likely to be issued.
    MR. BRODRICK: There is no intention of introducing an improved scale of pay for officers. As I have already explained to the House, efforts are being
    † See preceding volume, page 917.

    225
    made to reduce officers' expenses, but I cannot hold hopes of any general increase of emoluments.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the right hon. gentleman consider the question of the payment of band and mess expenses?
    MR. BRODRICK: That is being considered with a view to some relief.

    Discharges of Government Workmen
    MR. JOHN BURNS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the number of workpeople that have been dismissed through slackness of work, and the number of discharges that are imminent in certain Government Departments, he will consider the advisability of putting the men in certain trades on short time, of suspending overtime wherever worked, and generally to adapt Government work to spreading employment, as far as is consistent with public necessity and efficiency, over the largest number in public employment.
    MR. BRODRICK: The whole question is being dealt with so as to give the least inconvenience possible. But, I fear, to put a number of men on short time, unless there was a reasonable chance of their returning to full time, would merely spread the hardship over a larger number of men than would otherwise be affected. Further, the departments would run a great risk of losing the best men. who could find full time work elsewhere. As regards suspending overtime, will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply to a question put on this subject by the hon Member for Woolwich on the 26th ultimo.†
    Mr. JOHN BURNS: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the contractors that it would be advisable, in case of public necessity, to do the same?
    MR. BRODRICK: I do not know whether I can do anything in that direction, but I shall be only too glad to take any occasion to make the suggestion.
    † See preceding volume, page 499.
    *MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious advisability of adopting the suggestion contained in the question of the hon. Member for Battersea during the winter months? The custom has been adopted in the North of England yards, without any loss of the best workmen following.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have given careful consideration to it, and, as far as I can ascertain, the cases in which a large number of men has been put on short time are usually those in which there is an expectation that full time will be resumed. A large number of men has been taken on for the war, and it would be a cruel kindness to put them on short time when there is no hope of bringing them back on full time.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER (): Is not the scarcity of employment aggravated by the wholesale importation of pauper aliens?
    *LORD CHARLES BERESFORD (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can arrange that the discharges at Woolwich Arsenal, in order to reduce the complement to the normal number employed before the war, can be made at the end of the financial year, so as to avoid a large number of men being unemployed during the winter months.
    MR. BRODRICK: It has already been decided that notice will be given that the discharges necessary will be effected on the 1st April, and that notice will be given to the men concerned as early as possible. Every facility will be given them to obtain employment elsewhere.
    LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: Will there be no discharges until the 1st April?
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say there will be none, but the main discharges will not take place till the beginning of the new financial year.

    2nd Provisional Regiment of Hussars
    LORD CECIL MANNERS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that an

    227
    officer whose service up to within a recent date has been confined to infantry is appointed to command the 2nd Pro-visional Regiment of Hussars, and that an officer now on the strength of an infantry regiment has been appointed, or is about to be appointed, adjutant of the same provisional regiment, he will say whether there is any deficiency of cavalry officers qualified or eligible to serve as colonels or adjutants of cavalry units.
    Mr. BRODRICK: Lieut.-Colonel de Lisle, who commanded a cavalry brigade in South Africa, under the immediate orders of Major-General Elliot, Inspector-General of Cavalry in India, with marked distinction and success, was on the 22nd October promoted to a majority in the 5th Dragoon Guards, and he has since been selected by the Commander-in-Chief for the 2nd Provisional Regiment of Hussars at Hounslow. It is clearly desirable that an officer, of whatever arm of the service, who has proved competent to command a cavalry brigade in the field, should continue in the cavalry arm. The adjutant of the provisional regiment is a riding-master of long cavalry service. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is it the intention of the Government to continue the practice of appointing officers from foot regiments to the command of mounted troops, especially in time of war?
    MR. BRODRICK: The Commander-in-Chief will make any appointments he may consider necessary for the good of the service. I do not suppose it will become the usual practice to remove officers from one branch of the service to another, but I am sure the House will desire that the advantage of the public service shall stand first in these matters.
    Instruction of Naval Officers:
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has approved of new regulations as to the instruction of naval officers; and, if so, whether a copy will be laid upon the Tabic of the House.
    The CIVIL LORD OF THEADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk,): Yes, Sir; new regulations with
    228
    respect to the instruction of naval officers are in preparation, and will be shortly approved. A statement with regard to the changes contemplated will be issued at a very early date, and a copy will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    Officers' Chargers in India.
    Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of buying chargers for officers of the Royal Horse Artillery and others is greater in India than in this country, and that, owing to the strain placed on horses in India by the manoeuvres and by the climate, the risks of death and injury to horses in India are greater than at home; and whether, in view of the fact that officers of the Royal Horse Artillery and others serving in this country will, under a recent Army Order, be provided with two chargers free of cost, the Government of India will take steps to grant a similar benefit to officers of the Royal Horse Artillery and others serving in India.
    The SECRETARY of STATE FOR INDIA (LORD GEORGEHAMILTON,): I am informed that no Army Order has yet been issued on the subject of the hon. Member's Question. If and when such an Order is issued it will be communicated in ordinary course to the Government of India, with whom it will rest to make whatever recommendation they may consider desirable in consequence.

    Russian Import Duty on Herrings.
    Mr. BIGNOLD (Wick Burghs): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the duty on herrings into Russia is 13s. 6d. a barrel, against 3s. 6d. into Germany, he would take advantage of the presence of Prince Scherbatoff in London to bring the subject under the notice of the Russian Government.
    *The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIES (Lord CRANBORNE,): So far as I am aware, Prince Scherbatoff holds no official position in Russia. I am afraid that no useful purpose would be served by making a further representation to the

    229
    Russian Government on the subject to which my hon. friend refers. I shall be happy to show him the latest correspondence on the subject.

    Brussels Sugar Convention
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, are such of the British self-governing colonies as grant bounties on the production or export of sugar or sugar products entitled, under the Brussels Sugar Convention, to have their sugar and sugar products admitted at the lowest rate of import duty into Germany and the other countries parties to the Convention, or are they liable to have a countervailing duty imposed by such countries on their sugar and sugar products.
    *Lord CRANBORNE: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government there is nothing in the Convention entitling such of the British self-governing colonies as grant bounties on the production or export of sugar or sugar products to have their sugar and sugar products admitted at the lowest rate of import duty into Germany and the other countries parties to the Convention, or to exempt them from liability to have a countervailing duty imposed by such countries on their sugar and sugar products
    Mr. JAMES LOWTHER: What about the other countries?
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do the Government hold that they are not bound to impose countervailing duties in these cases?
    *L0RD CRANBORXE: I have already told the House the Government considers that there is no obligation on them in any circumstances to impose countervailing duties against their own colonies.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any such exemption in the Convention? I can find none.
    Lord CRANBORNE: I can only refer my hon. friend to other Questions which have been answered on the subject. If further information is wanted I must ask for notice of the Question.
    Mr. LOUGH (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have had an official notification that any other Power except Belgium has ratified the Brussels Sugar Convention; and whether any communications have been received from non-signatory Powers, apart from Russia, with regard to the right of this country to impose countervailing duties against them in the face of existing treaties, or on any other matters connected with the Convention.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: The answer to both Questions is in the negative.
    Evacuation of Shanghai by International Troops.
    *Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British garrison is ordered to leave Shanghai on 20th December; and whether, in order that no step should be taken to the prejudice of British interests in the Far East, he can make arrangements to secure that the German garrison shall leave at the same time; and, if not, will he state at what date the German garrison are to take their departure.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON (): May I at the same time ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that Germany has fixed no date for the removal of her garrison from Shanghai, His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of countermanding the withdrawal of British troops until the determination of the German Government has been announced.
    *LORD CRANBOKNE: I will answer these Questions together. The British garrison is under orders to leave Shanghai on the 20th instant. His Majesty's Government have been informed by the German Government that the German force will be withdrawn from Shanghai on December 20th, or failing that, early in January. Under these circumstances we see no reason for countermanding the orders already given to our troops.

    Somaliland Operations.
    MR. LONSDALE (): I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State

    231
    for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the present position of affairs in Somaliland; and whether it is intended to place the conduct of the forthcoming campaign in the hands of the War Office.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: Since Colonel Swayne's withdrawal to Bohotle General Manning has been engaged in improving and strengthening the lines of communication between that place and Berbera. Small parties of the Mullah's horsemen have been observed near Bohotle, but no attempt at interference has been made by them, nor have any reports been received of an intended advance by the Mullah. His Majesty's Government are in close communication with the Italian Government on the general situation. The conduct of the military operations has been transferred to the War Office.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the noble Lord say why the conduct of the affair has been transferred to the War Office?
    *LORD CRANBORNE: That is a matter which rests with my right hon. friend at the head of the Government.

    The Arrest of Mr, Keir Hardie, M. P., in Brussels
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any apology with reference to the arrest of an hon. Member of this House by the Belgian Authorities has passed through the Foreign Office; and, if not, will he take steps to point out to the Belgian Government the propriety of such action.
    *LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Minister at Brussels was informed by the Belgian Government that the hon. Member referred to did not at the time of the occurrence declare himself to be an English Member of Parliament. On doing so, ultimately, regret was at once expressed that he had not in the first instance indicated his position and thus spared himself inconvenience.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I say that the information supplied to the noble Lord is not correct, as I informed the authorities at the beginning that I was a Member of this House. No expression of regret was made to me at the time or has since been made in connexion with the arrest.

    Drink and Crime
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing that there are no official statistics of the extent to which crime is the consequence of drunkenness, he will request the judges and magistrates throughout England to notify all cases in which a sentence is passed for a crime which, in the opinion of the Bench, is partly or mainly the result of drunkenness; and whether, if this be found impracticable, he will obtain similar information through the police authorities for publication in the Annual Return of Judicial Statistics.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,, St. Augustine's): I am afraid that it is not possible to adopt either of the suggestions of the hon. Member. To ask magistrates and judges to make the Return indicated would be to ask them in every case that came before them to try an issue not in most cases included in the charge, and often very difficult to determine. As regards the police, I do not think that any such Return would be of much value. The experience of the Home Department in collecting the material for the Judicial Statistics is that on points of fact, e. g., the number of convictions, apprehensions, etc., the Police Returns, which are prepared with great care, are trustworthy; but when points of opinion are involved—as would be the case on the point under discussion—it is practically impossible to obtain satisfactory or uniform returns from the 200 separate police forces in England and Wales. I may add that whenever trustworthy information on any point of this sort comes before the Home Office it is always dealt with in the Annual Return of Criminal Statistics.

    Continental Postage Rates.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether any correspondence has recently taken place with the representatives of countries comprised in the Postal Union for the purpose of securing a reduction in the rate of postage from the United Kingdom to the Continent; and, if not, having regard to the effect of the rate of 2 ½d. the half-ounce, more especially on merchants and others having business relations with the

    233
    Continent, will the British delegates to the next Congress of the Postal Union be instructed to endeavour to obtain the assent of the Union to its reduction.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HAYES FISHER, Fulham)—(for Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): No such correspondence has taken place; and I do not propose, as at present advised, to instruct the British delegates to raise the question at the next Congress, though I should of course be prepared to give careful consideration to any proposals made by foreign Administrations upon the subject.

    Postal Circulation of German Lottery Circulars
    MR. TELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that during the last month 1,000 letters were posted at the General Post Office, London, inviting individuals to participate in the German Money Lottery, organised by Friedrich Fricke, banker, Bremen; whether any steps have been taken to trace the parties who posted these letters in London; and whether it is proposed to institute any prosecution.
    MR. HAYES FISHER (for MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN): I am not aware of the facts of this case. I presume, however, that the invitations referred to were posted in closed covers, and in such case the Post Office would not know that they were being forwarded. If lottery circulars were observed in open covers they would be stopped. The sending of lottery circulars through the post is not an offence against Post Office regulations but against the Lottery Act. The Postmaster General is not the proper person to enforce the provisions of the Lottery Act, but I shall, of course, be happy to assist the Secretary of State for the Home Department in any action which he may think it necessary to take.

    Education Bill—Fees.
    *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education, with reference to the power of the local education authority to abolish fees, if he can inform the House where that power is now given as regards non-provided schools; whether, within the limitation of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the
    234
    Elementary Education Act, 1891, managers may continue to charge fees; and, under Section 4, the Education Department may sanction the imposition of new fees.
    THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The Sections of the Act of 1891 referred to by the right hon. Baronet are not repealed. The managers of non-provided schools must follow the directions of the local education authority in respect of secular instruction, as a condition of maintenance. It therefore rests with the local educational authority to forbid the charge of fees, or to allow them subject to the limitations referred to.

    Education Bill—Funds of Local Education Authorities
    MR. LOWE (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is intended that the managers of provided and non-provided schools, or either of them, shall have the management of the funds which, under the Education Bill, are to be provided for them by the local education authority for such purposes as maintenance, the payment of teachers' salaries, and other current obligations, or whether these payments will have to be made by the local authority at some central office; and whether any discretion will be left to the local authority in this matter.
    *SIR WILLIAM ANSON: It is intended that the local education authority should have full discretion as to the mode in which the funds at their disposal are to be used for the maintenance and efficiency of public elementary schools. They can make the payments themselves if they please, or they can entrust the managers with the duty of making payments. I will refer the hon. Member to Clause 7 (1) and to Clause 19 (5) of the Bill.

    United Irish League—Officials holding Grazing and Evicted Farms
    MR. THOMAS CORBETT (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many officials of the United Irish League hold grazing or evicted farms in Ireland.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The latest information on this subject, carefully compiled last month, shows that there were then 184 officials of the organisation named holding grazing and evicted farms. These figures represent an increase of fifteen on the January returns. The expression "officials" includes presidents, and vice-presidents, secretaries, treasurers, and members of branch committees. There were last month thirty-five presidents and vice-presidents holding grazing farms, and five holding evicted farms; twenty-three secretaries holding grazing farms and three evicted farms; twenty-six treasurers holding grazing farms and three evicted farms and eighty-one committee members holding grazing farms and eight evicted farms—the totals of 165 and nineteen comparing with 146 and twenty-three in January of this year.
    MR. TULLY: Has there been no prosecution for boycotting against these hideous hypocrites, or their worthy leader, the Member for Cork?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order !

    The Under Secretary for Ireland
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the amount of the salary of the Under Secretary for Ireland, Sir Antony M' Donnell, and the yearly salary paid his predecessor in office, Sir David Harrel.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There has been no alteration in the salary, the amount of which is shown in the published Estimate for the Department.

    Alleged Assault by Armagh Orangemen
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 29th November two Roman Catholics, named Gorman, residing within three miles of Keady, county Armagh, were assaulted at the Keady post office by a rural postman, named Wilson, and two Orangemen; will he say what steps have the police taken to institute a prosecution in this case; and whether the conduct of this postman will be brought under the notice of the Postmaster General.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Proceedings for assault are pending in this case. The question of bringing the matter under the notice of the Postal Authorities must await the result of the magisterial investigation.

    Drumconrath Dispensary Vacancy
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the meeting of medical men at the Whitworth Hall, Drogheda, on the 27th November, when it was agreed not to accept the vacant Drumconrath dispensary at a less salary than £200 a year, and to the fact that the county Galway medical men at a meeting on the 26th November passed a similar resolution regarding vacant dispensary appointments in their county; and whether steps will be taken by the Local Government Board to secure the payment of larger salaries to Irish poor law doctors.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first two inquiries is in the affirmative. In answer to the last inquiry, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar question of the 6th November.†

    Education Grant for Ireland.
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the technical instruction grants have been limited on account of the equivalent grant under the Education Bill; and if he can state the approximate amount of the equivalent grant under that Bill to which Ireland will become entitled for educational purposes.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: In respect of the first inquiry, I must refer to my published letter of the 1st instant to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Waterford, to which I have, at present, nothing to add. In reply to the second inquiry, I refer to the Prime Minister's statement of the 25th November.‡
    Mr. TULLY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate idea of the amount of the equivalent grant?
    † See (4) Debates, cxvi., 275.
    ‡ See preceding volume, page 386.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member may take it from me that the time has not come for discussing that question.

    Royal Dublin Society's Shows—Hackney Challenge Cup
    MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board can explain the disappearance of the challenge cup given by the Board at the Royal Dublin Society's Shows for the encouragement of hackney breeding; and what steps have been taken to recover it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am making inquiries into this matter and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Irish Congested Districts Board
    MR. CAREW (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the land purchase operations of the Congested Districts Board are being impeded by want of funds for improvement works; and if so, what steps will be taken to relieve the difficulty.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A sum of £10,000 was recently added to the amount voted in the present year as a special grant-in-aid of the expenses of the Congested Districts Board. With the funds now available it is anticipated that the execution of necessary improvement works will not he delayed on estates purchased with a view to resale to tenants.

    Venezuela.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs): I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. The first is whether he can inform the House as to the position of affairs in Venezuela; as to the presence of His Majesty's ships of war in that neighbourhood; and whether he can lay Papers on the Table explaining the situation.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): For the past two years His Majesty's Government have had grave cause of complaint on various occasions of the unjustifiable interference by the Venezuelan Government with the liberty and the property of British subjects. No efforts have been
    238
    spared to obtain amicable settlement of these cases. In none of them has a satisfactory explanation been forth coming, and latterly the representations of His Majesty's Minister have been practically unnoticed. There are also cases in which British subjects and companies have large claims against the Venezuelan Government. We have been acting in conjunction with the German Government, who have also large claims against Venezuela, and a final communication has now been made to the Venezuelan Government by His Majesty's Minister and by the German Charge d'Affaires. If no satisfactory reply is received from the Venezuelan Government the two Governments have decided to take such measures as may be necessary to enforce their demands. As regards the laying of Papers, none are ready for presentation; but I will consult my noble friend at the Foreign Office as to what steps can be taken in the matter.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the communication sent to the Venezuelan Government by the Governments of Great Britain and Germany was a joint communication or a separate and identic communication.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that notice should be given of these supplementary Questions. But I believe I am right in saying it was neither a joint communication nor an identic communication.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is this action being taken to enforce the claims of private individuals against the Venezuelan Government?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The right hon. Gentleman has said he must have notice of further Questions.

