Sitting of 18 July 1902

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMP STEAD (Nos. 1–3) BILL [LORDS].
  MR. BULLin moving the Instruction standing in his name, said it was contended by the promoters of the Bill that the tunnel would run at such an extreme depth under the Heath that no harm would be done. But that he denied. It seemed to him that public property had just as much right to be protected as private property. Further than that, he thought another route would prove much more advantageous. If the railway were run round Childs Hill a much more important area would be served. It had been alleged that such a route would involve too many curves, but according to his plan it only meant running round the other side of the circle. Besides there would necessarily have to be boring operations on the Heath during the construction of the line, and on its completion ventilating shafts would have to be erected on the Heath. It was urged that no such shafts could be made without the consent of the London County Council, but experience had shown that where, in the interests of public health they were proved to be necessary, sanction was never withheld and when once these operations were commenced there was great danger that the ponds on the Heath—the Leg of Mutton and the Golden Hill —would be completely drained. It was proposed to carry the railway under the Heath simply because it was the shorter and cheaper
  664
  route, and against that he protested as an advocate of the preservation of open spaces. He contended that the House would do well to inquire very closely into the whole history of this subject. In the preliminary investigation some of these facts were never gone thoroughly into before Lord Ribblesdale's Committee, and he hoped therefore an opportunity would be afforded of calling evidence to prove that the line ought never to be made under the Heath. He had no objection to its going up to the edge of the Heath; it was right and proper that the public should have easy access to it, but he did object to the Heath itself being interfered with. The only interest he had in this matter was his desire for the preservation of open spaces.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to inquire and report whether the railway proposed to be authorised by the Bill, if constructed on the lines mentioned, will not so seriously injure Hampstead Heath, under which it is to pass, by tapping the wells, draining the soil, destroying the verdure, and interfering with this public place of resort, as to make it inexpedient to pass the Bill; and that the Committee have power to call witnesses and receive evidence on the subject."—(Mr. Bull)
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSONsaid he did not rise to oppose the Motion, but he would like to point out that the whole of the facts alluded to by the hon. Member were before Lord Ribblesdale's Committee; still he thought it was just as well that the Committee should be placed in full possession of the facts with regard to the present scheme.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODexpressed some doubt as to whether the Instruction was in order, the House having passed the Second Reading of the Bill the other night without a division. Of course, the Committee would naturally go into the merits of the scheme, and how, then, was the Instruction in order?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understand that this is a mandatory Instruction to inquire into a matter which no party before the

  665
  Committee will be in a position to bring forward. In the absence of any petition, find if the House desires the matter to be inquired into, it is necessary to have an Instruction. I think, however, that the words "so as to make it inexpedient to pass the Bill" might be left out without affecting the real object of the Instruction at all. It would be a bad precedent to insert such words.
  MR. LOUGH:said the Motion appeared to him quite reasonable and in order.
  Motion accordingly amended, and again proposed.
  MR. CREMERquite approved a scheme which would enable a railway to be constructed from the central parts of London, so that millions of people might have an opportunity of enjoying the bracing atmosphere of Hampstead Heath, and regretted that such projects should be persistently opposed by a mere handful of people. He presumed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith represented some vested interest which was always on the lookout to deprive the masses of the people the opportunity of breathing fresh air.
  MR. BULL: As I have said, I do not represent any interest.
  MR. CREMERsaid, however that might be, the hon. Member had trotted out all the old bogeys about ponds being dried up which had been used in the past. Still ho had no objection to these matters being threshed out before the Committee upstairs, for the more evidence they were able to procure in favour of constructing the line, and the more opportunities they were afforded of disproving the fears of property owners, the better pleased he would be; after all, the opposing owners were very few in number; the great body of them were not so selfish as to wish to defeat the scheme.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to inquire and report whether the railway proposed to be authorised by the Bill, if constructed on the lines mentioned, will not seriously
  666
  injure Hampstead Heath, under which it is to pass, by tapping the wells, draining the soil, destroying the verdure, and interfering with this public place of resort; and that the Committee have power to call witnesses and receive evidence on the subject.—(Mr. Bull.)