    Education Bill—Position of Voluntary School Teachers
    MR. FREDERICK WILSON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, under Schedule 2 (15 and 16), of the Education Bill teachers in board schools will become officers of the Council, while teachers in voluntary schools will not be placed on the same footing or enjoy the same advantages.
    DR. MACNAMARA (): May I at the same time ask whether if, as the result of the passing of the Bill, the office of a voluntary school teacher be abolished or his position be in any way worsened, such teacher will be eligible for the compensation to existing officers provided for under Clause 20 of the second schedule of the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under Section 35 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, School Board teachers are technically officers of the School Board, and will therefore become officers of the local education authority. It is this fact that brings School Board teachers within the ordinary provisions as to compensation on abolition of office. I do not imagine that, as a matter of fact, many cases of abolition of office will arise. Voluntary school teachers, it being observed, are underthe present system appointed by the managers of the school; they will continue to be so appointed. There is no change of employment, though there is a change of masters, and they will remain employees of the managers, subject to the powers of the local education authority underthe Bill. To place these voluntary school teachers on the same footing as School Board teachers, to make them Technically officers, would of course be inconsistent with the scheme of the Bill. I do not see how the error has arisen which assumes that the provisions of the Bill are unfavourable to voluntary school teachers. On the contrary, there is no doubt whatever that voluntary school teachers are the very class who will most benefit by the passing of the measure. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether, if this Bill has some indirect effect on the position of some voluntary school teacher, that school teacher will obtain compensation. No, Sir; nor will the Board School teacher under like circumstances. I do not think it possible to consider indirect and collateral results. All that can be said is that on the whole, and probably in every case, the indirect result is enormously to the advantage of the voluntary school teacher.
    DR. MACNAMARA: The point is this: that in the case of the School Board teacher whose office is abolished or whose position is worsened he is to
    240
    have compensation. I want to know whether, if the office of the voluntary school teacher is abolished or his position worsened in any way directly, he will be eligible for compensation.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not the text of the Act with me, and I must therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to put the Question on the Paper.

    Business of the House—London Water Bill, etc
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the business of the House. Somewhat to my surprise I find on the Notice Paper a Motion by the right hon. Gentleman to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule, apparently with the intention of concluding the Committee stage of the London Water Bill tonight. May I say that the attendance in the House on Friday was somewhat slack. In that slackness I include myself. But I was present while an arrangement was made as to the provisions of the Bill with respect to the Water Board. I was not, however, aware of the intention to finish the Committee stage tonight; and as there is considerable feeling that if such a course were adopted, adequate time will not be given for the discussion of the Amendments, which are substantial and not at all obstructive, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter, and give a little more time for the Committee stage of the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the extreme difficulty of the position of the Leader of the House in attempting to arrange business if this kind of appeal is made to him from the Front Opposition Bench on Monday, against an arrangement made with the Front Opposition Bench on Friday.
    MR. LOUGH: I knew nothing about it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is not yet on the Front Bench. There was one of those friendly, and, I think, most useful arrangements made, which included two things with regard

    241
    to today, namely, that the Twelve o'clock Rule should besuspended by the general consent of both sides, and that the Committee stage of the Water Bill should be concluded before the House rose, and for that arrangement, if I may use the phrase, there was "value received."
    AN HON. MEMBER: No.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it is generally admitted, notwithstanding the dissent of the hon. Member for West Islington.
    MR. LOUGH: I said nothing, but still I think it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend in charge of the Bill said that if a friendly understanding of that character could be assented to, he was prepared to agree to certain changes in the measure.
    MR. LOUGH: He never said it openly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR (continuing): I think it would be deplorable if any arrangement with my hon. friend, come to under these circumstances should be departed from a few hours after it was made. Now that I have had an opportunity of acquainting the right hon. Gentleman with the facts, I hope he will not press his demand.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I desire to make a personal explanation, as I was in a sense responsible for the arrangement. As my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, the attendance on Friday was slack, and necessarily so, with the result that in coming to the arrangement I was, to a certain extent, left to my own resources. I believe that, with the exception of an hon. friend who represents a London constituency, every Member on the Opposition side who has taken an active part in the discussion of the Bill endorsed my action—indeed, I did not take it without their endorsement. My desire was to get the Bill improved, and as we had been met in the most friendly way by the Minister in charge of the Bill, I thought I was justified in coming to some arrangement.
    242
    But I am bound to say that I owe an apology to my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in not having consulted him before making that arrangement, and for that error of judgment I heartily apologise. My object at the moment was to improve the Bill, but I quite agree that I did not take a proper view of the position.
    MR. LOUGH: Hear, hear.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not going to apologise to my hon. friend who has interrupted. I hope that, in the circumstances, the Leader of the House will see his way to postpone the suspension of the Twelve o'clock Rule, and allot the Morning Sitting tomorrow also to the Bill.
    MR. LOUGH: Can the First Lord of the Treasury say whether the arrangement includes the subsequent stages of the Bill?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, it does.
    MR. LOUGH: I know nothing about it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman should seek for information from his own Front Bench. In addition to the finishing of the Committee Stage tonight, it was arranged that the Report Stage and Third Reading should be taken tomorrow.
    MR. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to stick to any such arrangement? It is physically absolutely impossible.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, I propose to stick to the arrangement made between the two sides of the House.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What other business will be taken during the week?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House is bound to stick to the substance of the arrangement with respect to the London Water Bill. But if it will mitigate feeling, I will consent to the postponement of the Report stage and Third Reading from Tuesday to

    243
    Wednesday. In that event, I shall take the Militia and Yeomanry Bill tomorrow at the Morning Sitting, and at the Evening Sitting the Committee stage of the Uganda Railway Resolution. I may venture to suggest, perhaps, that the discussion of the general principle of the Railway Bill should be postponed to the Report stage on Thursday, and in that event I will put down the Militia and Yeomanry Bill as the second Order at the Evening Sitting on Tuesday. On Wednesday the Report stage of the London Water Bill and the Third Reading will be the business. As to Friday, perhaps I may be allowed to defer my statement till tomorrow.
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Militia and Yeomanry Bill has not been read a second time, and that tie Notice Paper contains three hostile Motions—two being from his own side. It does not look, therefore, as if the Bill can be carried through in a hasty manner between the 8th and 19th December.
    MR. LOUGH: How long does the light hon. Gentleman intend to go on with the Water Bill tonight, I hope that if the President of the Local Government Board satisfies the right hon. Gentleman that we have done everything we can to expedite the Bill, he will still consent to give us the Morning Sitting tomorrow.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am surprised that, after the manifestation of feeling on both sides of the House, and after a specific arrangement has been made, the hon. Gentleman should still press me on that point. I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to press me further. I will put it to the hon. Gentleman whether business can be smoothly and expeditiously conducted when a member of a Party allows himself licence to throw over his Leader and the whole of his Party.
    MR. LOUGH: On the contrary—
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! There is no question before the House. The hon. Member is persisting in treating this as if it were matter for discussion. It is not.
    MR. LOUGH: I did not mean to say anything disorderly. The right hon. Gentleman had said that I refused to accept the decision of my Leader. On the contrary, my Leader has explained that he was not aware of this arrangement—
    *MR. SPEAKER*MR. SPEAKER Order, order !

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION—MR. HERBERT SAMUEL
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): I desire to make a personal explanation in regard to a matter which arose in debate last week. The right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Oxford University, in the course of the debate on the Third Reading of the Education Bill, stated that a leaflet was issued during the recent Cleveland election containing a gross misstatement with regard to the Education Bill. I challenged that assertion at the time, and I have today received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman in which he says that he very much regrets to find that he was inaccurate in stating that any such leaflet was circulated, and that he unreservedly withdraws the assertion and expresses sincere regret at having made it. I think this ought to be made known in justice to those who conducted the election, and at the same time I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his frank and courteous letter of exoneration.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS
    BETTING.
    The Lords communicate Copy of Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships in the present session of Parliament to further inquire into the increase of publicbettingamongst all classes, and whether any legislative measures are possible and expedient for checking the abuses occasioned thereby, together with the Minutes of Evidence, etc., as desired by this House.
    BETTING.
    Paper [communicated this day] to be printed. [No. 389.]

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER.)
    (3.3.) Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the London
    Water (re-committed) Bill, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing
    The House divided:—Ayes, 122: Noes, 11. (Division List No. 612.)

    AYES

    Agnew. Sir Andrew Noel

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Percy, Earl

    Asher, Alexander

    Fletcher, lit. Hon. Sir Henry

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Flower, Ernest

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Forster. Henry William

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Purvis, Robert

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds

    Garfit, William

    Pym, C. Guy

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Rigg, Richard

    Beresford, Lord Chas. William

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Bignold, Arthur

    Grant, Corrie

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W m.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Brassey, Albert

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Brodriek, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Brookfield. Colonel Montagu

    Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Bull, William James

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Burns, John

    Kemp, George

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Butcher, John George

    Kimber, Henry

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Caldwell, James

    Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Lawson. John Grant

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

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Spear, John Ward

    Chapman. Edward

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Charrington. Spencer

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Loder, General Walter Erskine

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Wallace, Robert

    Colomb, Sir John Churles Ready

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Taunt'n

    Cranhorne, Viscount

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Crombie, John William

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    M' Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

    Dewar. Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets

    Malcolm. Ian

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

    Dickson Charles Scott

    Maple. Sir John Blundell

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wyndbam, Rt. Hon. George

    Duke. Henry Edward

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Dyke. Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    NOES.

    Burt, Thomas

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wason, John Cathe art(Orkney)

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Cremer, William Randal

    Tomkinson, James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Tully, Jasper

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Pirie.

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

    LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
    Clause 5:—
    Order Sittings of the House").—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    MR. LOUGH ()moved to leave out "compensation and insert "money or stock" in page 3, line 19. He thought the grammar of the Clause almost required this change. This Clause was devoted to the distribution of the money or stock to be handed over to the Company, and it was in this form that the Bill went up to the Committee upstairs. It must have been by

    247
    mistake that the word "compensation" was put in here. The Clause, as it stood, had no definite meaning. How could "compensation" he "paid or satisfied? "It was money that was paid for a certain consideration. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would accept the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 13, to leave out 'compensation' and insert 'money or stock.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'compensation' stand part of the Clause."
    THEPRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WWLTER LONG,)said the word "compensation" ran through the whole Bill. In many different Clauses it was used to describe the same thing, and he was advised that if another word were used here it might lead to misapprehension afterwards. He adhered to the word "compensation"
    Mr. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman's argument was not a good one. In the other parts of the Bill the word had not the meaning which it had in the Clause under discussion. In this particular Clause it was absolutely restricted to money or stock.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would accept the Amendment.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON ()said if the Amendment was accepted there must be a consequential Amendment in line 21, for the word "satisfied" there would not apply. He suggested that the word "issued" should be substituted.
    The Amendment was agreed to. It was also agreed to substitute, in line 21, "issued" for "satisfied," and in line 25 to leave out "compensation" and insert "money or stock."
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 27, to leave out 'fifth ' and insert 'fourth.'"—(Mr. Walter Long); agreed to.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 27, after ' Act' to add,' This sub-Section shall not apply to the New River Company.'"—(Colonel Bowles); agreed to.
    Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Clause 1:—
    Mr. FLETCHER MOULTON ()moved to leave out from "as" in line 10, to "debenture" in line 11, and insert "in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income as the," He said although this was the form in which the Amendment was moved, it was really to secure for this new Water Trust, and for the public, in some form or other, a right which, according, he thought he might say, to the universal precedent of Parliament, had always been accorded to a public authority purchasing any private property. The principle upon which the compulsory purchase of private property had always been carried out was a very clear and definite one. They could not respect the actual private rights. One could easily understand that, but for the power of compulsory purchase, there might be in the possession of a single person a field that might render it practically impossible for a railway to join two towns. On countless occasions the Legislature had made provisions whereby private property could be taken, but it made such provisions equitable by providing in all cases that the owner of the private property should have the full value in money of his property, and that, in the case of there being a dispute, it should be settled by an impartial tribunal—an arbitration or a jury. One thing was always characteristic of those provisions. They gave to the purchasing authority the right to extinguish all interests in the property taken. The owner received the equivalent in money for everything the purchasing authority acquired, but that authority was always permitted to acquire every interest. It was the ordinary experience for those who had to deal with compensation cases to find that a property that had been taken over was in the hands of an occupier, who probably paid the rent to a person who was in the position of an intermediate landlord; up to them there were one, two, or three intermediate landlords: and after them came the ground landlord, to whom the ground rent was paid. As soon as Parliament had permitted a public body to

    249
    take that property, the public body had the right to—and did—take over every one of those interests. It purchased the occupier's interest, very often including trade rights; it purchased the intermediate landlord's interests; it purchased the ground landlord's interest; and it became the soleand absolute owner of the property. But what it had to do was to pay the full money value of all it had taken. That having been the consistent practice of Parliament, he claimed, on behalf of the public, that it should not be departed from on this occasion. What were the rights and interests which they claimed that the new trust should be allowed to purchase? There were the undertakings of the companies, and the stock. It was to be allowed to purchase the undertakings with their burdens, just in the same way as a railway company purchased a house with its mortgages upon it, but with the right to pay those mortgages off. With regard to the question of debentures, some of them were redeemable, and about those no great difficulty arose. Some of them were irredeemable: there was some such provision as a Scotch feu-rent or an English perpetual ground rent. According to the universal practice of Parliament the purchasing authority would have the power of purchasing that feu, turning it into money, and becoming the absolute possessor of the property. He claimed for this Water Trust that it should be able to pay its irredeemable debentures at their market value, whatever that might be. The Committee must not for one moment imagine that lie was advocating that [they should take these irredeemable debentures as though they were redeemable, and that the trust ought to be allowed to pay the capital value in satisfaction of the debentures themselves. He was standing upon this—that they ought to allow the purchasing authority to buy up these de bentures at a price which the arbitrators said was fair. He was going to show to the House that the present provisions of the Bill were an inequitable departure from the equitable practice of Parliament. What did the Bill propose? The Bill proposed that those who held irredeemable debentures should receive of Metropolitan water stock an amount which would produce an income equal
    250
    to that which they would get from those debentures. Now, no man of business could possibly defend that as fair. [Cries of "Oh," from the Ministerial Benches.] He was going to prove it. He did not attach weight to mere assertion. Just let him give a parallel instance. Suppose there was a man with a grouud rent of some property which was required by a railway company for a station. Could it be said that that man would be receiving a fair value for what he was giving up if it were said to the Railway Company that that man must have an equal revenue charge on the station. The probability was that the rent which was worth twenty or twenty-two years' purchase would instantly spring up to a rent equal to thirty or thirty-three years' purchase, and he would be receiving what was a capital value, 50 per cent, more than he was giving up. Everybody knew that certain property would be valued to return 5 per cent., but freeholds were valued at a much smaller rate. Consols yielding 2½ per cent, were worth £100. "[An Hon. Member on the Ministerial Benches: 92½.] He was not taking the particular value of Consols at this moment. A safe investment of a different type could be found which returned a higher interest and he said, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that no business man would say that the capital value of an investment could be measured by the return which it gave. If that were true, there could be no question that his method was equally fair. What he said was that a fair capital value ought to be obtained for what was given up, and no more. If it was said on the other side that the capital value and the income value would lead to the same result, then why depart from the universal practice of Parliament and take the value from income and not from capital'? That he was light was evident, for looking at the stocks of the water companies themselves, they found that the irredeemable debentures of some of the water companies stood at a higher figure than those which had the same amount of income. Could it be fair that the owners of these two stocks should receive the same sum of money? it was not fair, even between the owners of the stocks belonging to the different companies; still less was it fair between the owners of the stocks and the metropolitan consumers. What was the case in regard to them? There was no

    251
    question that metropolitan water stock, secured on the rating value over the whole of its enormous area, would stand exceedingly high in the market. That was to say, the capital value as compared with the income value would stand very high —far higher than these water stocks. If it was said that it would not, then surely this Amendment would be accepted. But it was nonsense to say that the credit of the area from which the rates were derived to pay the income on the water stock would not be such as not to give them a very high capital value in the market. If a person who held the present irredeemable debentures was to get an equal income, ho would be given a considerably higher value than that at which the stock was bought and sold in the market at the time this Bill was brought in. and it would be departing from Parliamentary practice for eighty years. And in whose interest would they be departing thus from Parliamentary practice? The interest of the body of people holding these particular stocks. And what would be the interpretation put on it? Only one. Nobody could say that it was not fair to give them the capita] value which their holders had in the market; but if a special mode of compensating them were adopted, which gave them in this case, he believed, half-a-million more than they would get by the ordinary Parliamentary practice, the only interpretation that would be put on it would be that the Government had not held even the scales of justice between the buyer and the seller: that it had been influenced by some power; that it had been affected by the financial interests of the owners of this stock: and that it had allowed itself—because these persons were very powerful—to leave that position which had always been considered to be the equitable position of allowing purchase at a fair va'ue to be determined by the arbitrators —making only such allowance as was necessary to prevent loss on re-investment. Now, what he proposed was that the arbitrators should fix the value of that interest. In other words the Water Trust should be treated like every other purchaser of property for public purposes up till now had been treated. He was curious to know what answer would be given to his argument. In the first place, it could not be said that what he
    252
    proposed was unfair. It could not be said that if the holders of the water companies, stock got a fair capital value for what they held, they were being treated inequitably. It could not be said that it was a matter of indifference as to the form the Clause should take in going through the Committee. There was no question that these water stocks—certainly in the case of many of the companies—did not stand at such a high capital value per cent, as the Metropolitan Consolidated Stock, for instance. It could not be said that his proposal was a violation of any compact between the companies and the holders of these debentures. It was simply compulsory purchase; it was a violation of no arrangement; it did not pretend to redeem the irredeemable, but simply insisted on the power of purchase at a fair market value. He suggested that the Committee would be showing that it was not influenced by the pressure of a wealthy body of people to depart from the well-known equitable lines which had guided its conduct for the last cighty years by adopting his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 4, line 10, to leave out- from the word ' as,' to the word 'debenture,' in line 11, and insert the words ' in the opinion of the arbitrators will be equivalent in value to an equally good security producing the same income as the.' "—(Mr. Fletcher Movlton.)
    Question proposed—" That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    (3.40.) SIR FREDERICK BANBURY ()said he gathered from the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that he maintained the debenture holders of the Water Companies were under the present Clause of the Bill to receive more than they were entitled to, and he proposed by his Amendment that they should be paid in something which would be of equivalent value to an equally good security producing the same income. Now, lie thought that if the honi and learned Gentleman's Amendment were carried, it would give to the debenture holders a larger capital value for their stock than they would receive under the Bill as it stood. He would endeavour to show to the Committee why

    253
    that should be. The debenture stocks of the London Water Companies were trustee securities—the only trustee securities which were not Corporation or Government stock, or the debentures of English railways. Now, 3 per cent, debenture stock of English railways stood at the present moment at 101. They varied from 100 to 101½, at which latter figure the London and North Western debentures now stood. If the Amendment were carried they would have to give more than the par value to the owners of the present water stock, because they would have to give something which would produce the same income. The circular which had been issued by the London County Council assumed that the water stock would be at par. What was the basis for such an assumption? The only stock to which the new water stock could be compared was the 3 per cent, stock of the London County Council. It would not be contended that that stock, which was secured on the rates, would be worth less than the 3 per cent, stock of the Water Board, which was also secured on the rates. Yet the County Council stock stood at from 98 ½ to 98 ½; and, therefore, it could not be assumed that the new stock would be at par.
    Mr. MOULTONsaid that the debentures could be purchased at their value.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid it was curious that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have said that, because only the other day he wished to buy £1,500 worth of water debenture stock and could not get it. Then the circular stated that the stocks should be exchanged on the basis of the Stock Exchange prices for December last. In that month the war was still dragging on, and the stocks were lower than they had been for the preceding ten years. Was it right, therefore, to pick out that particular month? In December he himself gave evidence before the Joint Committee on that very point. Moreover, they did not even take the average prices for the month, but the lowest prices recorded. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how it was that one debenture stock stood higher than another. The explanation was simple. There might be stock of one company on
    254
    the market and no stock of another; and the stock which happened to be on the market stood at a lower price than stock which was not on the market. The water debenture stock stood at from 96 ½ to 97 ½, and the County Council stock s'tood at from 981/4 to 98½. That was the difference: and it seemed to him that the County Council was endeavouring to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Amendment would give the debenture holders more than they would get under the Bill as it stood, and would add extremely to the cost, trouble, and time that would be involved. Therefore, he trusted that the Government would adhere to their proposal, and give the debenture holders their present incomes. The hon. and learned Member appeared to be under the impression that the capital value had a good deal to do with the matter; but the people who held the debenture stock were trustees, and it was a matter of perfect indifference to the majority of them whether the stock would be worth 97 ½ or 98 ½, as they would only look to the income. For all these reasons he hoped the Government would adhere to their proposal.
    MR. SYDXEY BUXTON ()said he did not know why the hon. Baronet was opposing the Amendment, because he seemed to think that the debenture holders would not be any worse off, and might be better off under the Amendment.
    SIr FREDERICK BANBURYasked why the public should have to pay more than was required.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would be prepared to take the risk of that. The hon. Baronet was a great authority on prices and credit, but he confessed he did not think that the figures the hon. Baronet quoted were really germane. In dealing with such large sums they ought to pay to the holders something equivalent to that which they now had: and that was what was proposed by the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend. At present the various debenture stocks were speculative; they differed in price; and he did not think that the hon. Baronet would contend that they were all of the same value.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that they varied from 97 to 99 at the present moment.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that that might be the case at the present moment, but if they looked back a year or two they would find the variation had been a great deal more. At all events, the holders were going to get a better security than the}' had at present, as the new stock would have behind it the rates of London, and would be better as regarded security, stability, and marketability. Then, again, it should be remembered that the debenture stocks varied very much in regard to the amount of debentures issued. Some of the companies had been very provident, and had issued a comparatively small amount of debenture stock, whereas other companies had issued a very considerable portion of their capital in the form of debentures. He did not see why the Government should deal differently with the debentures from the way in which debentures were treated in Clause 2 Under that Clause the Water Board was not to take into account any question of debentures, redeemable or irredeemable, but was to pay over a certain sum to the companies concerned, leaving them to deal with their own debenture stock. That was practically the alternative that was now suggested to the Government. Either they should be given the same value, or a lump sum to deal with their debenture stocks in their own way. He confessed he did not see why the debentures, whether they were of a speculative value or not, should be entitled to a larger sum than they would at present fetch. Their contention was that the proposal of the Government would involve an increased capital charge of between £200,000 and £;300,000 on the ratepayers, and he would, therefore, support the Amendment.
    *SIR E. DURNING - LAWRENCE ()said he did not hold any shares in the Water Companies, but he happened to know that there was great difficulty experienced by trustees in purchasing high class debenture
    256
    stocks. The Committee could not imagine the enormous trouble that would be caused to the market by the repayment of £10,000,000, 3 per cent, debenture stock of the Water Companies, which would necessitate the purchase of £10,000,000 of the class of stock that was capable of being held by trustees. Even at present an investor had to wait for two or three months before he could invest a comparatively small sum of £100,000 or £200,000; and if £10,000,000 of trustee stock was demanded from the market it could not be supplied for two, three, or five months, and every kind of debenture stock would rise, while the throwing of an extra £10,000,000 of the new Water Stock upon the market would for a time seriously depress that particular stock,
    MR. LOUGHsaid it was quite true that they could not get £10,000,000 of debentures at present; but, immediately the Bill was passed, every one of the debentures would have to be exchanged, and the whole of the £10,000,000 would be forthcoming. The argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham wras a little closer, because he quoted from the circular of the London County Council, which was a very good authority. The hon. Baronet gave very useful evidence before preceding Committees, and especially helped Lord Llandaff's Committee to the conclusion at which it arrived. The hon. Baronet now contended that the debentures of the companies were equally as good a security as the new water stock. If they were, the acceptance of the Amendment would not do any harm to the vendors. But some of the debentures were not as good as others; the interest was not the same in all cases; and he was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree that the more debentures that were issued the less valuable they were. What he submitted was, that as the stock to be bought varied, whereas the stock to be issued would not vary, it was necessary to accept a provision such as that proposed in the Amendment. Their whole argument turned on the question as to whether the new stock would be, on the whole, better than the present stock. The Water Board would have

    257
    all the stock that the companies possessed and a great deal more, for they would hare the rates of the area behind them. This would put the security in a different class altogether from that in which the Water Company debentures stood. The hon. Baronet had tried to impugn the authority of the Council's statement by saying that in December the war had not been finished, and the ' stocks and shares were higher now than j then. As a matter of fact, Consols were lower now than they had been at any time during the war. and it was hardly fair to suggest that the Council took an unfavourable date. The reason the water debenture stock was higher now was because of this Bill. This Amendment, would in no way restrict the arbitrators.
    *MR. COHEN ()said that in his opinion the new stock would be lower in market value, and not higher, than the Water Companies' debenture stock. He had been much impressed by what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and he personally would be glad if they could, in the arrangement of this Bill, uphold the ordinary procedure of the House in these matters, and if he objected to this Amendment it was solely in the interest of the ratepayers. This was new stock, for which a price had to be created, and it would suffer an; unavoidable amount of depreciation on the market, whereas the stock proposed to be substituted would be appreciated. Let them by all means depreciate as much as possible what they wished to buy, but do not let them rig the market against themselves by appreciating what they wished to purchase
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The point which they were anxious to raise was the substitution of such an amount of stock as should be equivalent in value. The question, therefore, was as to how much new water stock should be issued, and there was no need to complicate matters by introducing the consideration of income. The reasons which decided him to vote in favour of the Amendment were two. One was that the capital value of the new water stock would, cent. for cent., £100 for £100, be greater than the value of the old Water Companies'
    258
    debenture stock. The hon. Baronet, who spoke with such authority on Stock Exchange matters, would not deny that.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I think the difference would be very small—1 per cent, or 1 ½ per cent.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid it was stated on behalf of the County Council that it would be 10 per cent. If the hon. Baronet were right it would not much matter, but if the County, Council were right the question would be a most important one. The importance or otherwise of the question, however, did not affect the merits of the proposed arrangement. One hon. Member had said the water stock would be more valuable than the old Water Companies' stock; then was it fair that the House should give to the debenture holders that which, in the judgment of the arbitrators, would be an absolute equivalent in value in new water stock 1 Was it a fair way of measuring the price that there should be in the new water stock no more than that which the arbitrator thought to be a fair equivalent in capital value? He should have liked to have heard from the hon. Baronet, or some other Stock Exchange authority, something upon this point. It was alleged that by the action of the Government they were equalising securities which were at the moment not equal in value. It was suggested that if there was such a difference it was because one stock was scarcer than the other, and therefore, regarded as a Stock Exchange commodity, fetched a higher price. Whether it was so or not, it was not the allegation of those who opposed the Government plan. Their allegation I was that this difference existed between [the stock of one company and that of another; that the larger the amount of stock in proportion to the security the smaller was the margin of security, and the less valuable would the debenture stock be. That had nothing to do with the comparative scarcity of the stock, regarded as Stock Exchange goods, and he would be glad to know from somebody who could speak with authority whether or not there was a different margin of security for the various debenture stocks.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought the hon. Member was in error in supposing the difference in price to be due to there being a larger or smaller amount of debenture stock. The difference depended on whether or not there had been an issue, so that there was more of one stock about than of another. There might possibly be a slight difference in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman in the case of the New River Company, in consequence of certain associations which made its stock a little more valuable than its intrinsic worth.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONtook refuge in the undeniable fact that, if there was a better security for one stock than for another, the stock with the better security must have the larger market value. If the Water Company differed in this respect, there was a difference in the present value of the stock, and under the Government proposal that difference would be extinguished. That was certainly not fair if true, and it constituted a strong objection to the plan of the Government. As the suggestion of his hon. friend avoided the difficulty, in the absence of any further explanation he should support it.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the debate had confirmed him in the view that the course adopted by the Government was the wisest and best. Whatever might be the truth as between the opinions held by experts as to the different ways of valuing these securities, one fact had come out clearly, viz., that, if the condition of these stocks was so various and was governed by circumstances so completely outside the control of the ordinary investor, the hon. and learned Member's proposal, if inserted in the Bill in the first instance, would have resulted in operations having for their object the forcing up of the price of securities in order that the arbitrator should fix a higher value. What was the present situation? The Government believed they were doing even-handed justice between the holders of these securities and the ratepayers. Everybody knew that, under the Bill as it stood, persons holding this class of
    260
    investment were entitled to its equivalent in income. One did not require to be a financial expert to understand that. If, however, the Amendment were adopted, it would immediately become the object and business of those interested to see that such a market value was created as would secure for them a high price. It had been said that it was not right that the holders of such stock should get special consideration. He was not afraid to defend the holders of valuable property in the House of Commons, if it was right that they should be defended. There was no crime in defending the rights of property simply because the owner of the property happened to be a rich man. But that question did not enter into this matter at all. What had caused the Government to have special care in dealing with these debentures was the knowledge, conveyed to them by experts, that the stocks were held to a large extent, not by wealthy people to whom a reduction of income would be a matter of small consequence, but by trustees on behalf of poor people to whom even a small percentage of reduction of income would mean, not only the loss of luxuries, but in many cases the difference between comfort and discomfort. Then it had been urged that no precedent existed for such a transaction. If it was a question of precedent, he might point out that there was no precedent for the compulsory redemption of this class of irredeemable stock. It was a very strong step the Government were taking. Lord Llandaff's Commission reported against it, and Lord Llandaff maintained his opposition in the Joint Committee, but the Government, when they had to consider the steps they would take, decided that in the best interests of municipal finance a permanent debt ought not to be hung around the neck of any local authority. This was the first of those permanent debts, and consequently the Government decided that these irredeemable debentures should be redeemable. Parliament was asked to enact that between the passing of the Bill and the redemption of the stock a sufficient interval should elapse to prevent any possibility of injustice to existing holders, and terms were provided which the

    261
    Government believed to be clear and equitable. By taking this middle course the Government thought they would be doing justice all round, and the debate had confirmed them in that opinion. Both sides had the same object in view, viz., that justice should be done, and that the ratepayers should not suffer loss. Curiously enough, the hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side thought his plan would save the ratepayers' pockets, while equally eminent experts on the Government side thought that result
    would be secured by the plan of the Bill. He was not so foolish as to step in between experts, but he thought that when such eminent experts differed, the Government had acted wisely in taking their present course, and he hoped the Committee would support them.
    (4.23) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 119; Noes, 45. (Division List No. 613.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Garfit, William

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Percy. Earl

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r Haml'ts

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Arrol, Sir William

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Purvis, Robert

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Hay. Hon. Claude George

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Howard. J.(Midd., Tottenham)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Bigwood, James

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

    Kemp, George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Kimber, Henry

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Law. Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Bull, William James

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Lawson, John Grant

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Lecky. Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

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

    Chapman, Edward

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Spear. John Ward

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E(Tauut'n

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Durning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin

    Malcolm. Ian

    Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Forster, Henry William

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    NOES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Cremer, William Randal

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Crombie, John William

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Burns, John

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Levy, Maurice

    Burt, Thomas

    Emmott, Alfred

    Lough, Thomas

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Evans, Sir Francis H(Maidstone

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Caldwell, James

    Fenwick, Charles

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Cameron, Robert

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Craig, Robert Hunter

    Hayne. Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

    Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

    Rea, Russell

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Rugg, Richard

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Tomkinson, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Samuel, Harbert L.(Cleveland)

    Wallace, Robert

    Mr. Fletcher Moulton and

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

    Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)

    Mr. Corrie Grant.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Wason, John Cathe art(Orkney)

    Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY ()moved to omit sub-Section 6 from Clause 7. He desired to ask—Why should there be such a long period as sixty years 1 They were taking in this Bill a minimum period of sixty years, thus preventing the public generally from deriving any advantage from the cheapening of omney during that period. If this Amendment were carried it would assist the public, who were being deprived of the advantages which they would have received under the Bill originally introduced by the Government. The new Water Board ought to have an opportunity of paying of their loans after thirty years, and reborrowing with advantage to the public.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 4, line 32, to leave out sub-Section (6)."—(Mr. George, Whitdey.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGhoped the, Member for Pudsey would not think it necessary to press this Amendment, because, as he was advised, the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would really not be precisely what was anticipated. If they left out the sub-Section which prescribed that the stock should not be redeemable until after sixty years, the effect would be to leave it with the Local Government Board, under Clause 18, sub-Section 2a, to make their own regulations as to any period of redemption. The object of the hon. Member was apparently to leave out this period of sixty years in order that a shorter period should be inserted. He had already told the Committee what were the reasons which led the Government to think there ought to be a period of not less than sixty years. He did not think it was necessary for him to repeat those reasons, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *Sir FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to leave out the word "not" in line 33. He moved this Amendment because it was a recommendation which was strongly insisted upon by the Llandaff Commission. If they took away from these persons their irredeemable stock, they ought to let them have new stock of equal value. Irredeemable stock was worth more than redeemable, but they were taking away by compulsion irredeemable stock and giving no compensation for it. It might lie urged that they were giving a slightly better security, but the difference was very small. He trusted that his right hon. friend would, at any rate, see his way, if he could not give irredeemable stock, to extend the period for longer than sixty years.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 4, line 33, to leave out the word 'not.'"—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the word ' not' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he regarded this Amendment as a reactionary step. It had been the in variable practice for many years to instil into municipalities the desirability of freeing themselves from perpetual debt, and to follow up that practice by another which had for its object the making perpetual of these securities would be very undesirable. He had already pointed out the reason why the Government thought it was desirable to ask Parliament to make a redemption of irredeemable stock possible, and there was not a very great difference between sixty and eighty years. He asked the hon. Baronet the Member for Peckham, who spoke with great authority on these questions, not to invite the Committee to take a step which might form a very bad precedent, and which might be quoted in a great number of cases in the future.
    MR. HALDANE ()said he should have, liked a little more definiteness from the right hon. Gentleman about the period of redemption. It appeared to him that sixty years was not too long a period, and it was desirable to keep the Clause as it stood in the Bill. He thought that to extend the period further would be tying the hands of the municipality unnecessarily. He should deprecate the extension of the period in any way.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought the Hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with him that if in the interest of the State property was to be taken away, compensation should be given. He under stood his right hon. friend would make no objection to that if he withdrew his Amendment and substituted the word eighty."
    MR. LOUGH: No, no.
    *SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he understood, if the word "sixty were left in, the option would remain at the end of sixty years.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that the President of the Local Government Board was opposing the Amendment.
    MR. WALTER LONG: What I said was that while I deprecated the adoption of the Amendment, if there was a general desire expressed that there should be an extension, I should be willing to give it consideration.
    *SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYmoved to leave out "sixty" and insert "thirty" in Clause 7, line 33. It seemed to him that in regard to this matter the President of the Local Government Board required a little stiffening of the back from the Opposition side of the House. The hon. Baronet had said that the debenture holder got better security, and therefore ought to accept that stock on slightly less advantageous terms than he would otherwise
    266
    be expected to take. They would have one minimum term of redemption of sixty years, and another minimum term of redemption of thirty years. It was very disadvantageous at the beginning to create two different classes of stock. The Water Board should be put in the position of the London County Council of being able to redeem stock after thirty years. He did not think any injury was sustained through that arrangement by the people who took the stock. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well, from his experience in local government matters, that in no case were long sinking funds and long terms of redemption given. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should, in regard to the Water Board, adopt the same period for the redemption of stock as in the case of other bodies.
    Amendment proposed —
    "In page 4, line 33, to leave out the word 'sixty' and insert the word 'thirty.'"—(Mr. George Whidey.)
    Question proposed, "That the word ' sixty ' stand part of the Clause."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said that what happened in this matter was this. Before the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons both the Water Companies and the London County Council were represented by eloquent and able counsel. One party claimed that eighty years should be the period, and the other party contended that thirty years should be fixed. The Joint Committee, in order to arrive at a compromise, agreed to put in "sixty,'' believing that would be a nice medium. The Government considered that sixty years ought to be accepted as a compromise between the two contending parties.
    MR. LOUGHsaid it had been stated that these debenture holders were entitled to a longer term because they had an irredeemable security now, and because they were asked to give up something they had come to like. The hon. Baronet thought, therefore, they ought to be compensated for giving it up. He wished to point out that, owing to their having

    267
    had this irredeemable security, it had advanced greatly in value. What were the circumstances under which they were asked to give up the security? The circumstances were the same with regard to the debenture holders as the other stockholders. This House said that it was for the public benefit that they should give up their securities. They had been very well compensated in the high price to which the securities had gone, and it was on a liberal scale that they would be bought out. The Committee should look at this from the municipal point of view. The municipalities had not got long periods for the redemption of stock, and, therefore, he thought thirty years would answer for all practical purposes.
    SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (): said that the Committee would do well to take into consideration the provisions of Clause 8 when dealing with this matter. That Clause provided that the Water Board should within eighty years purchase or redeem all redeemable debenture stock and all mortgage debts. Tie thought, therefore, if the date were extended, it should be to eighty instead of sixty years. He hoped the lion. Baronet would take a division if the Government did not alter "sixty" to "eighty."
    (4.58.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 119: Noes 48. (Division List No. 614.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Calloway, William Johnson

    Nieol, Donald Ninian

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Garfit, William

    Percy, Earl

    Allhusen. Augustus H'nry Eden

    Gibbs, Hon. Vieaiy (St. Albans)

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Arrol, Sir William

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Atkinson, Kt. Hon. John

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Balfour, Capt. C. 15. (Hornsey)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bignold, Arthur

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Round, Kt. Hon. James

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Brassey, Albert

    Hudson. George Bickersteth

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Saunderson. Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

    Bull, William James

    Kimber, Henry

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Carson, lit. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Lawrence. Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Lawson, John Grant

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

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lecky, Rt Hon. William Ed w. H.

    Spear, John Ward

    Chapman, Edward

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Charrington, Spencer

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Clive, Captain Percy M.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Walrond. Rt Hn. Sir William H,

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wilson-Todd, Win. H. (Yorks.)

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

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Morgan, David J(Walth'mstow

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Mount. William Arthur

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

    Forster, Henry William

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    NOTES.

    Asher, Alexander

    Burns, John

    Caldwell, James

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Burt, Thomas

    Cameron, Robert

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Carew, James Laurence

    Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Levy, Maurice

    Spencer. Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

    Cremer, William Randal

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Strachey. Sir Edward

    Crombie. John William

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

    Davies. M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Dunn, Sir William

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wallace, Robert

    Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron. Walden

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Philipps, John Wynford

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Grant, Corrie

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Grey. Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

    Rea, Russell

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard

    Rigg, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. Lough.

    Hay. Hon. Claude George

    Robertson. Edmund (Dundee)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Hayter. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8:—
    MR. HALDANEsaid he wished to move an Amendment to extend the period in which the water authority was compelled to redeem its securities from eighty to 100 years. No doubt eighty years was a very considerable period, but, having regard to the fact that the amount to be redeemed would amount to forty millions at least. the result would be rather a heavy charge it the Sinking Fund. He thought lie was right in saying that the Llandaff Commission contemplated 100 years as the possible period, and lie suggested to the Government that it would be well worth their consideration to adopt 100 instead of eighty years.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 4. line 36, to leave out ' eighty,' and insert ' one hundred.'''
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 9:—
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 5, line 17, leave out 'also.'" (Mr. lough.)
    Question proposed, "That the word also ' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that this Amendment was moved in order to alter the Clause a little further down by inserting the words "for the most part." The phrase proposed to be inserted was extremely vague. This proposal had been very carefully considered by the Joint Select Committee. The object was that
    270
    the best information in regard to the New River Company's undertaking should be at the disposal of the new Board, but he preferred the words in the Bill to those of the Amendment.
    MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by lease, withdrawn.
    MR. ATHEKLEY- JONES ()said he understood that the present debenture stock of the New River Company extended to all their property, including property other than that which would he acquired for the purposes of the Water Trust, and the extent to which that property would be relieved from the burden of these debentures would be the measure of the increased value of these debentures. He wished to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it would be within the power of the arbitrators to apportion the debenture stock between the land which remained to the New River Company and the land which was required to be taken by the Water 'Trust, or whether the arbitrators would deduct such amount of the value of the residue land as was created by the debentures being freed.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 5, line 28, after the word ' secured,' to insert ' and the court of arbitration shall estimate the amount by which the capital value of such estate, houses, and property will be enhanced in consequence of such freedom and discharge, and shall deduct the same from the value of the undertaking of the New River Company as determined under Section 23 (a) of this Act. '"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones.)
    Question proposed, "That those words lie there inserted.'
    MR, WALTER LONGsaid that it was a fair assumption of the hon. and learned

    271
    Gentleman that the landed property of the New River Company which remained after the new hoard took over that part of their undertaking which was required would lie increased in value, but whether it would he right that there should be any deduction for the value of that estate was another matter. There could he no doubt whatever that this question, in whole or in part, would come before the arbitrators, and they had full powers to decide whether any allowance should be given or not.
    MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that under these circumstances he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LOUGH,on behalf of the hon.
    Member for Lichfield, moved—
    "In page 5, line28, after the word 'secured,' to insert, 'provided that the Water Board shall have reasonable access to all such books, accounts, or documents as relate to the undertaking of the New River Company purchased by the Water Board.'"
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that was secured by Clause 42.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. CORRIE GRANT ()said that the shares of the New River Company carried with them the peculiar capacity of carrying a vote, and he wished to raise that question at this point.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 7, line S, after the word 'passed.' to insert 'provided always that, such shares shall not be deemed to be freehold property for the purposes of the Parliamentary or any other franchise.'"—(Mr. Corric Grant.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that this was not a Bill dealing with the Parliamentary franchise, hut dealing with the transfer of an undertaking from one public body to another. He submitted, as a point of order, that the Amendment was inadmissible.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid it was not in order on this Bill to alter the Parliamentary franchise.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, on the point of order, that it was well known that shares in the New River Company were an exception to the ordinary rule that shares were personal estate; they were real estate. Therefore he submitted that it was open to the Committee to deal with these shares under this Bill as an anomaly in the law, and that it was right to make this change.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid that it was not competent within the scope of the Bill to deal with the franchise.
    MR. HALDANEsaid that they should not be dealing with any question of the franchise, but with the nature of hereditaments which, by virtue of the peculiar character attached to them, had carried the franchise against the general rule. If it were necessary to put it in any clear form, that could be done by altering the Amendment, and by saying, after line 33, "shall continue to be of the nature of land to the like extent, and in like manner, as hereinbefore, except so far as to carry any privileges with regard to voting which would not attach to personal estate."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, INVERNESS Burghs)said that the shares of the New River Company at present carried a vote because they were real property. That was to say, any share or portion of a share, in the New River Company gave a person who held it an interest in the land covered by water. That interest was to be transferred to the Water Board. This Clause merely dealt with what was substituted for that interest in the land. The words of the Amendment were altogether alien to the matter with which the Committee were dealing.
    *MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid that the Attorney General's argument was the strongest which could be used in favour of his Amendment. The shareholders of the Now River Company owned land covered by water, and because of that they had a vote. But now it was proposed to transfer that land to the Water Board, and yet they were to keep the vote.
    *The DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment was in order.
    *MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he had, on the point of order, stated his argument. He contended that the shareholders, having parted with the land to the Water Board, ought not to continue to have the vote.
    COLONEL BOWLESsaid he could not see how the franchise would remain after the transfer of the undertaking of the New River Company to the Water Board, as the shares would become Water Stock, and he deeply regretted because the shareholders were mostly electors of his own Division.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that nobody suggested for an instant that the right to vote as now enjoyed by the shareholders the New River Company would be transferred to the members of the new Water Board. But when they dealt, in the way suggested by the Amendment, with the franchise in a Bill for a totally different purpose, it was, as the Attorney General had pointed out, very dangerous. He believed that the words of the Amendment were unnecessary, and he doubted whether they ought to be inserted; but if the hon. and learned Member would allow the matter to remain over till the Report stage, he would consult with the Attorney General and see what could be done.
    MR. RICHARDS ()said that the Amendment was an attack on the ownership vote. When the water undertaking of the New River Company was conveyed to the Water Board, there would be still qualifying property left to the shareholders of the Company which ought to be entitled to the franchise. The Amendment was an underhand way of shutting out the 40s. freeholder.
    *MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he would be very glad to leave the question in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he begged to move, on behalf of the hon. Member for Torquay: "In page 7, line 9, after the word 'shall,' to insert' at their own cost.' "He thought this was a particularly reasonable proposal.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that this question had been very carefully considered by the Joint Select Committee. The New River Company had asked to insert words in the Bill which would compel the Water Board to pay their costs, but this had been keenly opposed; and the decision of the Joint Select Committee was that this was a question which ought to be left to the arbitrators.
    MR. LOUGHsaid, upon that understanding, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 9 agreed to.
    Clause 10:—
    Dr. MACNAMARA ()said the right hon. Gentleman would see, from the general scope of this Clause, that the words he proposed by his Amendment to leave out of this Clause relating to the Staines Reservoirs were mere surplusage, because the claim for any expenditure the companies made would be left in.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 8, line 8 to leave out from 'for, 'to ' any,' in line 10."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."'
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid this was one of those cases for which a Bill of this kind was invariably sent to a Committee upstairs. This case had been very carefully considered before that Committee. Although it was very difficult to imagine what claims would be made with regard to the Staines reservoirs, all this Clause did was to say that any rights the Company had at the present time they should be able to claim before the arbitrators. Under all the circumstances he should be very sorry to take these words out.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was very glad to hear the words of the right hon. Gentleman, because there were no rights under the Staines Reservoirs Act. Under the circumstances it seemed to

    275
    him that these words were unnecessary, and in fact it would be dangerous to put them in the Clause.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
    Clause 10 was agreed to.
    Clause 11:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 8, line 39, after the word 'accordingly,' to add ' and not only to the parts so supplied, hut also to the remainder of that district, except the portion supplied by the East London Waterworks Company.' "—(Mr. Joseph Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid all this Amendment did was to make it perfectly clear that when the Water Board supplied the area in the urban district of Tottenham, at present supplied by the New River Company and the Urban District Council, it should also supply all the remainder except the part supplied by the East London Water Company. He hoped the Committee would accept it.
    MR. LOUGHdid not think the Committee ought to consent to this proposal. The Tottenham district was at present supplied by three Water Companies. Tottenham's object in coming in under this Bill was obvious; it would secure a very great reduction in the price of its own water supply, because the Tottenham Company charged a far higher price for its water than the East London Water Company or the New River Company. But this new Water Board was going to buy up the Tottenham district supply on the basis of its present price, and in return for that it should be secured in all the privileges which the Tottenham district enjoyed. This Amendment was brought forward to prevent them succeeding to these rights of the East London Water Company. Why should the new Water Board be bound to reduce their charges to the limit of the New River Company rates? The new Water Board was compelled by this Bill
    276
    to treat the Tottenham district not as the Tottenham Company or the East London Water Company would have treated it. They were compelled to take the lowest scale of charges, which was that of the New River Company. The Water Board should not be treated in this way. It ought to be allowed to succeed to the rights of the Company. This Amendment was unfair to the Water Board, because it would compel them to pay the higher price and charge on the lower scale. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this matter and allow the Clause to remain as it was.
    MR. JOSEPH HOWARD (): This Amendment has been on the Paper ever since early in the summer.
    MR. LOUGH: It is a very wrong thing indeed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 12:—
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 12 stand part of the Bill."— (Mr. Walter Long.)
    MR. LOUGHexpressed the opinion that this Clause ought not to be rushed through like this. It illustrated exactly the principle upon which the right hon. Gentleman treated all the outer areas. So far as he could see, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do nothing that London wanted, but everything for the urban and rural districts. Clause 12 dealt with Richmond and Croydon, and the proposal was that water should he supplied to those places in bulk. Why should not this provision with regard to these places be made general to all the urban districts?
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the proposal in the Clause, by which the new Water Board were relieved of the obligation of supplying Richmond, Croydon, Cheshunt, and Ware, was in conformity with the recommendation of Lord Llandaffs Commission, and had been approved by the Joint Committee He had only heard one opinion as to the justice of the proposal.
    MR. JOHN BURNS ()pointed out that under Clause 13 it would be possible for outside areas to abandon their present systems of supply and compel the Board to supply water in bulk. That was obviously unjust. If these bodies cut themselves adrift they ought to be compelled to stand by their decision, or, if they wanted relief, to apply to Parliament for it. It seemed to him, therefore, that if Clause 12, as defined by the right hon. Gentleman, were passed, the conditions under which these bodies could obtain water in bulk would have to be modified
    MR. HUDSON ()was understood to point out that when these authorities to which reference had been made originally applied to the New River Company for a supply of water it was absolutely refused. They therefore set up at great expense waterworks of their own. All they now asked was that in the event of the new water authority draining their wells dry they should have a right to be supplied with water in bulk at a reasonable price. That was simply common fairness.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that if these outside boroughs had supported the County Council six years ago in its desire to secure the water supply and to obtain a new source of supply in Wales, there would have been a sufficient supply to enable the Council now to be generous. He was inclined to think that those authorities had been pursued by a nemesis, and that they would not now get the water they wanted.
    MR. HALSEY ()reminded the hon. Gentleman that tin Members for Hertfordshire had unanimously supported the County Council in regard to its Welsh scheme.
    Clause 13:—
    MR. LOUGHsaid the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to place the supply of water in bulk on some intelligible and consistent basis. In July last the President of the Local Government Board said, in effect, that he would not compel the Hoard to supply water in bulk anywhere. This Clause, however, compelled the Board to supply water in
    278
    bulk to Croydon, Richmond, Cheshunt and Ware, and certain rural districts. The Government ought to pursue some definite plan in the matter, and if they did a thing in one place they should be prepared to do it in another. His Amendment would enable other urban districts to make the same arrangements with the Board as were made by the particular districts named. No explanation had been given of why this severance was permitted, especially in the rural districts, where it would be extremely expensive and not very useful. He, therefore, begged to move.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 10, line 9, to leave out the second word 'the.' and insert the wool 'any.' ''— (Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'the' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the effect of the Amendment would be to extend the provisions of the Clause to all the urban districts outside London. That was the policy of severance—a policy which had been discussed before Loyal Commissions and both inside and outside the House, and which for reasons he need not again go into had long ago been abandoned as a practical method of dealing with the London water question. The cases of Croydon, Richmond, Cheshunt and Ware stood by themselves; they desired to be taken out, and no objection was urged against it. The case with regard to the rural districts was quite different. It was felt there that while it might be necessary to give a supply in bulk it was undesirable to bring them in, because in the majority of the rural districts within the water area there were only a small number of consumers supplied by the existing Water Companies. To have given them representation on the new Board because of those few consumers would have made that body even bigger than was now proposed, and unnecessarily add to the difficulties of its work. He hoped the Committee would adhere to the plan of the Clause.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, while it was true the Loyal Commission did not see its way to recommend

    279
    severance, it should be remembered that certain outside areas, through their counsel, represented a desire to have power under the Bill to sever themselves at their discretion. The Joint Committee declined to insert such a Clause, hut the bodies had carefully reserved their right to introduce Bills for that object. That showed that the County Councils of some of the outside areas were in favour of severance, and he could not understand the
    illogical position of allowing this severance to some who had not applied for it, while refusing it to others who were anxious to have it. The Bill would set up great anomalies in regard to the question of supplying in bulk, and he should vote for the Amendment.
    (5.58.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 139: Noes, 47. (Division List No. 615.)

    AYES

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Mount, William Arthur

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Garfit, William

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

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

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

    Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Atkinson. Kt. Hon. John

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Greene, W Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Percy. Earl

    Balcarres. Lord

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Plummer, Walter R.

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

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Balfour, Bt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Purvis, Robert

    Banbury. Sir Frederick George

    Halsey, Lit. Hon. Thomas F.

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Bignold, Arthur

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Bigwood, James

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Remnant, James Farquharson.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brassey, Albert

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bull, William James

    Hozier, Hon James Henry Cecil

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Carson, lit. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Jesse, Captain Herbert Merton

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Keswick, William

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Kimber, Henry

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.

    King. Sir Henry Seymour

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Chapman, Edward

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick W m.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Charrington. Spencer

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

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

    Lawson. John Grant

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

    Cohen. Benjamin Louis

    Lecky. Rt. Hn. William Ed w. H.

    Spear, John Ward

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

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

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Cot. Edward

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Dimsdale Sir Joseph Cockfield

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

    Malcolm, Ian

    Wilson-Todd, Win h(Yorks.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Fletcher. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Flower, Ernest

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Foster, Henry William

    Morgan, David J (Walth' mstow

    NOES.

    Asher. Alexander

    Caldwell, James

    Crombie, John William

    Atherley-Jones L.

    Cameron, Robert

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Burns, John

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Dunn, Sir William

    Burt, Thomas

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dunn, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Cremer, William Randal

    Fenwick, Charles

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Warden)

    Tomkinson, James

    Grant, Currie

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Wallace, Robert

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

    Rea, Russell

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Reid. Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Rigg, Richard

    Weir, James Galloway

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Levy, Maurice

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Yoxall. James Henry

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lough and Captain Norton.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

    Nolan. Col. John P. Galway. N.)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 10, line 10, to leave out or,' and insert and may if required.'"—(Mr. Bousfield.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'of' stand part of the Clause.''
    (6.10.) Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he thought the proposal of the Government was the only practical one to meet the difficulty, and he could not accept the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    DR. MACNAMARA,in moving to omit the words, "only the council of any rural district, situate wholly or partly within the limits of supply," said that surely representation through the County Council of a rural area was as effective as these eight urban areas which were to be represented by one special representative on the Water Board.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 10, line 10, to leave out from the word - Ware,' to the second word 'supply' in line 11."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was afraid that he had nothing to add to what he had said, because the Amendment raised practically the same point. This question had not been discussed to the same extent as many other questions before the Loyal Commission, but it was considered before a Committee upstairs, and a proposal like this Amendment was rejected.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked if the right hon. Gentleman wished to suggest that any of the rural areas asked for this power before the Joint Committee.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not wish to convey that impression; but the question was raised and discussed by the Joint Committee.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was afraid that if this Clause stood in its present form it would lead to great complications, difficulty, and expense. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these rural districts were not represented, but he held they were as much represented as some of the urban districts. They were represented, practically directly, through their County Councils. To that extent they would be represented quite as well as the urban districts in eases where eight or nine had to combine together to elect one man. He could only come to the conclusion that the Joint Committees were particularly adverse to this, because they saw the difficulties and complications that would arise from it. Under these circumstances he would support his hon. friend.
    MR. LOUGHthought that hon. Members opposite ought to see the extraordinary position this Clause was putting the Water Board in. The Board was not only compelled to supply those people, but if they had any complaint against the Board they were not to come to the Board direct. They were to go straight to the Local Government Board, which was to decide without, so far as he could see giving the Water Board the chance of saying what it would do for them. The only argument given in support of that was that they had not got separate representation, but they had representation through the County Council. These rural districts would be able to put the Water Board to any expense they pleased, and the Board would have scarcely any right to expostulate. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, with the view of expediting matters, he would give the question further consideration. Perhaps

    283
    if it were left over to lie dealt with on the Report stage there might be a satisfactory compromise arrived at.
    Mr. JOHN BURNSsupported the proposal of his hon. friend. Why should these rural districts have more representation than they were entitled to through the representation they would now have by the County Councils? It seemed to him that if they granted this representation, many districts now governed by Rural Councils would press the Water Board to extend the area of supply on purpose to put members on the Board. They should have no such encouragement held out to them. They should be told that if they had any complaint to make, the proper channel of communication was through their member. If the Clause as worded was carried, it was possible that the Board would have to be enlarged to a hundred members by the addition of representatives of all the rural districts round London.

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lawson, John Grant

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Ed w. H.

    Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Arrol, Sir William

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

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

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

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

    Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

    Flower, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Forster, Henry William

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Garfit, William

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bignold, Arthur

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

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Bigwood, James

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shrsopshire)

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

    Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Brassey, Albert

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute)

    Bull, William James

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Burcher-Coutts, W.

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Butcher, John George

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Percy, Earl

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Chamberlain, Rt Hon JA(Wore.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Chapman, Edward

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Purvis, Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Howard, John(Kent, F'versh'm

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Keswick, William

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Royds, Clement Molyneax

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    MR. BOUSFIELD ()said this was a much more important question than appeared at first sight. It was part of a very large subject. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the proposal. He thought it would be preferable to make the inclusion of the Rural Councils' representative optional, so that each case could be considered on its merits.
    MR. ABEL SMITH ()said that this was a matter of extreme importance to some of the districts in Hertfordshire which he had the honour to represent. He did not wish to go into details at present, but he hoped the Government would adhere to the Clause as it stood.
    (6.28.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes. 140;
    Noes, 43. (Division List No. 616.)

    Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxeth)

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

    Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Smith, James Parker (Lauarks.

    Valentia, Viscount

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

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

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Spear, John Ward

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    NOES.

    Asher. Alexander

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Hayter, Kt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Burt, Thomas

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Speneer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Levy, Maurice

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Caldwell, James

    Lough, Thomas

    Tomkinson, James

    Cameron, Robert

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Wallace, Robert

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

    Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Weir, James Galloway

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

    Dunn. Sir William

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Fenwick, Charles

    Rea. Russell

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

    Rigg, Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. John Burns and Mr. Corrie Grant.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    Question proposed, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."—(Mr. Walter Long.)
    MR. LOUGHthought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that very little had been said upon this Clause; in fact less could hardly have been said. Only two points had been dealt with, upon one of which the Committee had just divided. The principle which appeared to operate in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman was that the rural districts were not represented, many of them were very inadequately represented, and with regard to those such representation as they had was made the pretext for not giving severance in this matter. It seemed to him to be the most extraordinary series of anomalies to give severance to Croydon with a population of 153,000, and to deny it to West Ham with a population of 267,000, and to Willesden with a population of 217,000. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen thought it worth while to divide against the Clause, but in his opinion it was a very bad one.
    Clause 14:—
    MR. CREMER ()said he had read this Clause over and over again, and had failed to understand why it was proposed to give to the
    286
    county of Hertford privileges which Kent, Surrey and Essex did not possess under this Bill. He thought some explanation should be given with regard to this before the Clause was passed, and therefore he begged to move to leave out Clause 14.
    Amendment proposed, "In page 11; to leave out Clause 14."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Clause was undoubtedly an exceptional one, but the case of Hertfordshire was exceptional. The case for that county had been put before the Joint Committee and carefully considered, and this Clause was the result. This was one of the precise cases for which the Private Bill Procedure was intended, to give to people whose property was attacked, or whose rights were assailed, power to put their case before the tribunal and have justice done them. Practically all the water of Hertfordshire was taken for the supply of London, and there were many districts where the people literally did not know where to turn for water. It was owing to the particularly heavy demand made upon Hertfordshire for water by London that these privileges were granted to them.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he should like to confirm what the right lion. Gentleman had said. The way in which

    287
    Hertfordshire had been depleted by the Water Companies was scandalous, from fishing as well as from the other points of view. He thought far too much water had been taken from the county.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the Clause was an illustration of how advisable it would have been to have adopted the suggestion of the London County Council and brought water for London from Wales or elsewhere—when they would have had plenty of water to return to those counties which had been depleted. Never, in his opinion, was such an extraordinary provision made in an Act of Parliament. They were to give the Hertford Council all the water they required, and there was to be no check of any kind. His hon. friend, no doubt, wanted all these streams filled up, because he went to Hertfordshire to fish, and had, perhaps, got that interesting experience of fishing there which he had lately given to the world. But these special provisions might be carried too far, and hon. Gentlemen ought to think of this again, and think a little about London. If it went to a division he should vote against it.
    MR. CREMER: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 14 agreed to.
    Clause 15:—
    MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid this Clause contemplated that any deficiency of the water fund should be made good by a grant in aid, but it made it good in a most fantastic and extraordinary fashion. It excluded certain parts of the water area from all liability for the deficiency; it applied only to those hereditaments supplied with water, and it was levied on the whole of the parish, although only a part of the parish was supplied. He ventured to say such a proceeding would produce the greatest inequality. The extremes of inequality of rating would range from ·06 to ·84 of a penny in the £, Another singular result of this Clause was the way in which they were to deal with the hereditaments to be supplied with water. The rating value was not considered to be the real criterion of what the property ought to pay as a water
    288
    rate, to arrive at the sum total of the various hereditaments in the various localities, according to which the calculation was to be made. All these places supplied by the Water Board were lumped together and included in a general levy, which would lead to very grave inequalities indeed. The collection was to be made as if it were a general district rate, but a large number of properties paid only a quarter of the general district rate. He thought the deficiency ought to be made good by an increase in the water rate, and that being so, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 3, to leave out all the words after 'be,' to end of sub-Section, and insert 'met by a uniform increase in the water rates charged for domestic supply.'"—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Member was wrong in supposing that the incidence of this rate would be, entirely, the general rate. That would be so, no doubt, so far as outside London was concerned, but inside London the incidence would be the poor-law valuation. A different incidence would apply to outside London. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government suggested that in both inner and outer London the incidence should be on the general poor rate, but that was changed by the Joint Committee to the general district rate. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion to give the Water Board a power to increase the water charges would be. to effect such a change as to completely alter the whole scheme of the Bill. Supposing it was found necessary for the Water Board at a later period to go to Wales for water for the supply of London, it would be most unfair that such a charge should not fall upon London as a whole.
    MR. WHITELEYbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In Clause 15, page 12, line 4, to leave out 'parishes,' and insert 'metropolitan boroughs.'"—(Mr. Walter Long.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    CAPTAIN NORTON ()said the object of the Amendment he now proposed to move was to provide that all the areas supplied should be liable to the deficiency rate. That was only natural and right. It included in all thirteen districts, of which four were urban and five were rural. Among those urban districts they had such important growing districts as Hendon and Ilford, with an assessable value of £123,000 and £117,000 respectively. Of the rural districts the three most important were Bromley, Croydon and Dartford. Objection was taken that these outside districts had no representation, but they had sufficient representation through their County Councils to justify the contingency of taxation. If these districts were placed on the same basis as that on which inner London was placed, they would still enjoy important advantages, He also wished to know whether these districts, which did not run any risk of purchase, were to share in the equalisation. He begged to move—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 5, after the word 'urban,' ro insert the words 'and rural.'"—(Captain Norton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had already made a full statement on this subject at an earlier period. It was true that the rural districts would get the benefit of whatever work was done by the Water Board, and that they would not be liable for the rates. The reason was, there was a very small proportion in the area who were supplied, the water being, in fact, often found in those areas.
    Mr. THOMAS LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman's reply did not cover the position. The majority of the rural districts would be excluded from this Clause because they had no representation. The right hon. Gentleman had given severance in every case where he considered there were special circumstances, and he (Mr. Lough) thought that that concession should be given to all the rural districts. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.
    (7.3) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ares, 37; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 617.)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Plummer, Walter R.

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

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Howard, John Kent(Faversham

    Purvis, Robert

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cox. Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Rattigan, Sir William Henry

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Keswick, William

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Kimber, Henry

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick W m.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Lawson, John Grant

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Legge, Col, Hon. Heneage

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Flannery, Sir Forteseue

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lucas. Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

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

    Flower, Ernest

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Spear, John Ward

    Forster, Henry William

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

    Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

    Garfit, William

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Gibbs, Hn. AGH(City of Lond.

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Thorton, Percy M.

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

    Montagu Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham(Bute

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

    Hamiiton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

    O' Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W m.

    Percy, Earl

    Amendments made—
    "In page 12, line 11, to leave out parish'; in page 12, line 14, to leave out 'parishes municipal'; in page 12, line 17, to leave out 'a parish in'; in page 12, lines 23 and 24, to leave out '(if necessary) be raised out of, and as part of the local rate; that is to say,' and insert 'be paid'; in page 12, line 25, after 'city,' to insert 'out of'; in page 12, line 26, to leave out 'a parish in'; in page 12, lines 26 and 27, to leave out 'the general rate,' and insert ' as part of the expenses incurred by the council thereof'; in page 12, line 28, after 'district' to insert 'out of.' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON ()said that both sides were agreed that, at the earliest opportunity, the water rate over the area of supply should be equalised. In order to give the President of the Local Government Board an opportunity to make a statement on the point, he begged to move the Amendment, a copy of which he had handed in.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 35, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words, ' The Water Board shall exercise their power of charging water rates in such manner as to produce within three year from the appointed day throughout the
    292
    limits of supply an equalisation of such rates as between all parts of the area, both in respect of charges on rateable value of the premises supplied and special services rendered.' "—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that sub - Section 6 was inserted before the Joint Committee at the instance of the City of Westminster, whose action had been most adversely commented upon. He was bound to say, however, that he thought those adverse comments were hardly justified, seeing that the city of Westminster had to bear a very large portion of the cost, whether they were dealing with the water charges or the general rates of the Metropolis. All parties agreed that as speedily as it could be brought about, there must be a readjustment of the water charges in London having for its main object their equalisation. One of the most unfortunate difficulties in connection with the existing condition of the water supply was that for the same quantity and quality

    293
    of water you might have to pay one price on one side of a street and a totally different price on the other. That was an unsatisfactory feature which it was hoped the new authority would be able to alter. But while everybody was agreed that an equalisation of the water charges was desirable it ought also to be agreed that that equalisation should not be made at the expense of the general ratepayer of the Metropolis. Nobody would suggest that, unless unavoidable, the general rates of the Metropolis should be brought to the aid of the water supply. It might be necessary to deal with the matter at a later period by some equalisation of rates system, but all that was required at present was to make it clear in the Bill that there should not be an equalisation scheme at the cost of the general rates. Sub-Section (6) as it stood would be capable of a much wider interpretation, and he would suggest its amendment in two or three points, so that it should read—
    "The Water Board shall not, until Parliament otherwise determine, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the quarter ending the twenty-fourth day of June, 1902, unless the Board are satisfied that such a reduction would not cause a deficiency in the Water Fund."
    As the Committee would see, that was a material alteration of the wording, and he proposed further to add—
    "But the Water Board shall, within three years after the appointed day, introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for uniform scales and charges applicable throughout the limits of supply."
    He thought that, on the whole, would fairly meet the difficulties of the case. The Board would have a reasonable time in which to ascertain what it would be possible for them to do, and the case of Westminster and other heavily rated parts of the Metropolis would be amply protected, inasmuch as the obligation to bring in a Bill would secure to them the opportunity of presenting their case before any arrangement was made. He hoped these alterations would meet the views of Members on both sides of the House.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that, so far as he could follow it, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would meet with general acceptance. As he understood it, the Board within three years
    294
    would have to introduce a Bill opposing a uniform scale of charges. One of the great evils of the present system—indeed, one of the main reasons for this Bill—was the inequality of the charges. That London should be treated as a unit was the basis of the Bill, and on the ground that uniformity of charge would be secured he welcomed the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. BIGWOOD ()said the people of Middlesex would be very grateful for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the things they suffered from was this inequality of charges.
    MR. CORRIE GRANTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had also had before him the question of the inequality of assessments? At present much doubt existed amongst rating authorities as to who had the right of raising the question. Some years ago the London County Council attacked the question of the inequality of assessments, but after taking a great deal of evidence and going before the Court of Appeal, it was decided that the County Council had no locus standi in the matter. It might be reasonable to give the Water Board the right to interfere in the question.
    MR. WALTER LONGwas afraid that the Amendment dealing with the point suggested by the hon. Member would involve an alteration of the law of valuation, and, as such, be ruled out of order. He was advised, however, that the Water Board, being ratepayers in the area concerned, would have the ordinary ratepayers' right to appear before the assessment authority and to appeal to Quarter Sessions.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONthanked his right hon. friend for the concession he had promised to make, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the question was not so simple as it looked. A revolutionary change was proposed to be made in the Clause. He desired to know whether, under the equalisation, the high rate charged in some places would be reduced to the low rate charged in others, or vice versa. On a £20 house

    295
    in Islington the water rate was 24s., whereas in Camberwell on a similar house it was £3 7s. If Camberwell were lowered to the level of Islington, Camberwell would be very grateful, but if Islington were raised to the level of Camberwell, there would be great complaints from Islington.
    It being half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

  EVENING SITTING.

    LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 15:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 35, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words, 'The Water Board shall exercise their powers of charging water rates in such manner as to produce within three years from the appointed day throughout the limits of supply an equalisation of such rates as between all parts of the area, both in respect of charges on ratable value of the premises supplied and special services rendered.'"—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    (9.0.) MR. LOUGH,resuming, said he desired to know whether it was the intention of the Government to effect the equalisation which was to take place by means of the water charges, and whether it was intended that no call could be made on the rates under any circumstances whatever. He thought it would be absolutely necessary to insert in the Bill some provisions wider than those suggested by the President of the Local Government Board, for if equalisation was to take place at the expense of the water consumer alone, it must be unsatisfactory. What was really needed was an equalisation of the rates, which varied greatly in different districts. For instance, in Hackney the charge for a £30 house was £1 4s. and for a £45
    296
    house £2 10s., while in Bermondsey the figures were £3 7s. and £4 6s. respectively. In provincial cities and towns the charges were much lower.
    CAPTAIN JESSEL ()said the Corporation of the City of Westminster had been somewhat unduly abused for getting this Clause inserted in the Bill. They had acted not only on behalf of Westminster, but on behalf of other areas in London. The Clause was agreed to unanimously by the Joint Committee, which had expressed itself satisfied that Westminster, acting on behalf of the various boroughs, had made out a good case. The Clause had been condemned by the London County Council because they had alleged that by it equalisation of rates was prevented, but, as a matter of fact, if absolute equalisation of rates came into operation the charge upon the districts west of the Lea and north of the Thames would be increased in order to reduce the charge in the other parts of the Metropolis. It must be perfectly plain to everybody who had studied this question that they could not go on charging on a different basis in different areas. There must be a uniform scale of charges throughout London, and it seemed to him that the course the Government were pursuing in leaving matters as they were for three years and then directing that the Water Board should bring in a Bill to make the charges uniform was a very wise one.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments were proposed by Mr. WALTER LONG, and agreed to, which left sub-Sections 6 and 7 as follows—
    " (6) The Water Board shall not, until Parliament otherwise determine, reduce the rates charged for the supply of water below those in force during the quarter ending the twenty-fourth day of June one thousand nine hundred and two, unless the Board are satisfied that such a reduction would not cause a deficiency in the water fund; but the Water Board shall, within three years after the appointed day, introduce into Parliament a Bill providing for uniform scales of charges applicable throughout the limits of supply. (7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare and publish in the London Gazette, a scheme enabling their charges for the supply of water to be collected together with any local rate. Any local or rating authority within the limits of supply

    297
    may transmit to the Local Government Board their objections to any such scheme within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette."
    MR. LOUGHmoved a further Amendment that the equalisation should be secured on a scale not exceeding that of the West Middlesex Water Company, and that the deficit thereby caused should be made good out of the county rate.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY ()had on the Paper an Amendment to add the following sub-Section:—
    "(7) Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board shall prepare a scheme enabling their assessments and charges for water supplied for domestic and trade purposes to be assessed, levied and collected half-yearly to the thirtieth September and thirty-first March respectively, together with the general, poor, or general district rate. Each constituent authority and rating authority within the area of the Water Board shall transmit their objections to the Local Government Board within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette. The Local Government Board shall insert such modifications as they deem necessary to the scheme, and, after confirmation, fix the time for it to come into operation, and shall prescribe the form of rate book and demand note, and shall make such necessary or proper regulations for purpose, which shall have effect as if they were enacted in this Act.'
    The hon. Member said the Amendment explained itself but he would ask leave of the Committee to alter the word "shall" in the first line to the word "may," and to withdraw the last paragraph, having ascertained from the authorities that the Local Government Board had no power to enforce the provision set forth in the last paragraph of the Amendment. Though there was much to be said in support of the Amendment he felt that it would be unnecessary for him to go at length into the subject.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 40, at end, to add. 'Within three years after the appointed day the Water Board may prepare a scheme enabling their assessments and charges for water supplied for domestic and trade purposes to be assessed, levied, and collected half-yearly to September 30 and March 31 respectively, together with
    298
    the general, poor, or general district rate. Each constituent authority and rating authority within the area of the Water Board shall consider and transmit their objections to the Local Government Board within forty days after the scheme is published in the London Gazette.'''— (Mr. Claude Hay.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that a similar proposal stood in the name of the hon. Member for Haggerston as a new Clause, and, as it seemed to meet the wishes of both sides of the Committee, the Government were prepared to accept it.
    MR. CREMERsaid it was several months since he put down on the Paper a new Clause in terms identical with the Amendment which the hon. Member for Hoxton had just moved. The hon. Member for Hoxton had done him the honour to borrow in every word his Clause, and if imitation was the most sincere form of flattery he supposed that he might consider himself very much flattered in having his new Clause moved as an Amendment to Clause 15. It seem to him that the proposal of the hon. Member for South Hackney was not at all necessary, for the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have swallowed them all up. He thanked the President of the Local Government Board for the spirit in which he had met them on this question, because this matter appeared to him to be the most vital principle of the Bill. What they were all anxious for was to secure equality of assessment in the Metropolis. The Amendment secured this object, and in three years time they would have that which they all hoped to have, namely, something like an equality of assessment throughout the Metropolis. In regard to the uniformity of collection, that was not met by the Amendment, and he asked the right. hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was not possible to introduce something into the Clause that would secure uniformity of collection. At the present time they had a rate collector, a water rate collector, and a collector of King's taxes. In some boroughs they managed to collect all these taxes with one man, and he did not see why it should not be compulsory on the new water authority that one collector should collect all the taxes to which he had referred. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could easily achieve this object by adding

    299
    a few words to this Clause. Personally he thanked the President of the Local Government Board for the graceful concession he had made to them, and if there was anything calculated to make this Bill popular he believed it was the concession made upon this subject.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the Amendment which was now before the House was placed on the Paper not a few weeks ago, as the hon. Member for Haggerston had alleged, but some months ago.
    MR. CREMER: Yes, but long after my new Clause appeared on the Paper.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the reason that his Amendment took precedence to that of the hon. Member for Haggerston was that he had taken the trouble to conform to the Rules of the House, while the hon. Member had placed his Amendment before the House without taking the trouble to consult the ordinary practice of the House, and therefore the hon. Member came last on the list.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was glad that the Government had accepted the principle of the Amendment. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the words as they stood on the Paper. His hon. friend the Member for Haggerston had this Amendment on the Paper many months ago, and it seemed to him something like kleptomania that the hon. Member for Hoxton should now put this Amendment forward and claim it as his own.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the hon. Member say when my Amendment first appeared on the Paper?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid all he knew was that his hon. friend's Amendment was on the Paper some time before the one which had now been proposed, and that was enough for his argument. It was a most extraordinary coincidence that the hon. Member for Hoxton should have adopted the same words.
    CAPTAIN JESSELsaid that whoever might have been the father of this particular Clause, he congratulated him upon it, because he thought a great deal of money would be saved by it.
    300
    It seemed to him that there was no difficulty in the matter whatsoever, because other towns had adopted this method of procedure. He thought the hon. Member, or perhaps the hon. Members, who claimed this proposal might both be congratulated upon having this Amendment on the Paper.
    MR. CREMERsaid he should like to ask whether the proposal contained in the Amendment as regarded uniformity of collection was contained in the Amendment now before the House upon which they were going to vote.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what the Government accepted was the Amendment as originally proposed with the omission of the last sub-paragraph, and the substitution of the word "may" for "shall." The hon. Member was aware that there were practical difficulties in the way of any compulsory uniformity. They all desired that there should be uniformity of collection and an avoidance of the constant repetition of collections for rates and taxes. As the hon. Gentleman was aware, there were practical difficulties in the way, because the charges did not always fall upon the same individual, and, in the second place, it might not be convenient, and might actually be more expensive to have to employ the collectors of the local authorities. Uniformity, however, was made possible, although not compulsory, by the Amendment of his hon. friend.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea. At the present time the Water Companies did give exemptions, and he admitted that some exemptions should be made in the case of persons who did not use much water. This, however, could be settled by making one charge for all dwellings and for all dwelling-houses and shops combined, and for workshops which were separated. In Manchester and all the great cities these exemptions were made one uniform charge throughout the whole area. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept this proposal.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 12, line 40, at end, add, 'In levying the water rate the Water Board shall not give preference or exemption to any person or property, unless such preference or exemption be extended to all persons and property similarly situated.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *COLONEL BOWLESsaid that he did not think there was any necessity for this Amendment, and he would remind the Committee that it was to the London hospitals that the Water Companies gave these preferential rates.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was not alleged that the concessions made by Water Companies to particular consumers of water were the result of any collusion between them and the users of water. Hitherto he thought as a rule the charges had been that the Water Companies were too exorbitant in the demands they have made upon the consumers, but it should not be forgotten that the Water Companies were ordinary commercial concerns. The Water Companies have made these charges in the past because they believed it was in their interest commercially to charge in this fashion. It would be the duty of the Water Board to consider whether they should continue this system or not. If they thought it was in the long run to their interests commercially of course they would do so. Did the hon. Member opposite mean by his argument that the Water Companies in the past had discriminated in their charges between certain ratepayers? He thought in the past the companies had done their best to make profit. Surely they ought to give the Water Board at least the same power and discretion as the Water Companies had enjoyed in the past, but as a matter of fact this Amendment would place the Water Board in a worse position than the companies were at the present time.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONthought that, if the Attorney General would tell the Committee whether or not these words were really necessary, the discussion would come to an end.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 15 agreed to.
    Clause 16:—
    *Sir FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the object of the Amendment he wished to move was to abolish the Sinking Fund. He thought a Sinking Fund was unnecessary and would press very heavily upon the ratepayers. He might say without exaggeration that the amount which would be necessary for the Sinking Fund would be about £300,000 a year. What was the object of levying this £300,000 a year upon the present ratepayers of London? The only object of establishing the Sinking Fund appeared to him to be that their grandchildren would be able to have water for nothing, because the capital charges would all be extinguished, and the only charge upon the future generation would be the actual charge for the maintenance of the water supply. He was aware that this was a commercial enterprise, but as far as he was aware, from the beginning of the world to the end of it, water would always be necessary, for no substitute could be found for it, and therefore if the works were kept in repair, and depreciation of machinery provided for, there would be no need for this Sinking Fund. It might be said that a fresh supply from such places as Wales, or from other parts of the country, might be necessary, but even in such a case the present supply would not cease to exist, and the new supply would be remunerative. This had been the case during the last twenty years. Water companies had extended their reservoirs, but nevertheless their incomes had always increased, and therefore he thought the establishment of the Sinking Fund was entirely unnecessary. It might be held that the municipalities would come down and require that their Sinking Fund should be abolished. He wished to point out that the difference between municipalities and an undertaking of this sort was very great. Municipalities spent money on sewers and town halls and streets, which were not remunerative and which deteriorated. As he desired that this Bill should be a success, and that it should not cast undue burdens

    303
    upon the ratepayers, he hoped the Government would receive this proposal with favour.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 13, to line 29, leave out sub-Section (3)."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
    Question proposed, ''That sub-Section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGmade an appeal to the hon. Baronet not to press this Amendment. His hon. friend had said that this was not a municipal undertaking, but a commercial one. He was not sure that that was necessarily the case. If he sought to differentiate between the two he would remind the hon. Baronet that in the commercial undertaking the people interested had not got the advantage of the rates behind them. In this particular concern the rates of London would be behind the Water Board. He asked the Committee to realise what they were doing. His hon. friend had stated that there was no precedent for this extraordinary commercial undertaking. Surely the hon. Baronet was aware that no municipality came to this House for powers to undertake gas or water supply, and to borrow money for that purpose without being called upon to create a Sinking Fund. A great concern was being initiated by this Bill for the greatest municipality in the world, namely, the Metropolis of London, and was this great Metropolis going to set for the first time an example of profligate municipal expenditure? A greater mistake could not be made. He was very reluctant to enter the list against the hon. Baronet in any financial dispute, but he did not think he had accurately described the effects of this provision. He did not think that the Sinking Fund would cost £300,000 a year, for at the outside he did not think it would be more than £200,000 or £250,000. He had not shown that this money would necessarily come out of the rates at all. The Bill provided that this fund was to be created by a gradual process, and it provided also for an extended period during which there would be no necessity to use the Sinking Fund, and he did earnestly appeal to the Committee, not from any motive of economy, or from the fear of throwing a burden on the rates, to sanction such a departure from sound municipal finance in the case
    304
    of the new London Water Board. He did not think there was any necessity to make a call upon the rates to form this fund. There would be an interval of twenty years before they would have to deal with this question. By that time the Water Board would know what their position was, and they would know what was likely to be the pressure on the London ratepayers. He asked the Committee not to decide on this side issue a question which might be of far reaching importance not only to London, but to other parts of the country.
    Amendment negatived. Clause 16 agreed to.
    Clause 17 agreed to.
    Clause 18 amended, and agreed to.
    Clause 19:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 16, line 6, to insert the words, 'and that the stamp duty charged on the Water Board for the purposes of The District Auditors Act, 1879, shall be such as the Treasury, after consulting with the Local Government Board, and having regard to the cost of the audit, may determine. ' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. LOUGHmoved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Camberwell. As the new Board was a sort of municipal combination, he thought it was reasonable that the constituent authorities should have the right which the Amendment proposed to confer upon them.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 16, line 9, at end, to add, 'The constituent authorities shall have an independent right to be present at the audit of the accounts of the Board, and to appeal with regard thereto. Copies of the accounts shall be furnished to each of the constituent authorities who shall be entitled to make representations to the Local Government Board with regard thereto, and that Board shall be empowered to give directions to the Water Board on the subject.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "Those words be there inserted."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid there was no necessity for the first part of

    305
    this Amendment, because the local authorities would, of course, be represented at the Water Board. In regard to the second part he could not possibly assent to the proposal that copies of the accounts should be furnished to each of the constituent authorities. That was a proceeding which would involve a great deal of unnecessary labour and expense which would do no good to anybody.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 20, 21, and 22 agreed to.
    Clause 23:—
    *MR. HERBERT SAMUELmoved to add the following to sub-Section (4) which provides for the payment to the Arbitration Commissioners and to any officer or person appointed and employed under "this section such salaries or remuneration as the Local Government Board may assign," Provided always that before the amount of any such salaries or other remuneration is fixed the Water Board shall have an opportunity of submitting its views to the Local Government Board." It seemed to him a somewhat strange provision that the authority which was to pay the Commissioners and their employees should have no voice in determining the amount to be paid. It Was contrary to the principle that where there was taxation there ought to be representation. This was a matter important not only in itself, but because it might be used afterwards as a precedent. Surely the salaries ought to be fixed by agreement between the Local Government Board and the Water Board.
    Amendment proposed—
    ' In page 17, line 41, at end, to insert 'Provided always that before the amount of any such salaries or other remuneration is fixed, the Water Board shall have an opportunity of submitting its views to the Local Government Board.' "—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WALTER LONGhoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to press this Amendment. If there was
    306
    one part of the Bill which had found general acceptance it was that dealing with the appointment of the arbitrators He thought they were all agreed that the names of the Commissioners were altogether beyond comment. Better men could not have been selected, and to suggest that in regard to the salaries or remuneration to be paid to them there should be some sort of consultation with the Water Board was to introduce a feature which was altogether undesirable. He believed that the three gentlemen who had agreed to undertake the duties of arbitrators would, if they had followed their own wishes, have preferred not to act in the matter. He ventured to say that there would be no difficulty whatever in fixing remuneration that would be reasonable.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONadvised his hon. friend, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said, to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved to amend sub-Section (5), by leaving out all after "to," in line 2, to end of paragraph, and inserting "the ascertainment, determination, and declaration by them of the fair and reasonable value of each Metropolitan Water Company, and the court of arbitration in order to ascertain such value shall inquire into and shall consider all the circumstances of the ease." He said some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at all events, thought that the reference to the arbitrators was not sufficiently extended and open, inasmuch as it did not instruct them to deal with each company separately. Under the Clause they would he able to give a lump arbitration in regard to all or some of the companies together. He thought it ought to be made clear that each company should be taken on its own basis, and that each arbitration ought to refer to one company alone. The reference proposed did not necessarily enable the arbitrators to go into all the circumstances of the case. Not only should they be able to take into consideration anything favourable to the company, such as the condition of the main water supply and the state of the reservoirs, but they should also take into

    307
    account questions of the likelihood of future liabilities had the undertaking remained in possession of the company. It was quite clear from the increase in the population in many parts, and from the deficiences in the water supply, that the Water Board would be involved in large capital expenditure, and that if matters were left as at present would fall on the companies. That was an element which ought to be taken into account in estimating the price at which the companies ought to be bought out. What he was afraid of in regard to the whole question of arbitration was that the Water Board would be very much prejudiced in stating their case before the arbitrators. The Board would have to get new officers who would not understand the work, as the officers of the water companies were to be taken over later on. Practically all the first-class counsel had already been engaged by the water companies, and the Water Board would be in a very prejudiced position. The fullest possible instructions ought to be given to the arbitrators to take every matter into account, so that it might not be said to them that such and such matters were excluded from the scope of the arbitration.
    Amendment proposed—
    " In page 18, line 2, to leave out all the words after the word ' to,' to the end of the sub Section, and insert the words' the ascertainment, determination, and declaration by them of the fair and reasonable value of each Metropolitan Water Company, and the court of arbitration, in order to ascertain such value, shall inquire into and shall consider all the circumstances of the case.' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

    AYES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bigwood, James

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bond, Edward

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. JA(Wore.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Chapman, Edward

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Charrington, Spencer

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Brassey, Albert

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Balcarres, Lord

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu,

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Bull, William James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Bignold, Arthur

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, for the reason that this Arbitration Clause was in some respects the most important in the Bill. It gave very large powers to the tribunal, which was most carefully constituted. The Clause was most carefully examined by the Joint Committee, and very much altered by them after they had heard all the pros and cons. He was not inclined to be drawn into a discussion as to what were the questions the arbitrators ought to consider. The London County Council had from the beginning made clear their views on this question, and there was no doubt what their views were He did not hesitate to say that if the London County Council had taken slightly different views on this question they would probably have had no difficulty in passing a Bill years ago. But this was the rock on which they had always split. They had always held that certain things ought to be taken into consideration against the companies, and the Government could not accept their view. He would earnestly ask the Committee not to put into this Clause words which were very vague, which might be interpreted either for or against the interests of the companies or of the general ratepayers, and which might mislead the arbitrators and place them in a position of considerable difficult. At present they had full powers under Clause 23 to consider all the circumstances of the case, and give the award which they believed would be just as between the companies on the one hand and the London ratepayers on the other.
    (10.13.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 117; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 618).

    Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Flower, Ernest

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Forster, Henry William

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Maple, Sir John Blundell

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

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Spear, John Ward

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Godson, Sir August us Frederick

    More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

    Thornton, Percy M.

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

    Morgan David J.(Walth'mstow

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm, Edw. M.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Valentia, Viscount

    Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William II.

    Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Murray, Rt. Hn. Agraham(Bute

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE(Taunton

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Percy, Earl

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Howard, John(Kent, Fav'r sham

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col, Edward

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Purvis, Robert

    Kemp, George

    Pym, C. Guy

    Kenyon. Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

    Lawson, John Grant

    Robertson. Herbert (Hackney)

    NOES.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Spencer, RT. Hn. C R(Northants

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Scale

    Tomkinson, James

    Burns. John

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Burt, Thomas

    Levy, Maurice

    Tully, Jasper

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Lough, Thomas

    Weir, James Galloway

    Caldwell, James

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Cameron. Robert

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron, Walden

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Rea, Russell

    Cremer, William Randal

    Rigg. Richard

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    TELLERS FORTHE NOES— Captain Norton and Mr. Herbert Samuel.

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Amendment proposed—
    "In page I8, line 8, after 'settlement,' to add any of the constituent authorities shall be entitled to attend and give evidence before the Court of Arbitration.' '' (Mr. Laugh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid it was quite unnecessary that these words should be put in, and therefore he opposed the Amendment.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the question really arose in reference to the London County Council. As the Bill was drawn up he gathered that the London County Council had no locus standi before the arbitrator. The Council had a mass of information on the questions to be determined, and efficient officers who could place that information before the
    310
    Court. The object of the Amendment was to make it quite clear that the London County Council should not be ruled out as witnesses, and that they should be able, as a constituent authority, to give the evidence they desired.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the London County Council would not have a locus standi independently on their own account. The two parties to the arbitration would be the Water Board as the intending purchaser, and the Water Companies as the sellers. It would rest with the Water Board to call what witnesses they thought fit in support of their case. There would be on the Water Board ten members of the London County Council, and the additional numbers he hoped to add on the Report stage. Surely the presence of these members of the London County Council on the Water Board was sufficient

    311
    security that if the Water Board required the evidence of the officials or members of the London County Council they would call them, and he had no doubt they would call them. He could not possibly assent to the Amendment.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he was very sorry that his hon. friend on the Front Opposition Bench had mentioned the London County Council, which seemed to have the same effect on the right hon. Gentleman opposite as a red rag on a hull. In moving the Amendment, he was not thinking of the London County Council, but of those unfortunate places in the outside areas which had only a tenth of one man to represent them on the Water Board and who would not be in the least able to affect the judgment of the Water Board, as to the calling of witnesses whom they might desire to have examined, in order to prevent some decision being come to that might be prejudicial to their locality. He thought the Amendment would have been accepted without discussion, and it ought to be pressed to a division.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 19, line 6, after the word 'any,' to insert the words, 'costs, charges, and,' "—(Mr. Lyttelton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would adhere to the words in the Bill. If there had been any strong reason for inserting the words of the Amendment that would have been done by the President of the Local Government Board in drafting the Bill.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the words of the Amendment were not unreasonable. They were introduced to make it clear that anything in the nature of cost and charges would be included as well as expenses, though he had no doubt that costs and charges incidental to the transfer would be included under the word "expenses."
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought that the Amendment should be resisted, if no better reason could be given for it. The apprehension they had in regard to those words was the same apprehension as they had in regard to the word "compensation," viz., that there was a desire on the part of certain persons to make it more and more clear that the arbitration was to be under the Lands Clauses Act. He really did not understand, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, how possibly the ands Clauses Act could apply.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he really thought that the hon. Gentleman was unduly alarmed. If the hon. Gentleman would look at sub-Section 8, Clause 23, he would see that this question of expenses was subject to the Court of Arbitration; while in sub-Section 9 the word used was "costs." It was desirable to remove the difference and prevent any injustice being done to the Water Companies. Hon Gentlemen opposite had, all through this Bill, been extremely anxious that no injustice should be done, even to the Water Companies. All that was intended was that the legitimate costs of purchasing these properties for London by London should be borne by London, so that the legitimate expenditure in prosecuting the case of the Water Companies should not fall on the shareholders.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid they had been told earlier in the day that the President of the Local Government Board would, under no circumstances, alter the decision of the Joint Select Committee.
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid that he had stated that Clause 10 was one of those Clauses that dealt with private interests. But there was no private interest in the Clause under discussion; it was a general principle.
    DR. MACNAMARAsaid that Clause 10 had reference to the Staines reservoirs; and the only argument used for it was that they should not touch this sacrosanct Clause because it had been argued before the Joint Select Committee. The Plunkett Committee had arrived at substantially the same

    313
    phraseology as the Joint Select Committee in regard to Clause 23, sub-Section 8; and he asked the President of the Local Government Board not to depart from the principle he had laid down so admirably in the earlier part of the day. He sincerely hoped that in the interests of fair play there would be no modification of the words of the Clause.
    *Mr. LYTTELTON ()said he should like to say a few words in justification of his Amendment. The word "expenses." in sub-Section 8, was intended to coverall the expenses which were incidental to a transfer. Everybody admitted that reasonable expenses should be given at the discretion of the arbitrators. The word "expenses" was claimed by the Government to have a most general and wide meaning, yet, as sub-Section 9 made special provision for costs, it night fairly be argued that the inference was that the word "expenses." in sub-Section 8, did not carry the significance intended. Any doubt on the matter would be removed by his Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 24:—
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that he wished to give the Water Board full power over its own affairs, and he saw no reason to bring in the Local Government Board to give its consent to the alienation of any land or buildings transferred to the Board.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 19, line 39, to leave out the words 'with the consent of the Local Government Board.''—(Captain Norton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid that there must be some outside authority to decide in such cases.
    CAPTAIN NORTONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 24 agreed to.
    Clause 25 agreed to.
    Clause 26:—
    MR. LOUGHmoved to leave out sub-Section 1. This sub-Section, he said, was a very curious one. If they gave the Local Government Board power, by reason of difference of population, to alter the representation of the Board, there might be, as he understood it, a great influx of members at one time, and at other times the number might be reduced. That would be a most unfortunate power to give to the Local Government Board, and there was no necessity for it. At present the representation was distributed in regard to population in the most extraordinary way the wit of man could conceive of. There were some districts with a population of 50,000 which had one member, and there were other districts, like Islington, which had a population of 340,000, and which had only one member. If there was a variation like that at present, why on earth should they give power to the Local Government Board to vary the representation on a very little variation of the population? Nothing was more inconvenient than that the number should be changed. The greatest controversy in connection with the Bill arose in connection with the number of the new Board; and it was even denounced by a light hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench, when he was present. The only great assembly in the world where the number was subject to change was the Chamber of Deputies in Paris; and Frenchmen who had studied the question agreed that that was a very great drawback, and that it would be better that the number should be fixed, as in this House, and in other assemblies. He, therefore, hoped the Local Government Board would consider the matter at that stage.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 22, line 5, to leave out sub-Section (1)''—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed. "That sub-Section (1) stand part of the Clause."
    (10.50.) Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think the matter was of a very important character; but the sub-Section would enable a change to be made by Provisional Order, which was the simplest course, if a change were desirable. He hoped, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment.
    Mr. WHITMORE ()said he should like to have it quite clear that if the Local Government Board had this power, it could only be exercised subject to ratification by Parliament.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid it would be exercised through a Provisional Order promoted by the Department.
    Mr. WHITMOREsaid he had every confidence, in the present Local Government Board, but he could conceive a Board differently constituted: and all he wished was to impress that the exercise of this power should be subject to ratification by Parliament.
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid that as it would be exercised by a Provisional Order, it would have to be confirmed by Parliament. However, if there was any suspicion in the matter, he would be quite willing to drop the sub-Section.
    Mr. LOUGHsaid he would really advise the Committee to give a little more thought to the matter. He had given substantial reasons against the sub-Section. The best rule for hon. Gentlemen opposite to follow was, whenever they saw the President of the Local Government Board in doubt, to support the withdrawal of the proposal. On the one or two occasions on which the light hon. Gentleman was pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they had to retrace their steps.
    Mr. BOUSFIELDsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not lightly abandon the sub-Section.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LOUGHsaid he desired to move the omission of sub-Section 2. He
    316
    thought that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not had time to consider these points. These were the in-and-out Clauses, which enabled the President of the Local Government Board to increase or diminish the area of supply. That seemed to him to be a very drastic power, and one which it was not usual to give to the Local Government Board.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 22, line 15, to eave out sub-Section (2)."—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-Section (2) stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think it was a question of precedents. As was constantly stated during the debates on the Bill, provision was made enabling the Local Government Board to give a rural district, which had become an urban district, representation. The principle of the Bill was that London and the urban districts should constitute the new Board, but that if a rural district became an urban district, there should be power to include it. Similar powers were already enjoyed by the Local Government Board.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made—
    'In page 21, line 21, after 'general,' to insert 'or local.'" "In page 21, line 22, after 'companies,' to insert 'or any of them.'" "In page 21, line 22, to leave out 'them,' and insert 'those provisions.'''—(Mr. Walter Long.)
    Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 27:—
    Mr. CREMERsaid he wished to move the rejection of the Clause, in order to get an explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill with reference to sub-Section (3). The Committee ought to discourage inquiries, and to prevent, as far as possible, the expenditure they entailed. It seemed to him that the expenses provided for witnesses at inquiries were very heavy. Sub-Section (3) provided that they should not exceed three

    317
    guineas per day. Such a provision appeared to him to be calculated to induce officials of the Local Government Board to inst lute frivolous inquiries, which would lead to very considerable expenditure to be taken from the funds of the Water Board, and might also induce them to spin out an inquiry to the greatest possible length. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers by preventing lavish expenditure on prolonged inquiries. If a man were to be paid three guineas a day, in addition to a salary, he might be induced to manufacture a grievance, and spin out an enquiry to investigate it.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid the explanation was very simple. In all cases where an inquiry was held by a Government Department, practically at the request of a locality, the rule was for the locality to pay the cost of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that the three guineas a day was to be in addition to salary. It was merely the limitation of the charge which the Department could impose on the locality. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the inspectors were not in the least likely to prolong inquiries. They had more work than they could do at present, and were only too glad to finish an inquiry as soon as possible. The object of the sub-Section was that the Exchequer should not be called upon to pay for work undertaken on behalf of the localities.
    Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid he accepted what the right hon. Gentleman had said in reply to his hon. friend, and he would only ask him to discourage too many inquiries.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear!
    Clause 27 agreed to.
    Clauses 28, 29 and 30 agreed to.
    Clause 31:—
    Mr. LOUGHsaid some explanation should be given of the Clause, which was that local authorities should be
    318
    allowed to appear in Parliament in opposition to Bills promoted by the Water Board. That seemed to him to be an extraordinary provision. Surely the proper way would he for any authority represented on the Board to make its views felt through its representatives. The Clause appeared to him to be designed to stimulate expensive legal proceedings against the Board, and to encourage the various authorities represented on the Board not to proceed in an amicable way, but to develop a hostile feeling against it.
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid the Clause was intended to prevent possible litigation hereafter. The right of the local authority to oppose legislation was protected, and the Clause was only introduced to make it quite clear that that right was not interfered with. Doubt might arise otherwise, which would lead to fruitless expense.
    Clause 31 agreed to.
    Clause 32:—
    Mr. LOUGHsaid they were now dealing, in five or six successive Clauses, with five or six different water companies around London. The areas of these companies overlapped the area to be controlled by the Water Board. Four or five of the companies, more voracious than the rest, came to the Local Government Board in the most audacious manner—
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The companies did not come to the Local Government Board. All the Clauses were introduced before the Committee upstairs, and the only responsibility he had in connection with them was that he had undertaken to present the ease in the House as it was presented to the Committee.
    MR. LOUGHsaid the Bill was presented to the House by the Local Government Board, and no Clause could appear in it which was not approved by that Department. In the areas covered by these small companies, the companies to be purchased by the Water Board had also the right to supply. Three effects would be produced. In the first place, the Water Board would have to acquire and pay for the right of supply in these

    319
    districts; secondly, having bought it, they would be prevented from using it; and thirdly, these little suburban companies would get rid of their most powerful competitor, and would he able to charge whatever price they pleased. The first Clause dealt with the Colne Valley Water Company, the district being also served by the West Middlesex Company. The West Middlesex Company supplied small houses at 13s. a year, whereas, for the same class of house, the Colne Valley Water Company charged 29s. Other prices were in the same proportion. The effect of the Clause would be that the Colne Valley Water Company would get rid of its strongest competitor; and the consumers would be left to its tender mercies. If the Clause were not deleted altogether, it should certainly be amended.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 23, line 12, at end, to add the words—'Provided that the sum to be paid by the Water Board to the Company of Proprietors of the West Middlesex Waterworks for their right to supply in the part of the parish of Hendon aforesaid shall be separately determined by the court of arbitration and shall be repaid to the Water Board by the Colne Valley Water Company.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. VICARY GIBBS ()said the hon. Member had not stated the facts correctly. It would not be the case that the Colne Valley Water Company would be relieved of its most formidable competitor. The fact was that part of Hendon was so high, that the West Middlesex Company could not supply it, except at great expense for pumping, and by arrangement the Colne Valley Water Company supplied that district, and had supplied it ever since it got its Act.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked if the Committee was not to have an explanation from the Treasury Bench?
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid his explanation was identical with that which had been given by his right hon. friend. These Clauses were put in by the Grand Committee after hearing counsel
    320
    on both sides, and going thoroughly into the matter. All the responsibility the Government had was that they promised to state the reasons to the House. There were certain agreements between the water companies within the area and water companies outside the area, and it did not seem fair that they should be broken to the detriment of the smaller companies; nor did it seem fair that the smaller companies should be compelled to pay again to the Water Board for rights to sell water which they had already acquired. The Water Board would only pay for what it got, and if the West Middlesex Company did not supply the particular district mentioned, then the Water Board would not have to pay for it.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought the hon. Member for St. Albans had not read the Amendment.
    Mr. VICARY GIBBSsaid he had.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it seemed to him that no injustice could be done if the Amendment were accepted, although, without it, injustice might be done. It was quite clear if the Water Board bought out the rights of the West Middlesex Company, and subsequently found they were of no value, that there ought to be a repayment to the Water Board.
    Mr. LOUGHsaid he did not think that counsel had been heard on the matter before the Committee upstairs. The Clauses were agreed Clauses, which the Local Government Board accepted at the request of these companies. The hon. Member for the St. Albans Division did not really touch on the matter at all. He indicated the difficulty of getting water up to Hendon, and suggested that the Colne Valley Water Company should be paid for it. He quite agreed, but did the hon. Member mean to say that the West Middlesex Company had no right to supply any part of the Colne Valley area? Of course they had that right. He suggested that the arrangement was a bad arrangement, but that, if it were desirable to maintain it, some Amendment should be introduced with

    321
    regard to it. It was a foolish arrangement, which had not been properly considered, either before the Committee upstairs or in the House.

    AYES.

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Mcnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

    Caldwell, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Tully, Jasper

    Cremer, William Randal

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Rea, Russell

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Rigg, Richard

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Robson, William Snowdon

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Lough and Mr. Johns Burns.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Levy, Maurice

    Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Murray. Rt. Hn. A. Gra'am(Bute

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Flower, Ernest

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Forster, Henry William

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Arrol, Sir William

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Percy, Earl

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans)

    Pretyman, Ernest George'

    Balcarres, Lord

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Purvis, Robert

    Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bentinck Lord Henry C.

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Richards, Henry Charles

    Bignold, Arthur

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Ritchie. Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

    Bigwood, James

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Bond, Edward

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Samuel, Harry S. (Lime house)

    Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hoare. Sir Samuel

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Howard, John(Kent, Fav'rsh'm

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Bull, William James

    Kemp, George

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

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Spear, John Ward

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

    Lawson, John Grant

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A.(Wore

    Loder Gerald Walter Erskine

    Valentia, Viscount

    Charrington, Spencer

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

    Webb, Colonel Wm. George

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

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E.(Taun'n

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Wyndham Quin, Major W. H.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Morgan, David J.(Walthams'w

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    Clause 32 agreed to.
    Clause 33:—
    (11.13.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 121. (Division List No. 619.)
    Mr. LOUGHsaid he wished to move the Amendment standing in his name. The case was even a more audacious one

    323
    than that which they had just discussed. His proposal simply was that the sum to be paid by the Water Board to the proprietors of Lambeth Waterworks for their right to supply water within the statutory districts of the South - West Suburban Water Company should be separately determined and repaid to the Water Board. If the President of the Local Government Board would tell the Committee that nothing was paid for these rights, then he would not persevere with his Amendment; but if these rights were paid for, and if the Water Board were prevented from exercising them, he thought the Clause was an iniquitous one.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 23, line 22, at end, to add— 'Provided that the sum to be paid by the Water Board to the Company of Proprietors of the Lambeth Waterworks for their right of supplying water within the statutory districts of the South - West Suburban Water Company shall he separately determined by the court of arbitration and repaid to the Water Board by the South-West Surburban Water Company.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid that the Lambeth Company had nothing to do with the matter. It was the Grand Junction Company, and, there again, an agreement had been entered into which ought not to be broken.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he regarded the last division as deciding the principle of these cases, and therefore he thought it would not be necessary to put the House to the trouble of another division.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 33 agreed to.
    Clauses 34, 35, and 36 agreed to.
    Clause 37:—
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he would move his Amendment in order to give the President of the Local Government Board an opportunity of making an alternative suggestion.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 24, line 30, to leave out from 'means,' to 'one,' in line 31, and insert 'the first of January.' "—(Mr. John Burns.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid he understood that if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment his right hon. friend would be prepared to propose another date, namely, the 24th June, 1904.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was not unreasonable enough to insist that the date mentioned in his Amendment should be accepted; but it was exceedingly important that as early a date as possible should be fixed, and that there should be simultaneous unification of management and control over all the companies. The experience of the County Council and other bodies was that when they took over tramways or Water Companies, and allowed a too long period to elapse before the date of actual possession, the companies permitted their maintenance standard to diminish and their repairs to fall off. There should be effective occupation, unified control, and simultaneous possession as soon as possible. He really thought that eighteen months was a longer period than the circumstances of the case warranted.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought he could satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The date in the Bill, the 24th December, 1903, was fixed when they hoped that the Bill would receive the Royal Assent in August, or September last. That meant eighteen months forward; but the Bill could not now receive the Royal Assent until the end of the year, and he was accordingly putting the date forward an almost equivalent period to that by which the passage of the Bill was postponed. The election of the new authority could not possibly take place before March or April, and, therefore, in putting the date as the 24th June, 1904, he was not putting it forward eighteen months, but only fourteen months. He thought that that was

    325
    not an extravagant time to fix for the completion of the transactions in connection with the purchase of eight Water Companies.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he only wanted the thing done decently, and if the right hon. Gentleman assured him that fourteen months was a reasonable time, he would assent.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that in addition to the period now fixed, a further period of eighteen months might be given beyond the appointed day, at the discretion of the Local Government Board. That would be a period of almost three years, which would practically cover the life of the first Board. He thought that would be the result if the words "not being more than eighteen months later" were retained.
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he intended to putan Amendment on the Paper altering the date to the 24th June, 1904, and another Amendment to leave out the words referred to by the hon. Gentleman. That would enable the Local Government Board to appoint an earlier date, assuming the companies and the Board agreed. On the other hand, if there was a general agreement, consequent on some unforeseen difficulty, that the date should be extended, it would be well that that power should be given.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments agreed to.
    Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47, agreed to.
    Clause 48:—
    Mr. LOUGHmoved to omit sub-Section (3), which, he explained, proposed to compensate water directors who were members of the Staines Reservoir Joint Committee for loss of their position. The object of the whole Clause was to compensate the directors. There was no precedent for such a course, while this particular sub-Section was simply atrocious, because the Gentlemen on the Staines Committee were already directors of the Water Companies, and would
    326
    be compensated as such. He contended, therefore, that they ought not to be compensated twice over.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 31, line 42, to leave out sub-Section (3)."—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-Section (3) stand part of the Clause."
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid this proposal was not in the original Bill, but was inserted by the Committee upstairs, apparently for good reasons. He would remind the hon Member, however, that usually when a corporation bought up private property in the public interest a considerable additional sum was paid for what were called "etceteras," and he was informed that compensation in some shape or form was payable to those who had been habitually connected with the undertakings. That did not seem unjust, but at the same time the Government did not feel justified in introducing the proposal in the original Bill. The Joint Committee inserted the provision, and he was prepared to stand by their decision, though he did not intend to influence the decision of the Committee in the matter.
    In reply to an hon. Member who asked how long the members of the Staines Reservoir Joint Committee had held their positions, and whether there were any members of that Committee who were not also directors,
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid he could not give the information asked for, but, in his view, if a director was entitled to compensation it made no difference to the principle whether he had held his position for five or fifteen years.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the question before the Committee was not whether directors as a whole should be compensated. Sub-Section 3 proposed to compensate the members of the Staines Committee, who were also directors of Water Companies, so that if the sub-Section were agreed to, they would be compensated twice over.
    MR. WHITMOREthought that while the Committee generally were willing to

    327
    uphold the decision of the Joint Committee with regard to the compensation of directors, they could not see why practically the same men should be compensated twice over. He, personally, was inclined to agree that the sub-Section should be eliminated.
    Mr. JOHN BURNShoped the Committee would be unanimous in rejecting the sub-Section. On no grounds whatever were the Staines directors, who were directors of some of the other eight Water Companies, entitled to compensation. He reminded the Committee that when the Staines Reservoir Bill was before the House four or five years ago, and the celebrated sterilisation Clauses were passed, the concern of these gentlemen was not allowed to count for compensation.

    AYES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Mount, William Arthur

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Alters-

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Murray Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute

    Anstruther, H. T.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Percy, Earl

    Arrol, Sir William

    Forster, Henry William

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(CityofLond

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

    Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

    Purvis, Robert

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gordon. MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

    Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

    Bignold, Arthur

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Bigwood, James

    Grenfell, William Henry

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Bond, Edward

    Halsey, Rt. hon. Thomas F.

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

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

    Bousfield, William Robert

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

    Spear, John Ward

    Bowles, Cant. H. F. (Middlesex

    Harris, Frederick Leverton

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

    Brassey, Albert

    Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Thornton, Percy, M.

    Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

    Kemp, George

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Valentia, Viscount

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

    Legge, Col. Hon. Honeage

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A(Wore.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

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

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

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Harry Samuel and Mr. Bull.

    Crossley, Sir Savile

    More, Robt. Jasper(Shropshire)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Morgan, David J (Walth'mstow)

    *COLONEL BOWLESsaid the members of the Staines Reservoir Committee were paid for their special services, and he could not see why they should be paid after those services had ceased.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. LOUGHsaid he had nothing further to say, and would content himself by taking a division against the principle.
    (11.54.) Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 26. (Division List No. 620.)

    NOES.

    Allhusen, Augustus H'nryEden

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

    Rigg, Richard

    Burns, John

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Levy, Maurice

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Caldwell, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Tomkinson, James

    Charrington, Spencer

    Pearson Sir Weetman D.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Pease. J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Rea, Russell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Lough and Mr. Cremer.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
    *MR. BIGWOODasked whether, in the event of a Bill being introduced by the Water Board, the Middlesex County Council would be prejudiced in their right to oppose that Bill, by reason of having a representative on the Board? If so, they would rather have no representative at all.
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid it was specifically provided in the Bill that the local authorities should retain their power.
    Fourth Schedule:—
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 35, line 5, after 'shall' to insert 'not.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'not' be there inserted."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, inasmuch as the Board was admittedly a large body, it might be worthy of consideration whether, in the event of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman being chosen from members of the Board, it would not be well to allow the body to be practically reduced by two.
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid the Government were following the usual course with regard to corporations, so that the particular districts should not lose the services of their representatives
    330
    if elected to these positions. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman were necessarily removed from the ordinary debates, and were unable to take the same part in them as ordinary members, so that their constituents were practically deprived, of representation.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. LOUGHmoved an Amendment which, he said, would have the effect of limiting the membership of the Board to persons who were members of the constituent authorities by whom they were elected.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 35, line 7, to insert '(a) is not a member of the constituent authority affecting him.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Mr. GRANT LAWSONsaid the Amendment was very undesirable, as it was hoped that the local authorities would vie with one another in the effort to get the best men possible to represent them on the Water Board, and it would not be right to limit their choice in the manner proposed.
    Mr. LOUGHsaid the statement of the hon. Member was very important, as the members might have no representative capacity whatever. However, he would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CREMERmoved an Amendment to disqualify from being Chairman and Vice-Chairman, or a member of the Water Board, a person who "has any pecuniary interest in any of the existing Water Companies." His object in moving the Amendment was to prevent any such scandals in future as unfortunately arose in the days of the Metropolitan Board of Works. If the Amendment was likely to prove contentious now, he would reserve it for the Report stage.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 35, line 7, at end, to insert '(a) has any pecuniary interest in any of the existing water companies.'"—(Mr. Cremer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought he could give the hon. Gentleman a good reason for not pressing the Amendment, assuming that instead of the views of the Government the views of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had prevailed and that those duties had been imposed on the London County Council, would the hon. Gentleman then have proposed that no member of the Council should be interested, directly or indirectly, in a Water Company, and that no director or shareholder in any Water Company should be qualified to act as a member of the Council? Did he not think that there were some of the directors of the present London Water Companies whose services would be of immense value on the new Board? Of course it was obvious that they could not be elected at first, because they would be in the position of vendors in a going concern. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment.
    Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid he should be the last man to disqualify any water director who wanted to place at the disposal of his fellow-citizens the experience he had collected in the region of private enterprise, but he should like to point out to the President of the Local Government Board that that was an entirely different matter from what his hon. friend suggested. This Water Board would be the buyer of the properties of the Water Companies, and it seemed to him undesirable that any person should at the same time be a member of the Board and the holder of an interest in any of these properties.
    Mr. WALTER LONGsaid it was obvious that a water director could not be a member of the first Water Board.
    Mr. CREMERasked leave to withdraw the Amendment, and stated that he would bring up the matter on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Fourth Schedule and remaining Schedules agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]
    Mr. SPEAKER,in pursuance of the Order of the House of 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of: of Clergy and Laity of Cheshire; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Petition against: of the Presbytery of Dundee of the United Free Church of Scotland; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TREATY SERIES, No. l6 (1902).
  Treaties between the United Kingdom and Ethiopia, and between the United Kingdom, Italy, and Ethiopia, relative to the frontiers between the Soudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea; signed at Adis Ababa, 15th May 1902 (ratifications delivered at Adis Ababa, 28th October 1902; with a map).

AFRICA No. 3 (1902).
Memoranda relating to the Uganda Railway, 1902.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—SIR HORACE RUMBOLD'S ARTICLE IN THE "NATIONAL REVIEW."
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question relating to an article recently contributed by Sir Horace Rumbold to the National Review. Sir Horace Rumbold is a distinguished public servant, who for more than fifty years was a member of the Diplomatic Service, and has served with distinction in various parts of the world. At the time of his retirement he was occupying the responsible and dignified post of British Ambassador at Vienna. Since his retirement, which took place a short time ago, following the example of other eminent public servants, he has been
198
occupied in giving to the world the benefit of his experience, and has, amongst other things, recently contributed an article to the National Review. It will be obvious to any one who has read that article that it was written with the laudable intention of showing that at a critical period as regards this country there was, at all events, one Government in Europe which displayed a friendly attitude towards us—a fact which I venture to say was not particularly obvious to the casual observer. But this article also contained unfavourable comments upon German policy with regard to this country. Unfortunately the publication of this article coincided with the visit of the German Emperor to this country a short time ago. I use the word "unfortunately" advisedly, because Sir Horace Rumbold himself was in no way responsible for the coincidence. The article was written some time previously, and the fact that it appeared at the same time as the German Emperor visited this country was due to the enterprise which characterises able editors who are well aware by experience of what is the most favourable opportunity to put their literary wares upon the market. The result of this was that Sir Horace Rumbold's views as regarded Germany were seized upon with great avidity by the more sensational portion of the Press. His article obtained a notoriety which otherwise it possibly would not have obtained; and finally it became the subject of a Question in another place. I think anybody who read this article would come to the conclusion that, although it might be marked by indiscretion—an error for which, I believe, Sir Horace Rumbold has already amply apologised—there was no further harm in it, and it only stated facts that are patent to everyone interested in foreign policy. It would be difficult for the most exacting person to discover in this article any real breach of trust or confidence.
In the answer which was given on behalf of the Foreign Office the impression was produced, or, at all events, the answer was capable of the construction, that Sir Horace Rumbold had been guilty of a grave breach of trust which

199
rendered him liable to severe pains and penalties for having disclosed official secrets. From my own experience I should say the crime of disclosing official secrets was very difficult of accomplishment. I have myself been for some years in the Diplomatic Service, and I do not mind venturing on the rather bold assertion that such things as official secrets practically do not exist. I really believe that short of selling a cipher, or other definite action of that kind, it would be extremely difficult for the most illintentioned person to offend against the Official Secrets Act. The despatch boxes which follow the Foreign Secretary wherever he goes, and which are looked upon as the repositories of earth-quaking mysteries, very often contain little that the outside world does not know. The same thing applies to despatches sent to the uttermost ends of the earth; there is very little in those despatches that does not appear a few hours afterwards in the public newspapers. Whether official secrets exist or not, nobody likes to be charged with an offence, even though it be an imaginary offence. Sir Horace Rumbold may be an over-sensitive person, and may have placed a totally wrong construction on the answer which was returned in the House of Commons. Some people may possibly think that ho would have been better advised if the matter had been allowed to remain where it stood. On the other hand, I would ask your Lordships to consider that a man far advanced in years, the whole of whose life practically has been passed in the public service, who, amongst other things, has attained the dignity of a Privy Councillor, cannot but be deeply pained at any sort of suggestion that he has acted in a dishonourable manner, or has in any way betrayed a trust. I, therefore, appeal to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain publicly that there is no imputation of this nature upon Sir Horace Rumbold.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the manner in which His Majesty's Government regard this subject is clearly, and,
200
I think, sufficiently described in the statement which was made by my noble friend and colleague Lord Cranborne on November 13 last.† Lord Cranborne on that occasion explained that in our view the publication by a former representative of the Crown of reminiscences relating to recent events which had come within the writer's notice in the course of his official duties was not permitted without the previous consent of the Secretary of State; and it was stated that such publication, without that consent, was, in our view, reprehensible. I venture to think that there are few people who will dispute the reasonableness of that contention. Sir Horace Rumbold published two works—a book and a magazine article. I believe the House of Commons Question was, in appearance at all events, directed mainly to the question of the book. But the article attracted so much attention that obviously no statement could be made with reference to the one without pointing also to the other, and I observe that in the course of his remarks my noble friend Lord Newton referred almost entirely to the contents of Sir Horace Rumbold's article. Now, my noble friend told your Lordships that the contents of the article were, in his opinion, of a very nnocuous description. I should have agreed with him if he had said that of the book, but I am afraid I cannot go the length of agreeing with him as far as the article is concerned.
The article contained an account of a very interesting and important conversation upon an official matter which took place between the writer and the Emperor of Austria. It also contained an account of communications which had passed between the writer and the Austro-Hungarian Government upon a subject of great importance and great delicacy, in which the name of Her Majesty the late Queen Victoria was introduced. Now, when Sir Horace Rumbold reported these matters, as he did, to the Foreign Office, in official despatches, he marked both of those despatches "confidential," and I am able to tell your Lordships that we should certainly never have dreamt of publishing despatches of that description without first obtaining the concurrence of the Austro-Hungarian Government; and it seems
† See (4) Debates, exiv., 871.

201
to me to follow, a fortiori, that if the consent of the Austro-Hungarian Government was necessary for such publication, Sir Horace Rumbold should have applied to the Foreign Office for the consent of that Department before publishing on his own account in this country, I dare say my noble friend has observed that one of the consequences of this publication was an interpellation—rather think there were two—in the Reichsrath, of a somewhat embarrassing character, addressed to the Austro-Hungarian Government. Well, I certainly say that that publication was an indiscreet and, from our point of view, reprehensible publication. But, on the other hand, I gladly respond to the invitation of my noble friend, and add that we do not suggest, and never have suggested, that in committing this indiscretion Sir Horace Rumbold was guilty of a betrayal of trust, or, indeed, actuated by any unworthy motives. I think my noble friend was justified in appealing to Sir Horace Rumbold's long and distinguished career as a sufficient guarantee that he would have been incapable of any conduct of the kind. I also readily accept the assurance which was given to us by my noble friend —and it has also been given to us by Sir Horace Rumbold — that he was in no way responsible for the accident owing to which the publication of this article took place at a particular and a most inopportune and unfortunate moment. The only other matter to which the noble Lord referred was the concluding passage in my noble friend Lord Cranborne's statement, in which something was said of the steps His Majesty's Government were likely to take in order to mark their disapproval of Sir Horace Rumbold's conduct, and I must say my noble friend seems to have read into that statement a great deal more than it actually contained.
LORD NEWTON: Sir Horace Rumbold read into it.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Well, Sir Horace Rumbold read into it a great deal more than it contained. What was the statement? The statement was simply this, that His Majesty's Government were considering what steps
202
they should take in order to make clear the manner in which they regarded the subject. I find in that no imputation on Sir Horace Rumbold. The words were simple words and all that they indicated, and were intended to indicate, was that, is there was evidently in the mind of Sir Horace Rumbold, and very possibly in the minds of others, some misconception as to the limits within which these publications were to be permitted, we should take care to remove that doubt. I will tell my noble friend how we propose to do so, and I do not think that he will complain of us. We propose, in the next issue of the Foreign Office List, to publish a new regulation affecting the Diplomatic Service, and we shall make it perfectly clear that members of that service must not, without the express permission of the Secretary of State, publish observations on, or accounts of their experience in the countries in which they are, or have been, officially employed, nor any information obtained by them in their official capacity; and we shall add—and I think that this is very important—that, in our view, this obligation of secrecy in regard to official experience and information continues equally after their retirement from the service. That will I hope, make it abundantly clear to all concerned that those acts of indiscretion must not be repeated, and 1am quite convinced that when it is so made clear the regulation will be respected, and honourably observed.
LORD NEWTON: I beg to thank the noble Marquess or his answer, but there are two points which I should like to comment upon. First, as to the word "confidential." I submit that it does not, in British diplomacy, bear the interpretation placed upon it by the outside world. As everybody knows, representatives abroad are eternally writing to the Foreign Office, and it is impossible to read all they write. My experience is that, unless documents are marked "confidential," most of them reach the pigeon-hole and are never heard of again. As to the second point, it seems to me that the noble Marquess proposes to add largely to the labours of the Foreign Office, because, if I interpret his answer correctly, he is going to establish a Press censorship in that already overworked Department. Suppose I propose to write my reminiscences, would it be necessary to submit what I

203
write to the Foreign Office to go over and carefully study all that I propose to put down, any trivialities? If so, I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess is embarking on a large undertaking. Considering the large number of persons who have been employed in some capacity or other, if they all take it into their heads to publish their reminiscences, this duty would probably be found to require a large addition to the staff of the Department.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid that if this discussion continues a great many of our idols will be broken for us. The noble Lord has told us that the contents of our little red boxes, which are so carefully locked, are well known to the man in the street. He went on to tell us that confidential despatches rarely, if ever, contain any confidential matter.
LORD NEWTON: Only sometimes.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid we can hardly admit that. As to the noble Lord's last point, I am not at all intimidated by the prospect he holds out. It is quite clear that in the case of ordinary personal reminiscences— "trivialities," as my noble friend calls them —there would be no question of revision; but where there is debatable ground, and where the information contained —where its revelation — was likely to be of importance, in all such cases I feel convinced that the members of the Diplomatic Service would be the first in all doubtful cases to consult with the Foreign Office and honourably abide by the advice which might be given to them.
*LORD STANMORE: I should like just to remind the noble Lord who put this question that the rule now proposed by the noble Marquess is no new rule. It has been understood for generations that no public servant, serving under the Foreign Office, and receiving confidential communications from foreign Governments or Ministers, has any right whatever to publish any part of any information he may happen to possess, whether in or out of office, without the permission of the Sovereign, signified through one of the Secretaries of State.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (the Duke of Devonshire): In moving the adjournment of the House, it may be convenient to give notice that, in the event of the Committee on the Education Bill, as probably it may happen, not being finished to-morrow, we propose, as I think it is generally understood, that we should continue the discussion on the next day; and I should like further to suggest, in order to give plenty of time to finish, if possible, the discussion on that day, that it might be convenient to meet earlier on Wednesday —say at three or four o'clock. The exact hour will be settled when we adjourn tomorrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock till To-morrow, half - past Ten o'clock.