  GREAT CENTRAL AND MIDLAND RAIL WAYS (SOUTH YORKSHIRE RAILWAYS) BILL,
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL,
  NORWICH CORPORATION (ELECTRICITY, ETC.) BILL.
  Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.

  BARRY BAIL WAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
ABERDEEN ACCOUNTANTS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS],
  GLASGOW CORPORATION (GAS ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time and passed, without Amendment.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [LORDS],
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL [LORDS],
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS],
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

EDUCATIONAL BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [LORDS],
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIR MATION BILL (No. 2) [LORDS].
  Read the second time, and committed.
  WIGAN CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP N).
  MR. Heywood Johnstone reported from the Committee on Group N. of Private Bills; That for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Tuesday next, the 22nd July.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIF, BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to: Brynmawr and Western Valleys Railway (Vesting) Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to West Hampshire Water Bill [Lords] without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Warrington; Stretford; Breehin; Rawdon; and Higher Openshaw; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Bisley; Chillenden; Crowthorne; Budock; Hanbury (two); Uffington; Clapham; Bolam; Branstone; Darwen; Clevedon; Albourne; Stoke Newington; and, Hen-field; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Henfield, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Maryhill, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Padiham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented!, of Statute made by the Master and Fellows of University College, Oxford, on. 20th March, 1902, amending Statute III. (12) (Fellowships held by Professors) of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April, 1901 to 31st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1901. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Commaiid]; to lie upon the Table.
  APPLICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL CHARTERS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 8th July; Mr. D. A. Thomas]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Sixteenth Annual Report of the Inspectors, for 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Scotland—Locomotives on Roads.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the frequent difficulties which Scottish traction engine owners meet from road authorities and the police, as to damages to roads and precautions for public safety; and whether he will consider the advisability of some alteration of the law in the direction recently adopted in the English Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Graham Murray.) The Secretary for Scotland has from time to time received memorials both from locomotive owners and from road authorities suggesting legislation to amend the Locomotives on Roads Acts, and such legislation will receive consideration on the first favourable opportunity.

  Naval Gunnery Prizes.
  MR. YERBURGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are any prizes for the Navy for gunnery and for small arms other than those given by the Admiralty; and whether, seeing that the amount given for prize shooting in 1900–1 was £3,531— which is less than the amount given in 1894–5 by £1,446—while £13,000 is given annually by the War Office for prize shooting for the Army and Militia, it is the intention of the Admiralty to increase the amount; and whether they will

  669
  consider the advisability of giving other encouragement for good gunnery, such as badges and extra leave.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold - Forster.) Except for the fact that rifle meetings with prizes are held on some stations there are no prizes for the Navy for gunnery or firing with small arms other than those given by the Admiralty. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I should like to point out that good gunnery is already encouraged in other ways than by money prizes. All gunnery ratings receive special allowances, ranging from 2d. a day in the case of a seaman qualified in gunnery, to 1s. a day in the case of the captain of a turret. Captains of guns, turret guns, or turrets already have special badges, and a badge for the comparatively new rating of second captain of gun is now being designed. It is being carefully considered whether in any further way the supreme importance of proficiency in gunnery can be marked, but the Board do not consider that the question is only one of money, or that competitions for money prizes are necessarily the best way of increasing the general efficiency of the Fleet in gunnery.

  South Eastern and Chatham Railway— Route to Continent—Excess Luggage.
  MR. McKENNA: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the statutory liability upon the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, to convey free of charge 1201bs. of luggage for each first class passenger and 100lbs. for each second class passenger between all stations on its system, will he state whether, in the case of through traffic over this railway to the Continent, the Board of Trade has power to insist that each excess luggage ticket shall distinguish the amount levied for transit between stations on the Company's system and the amount levied for the sea passage and the continental journey.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The answer is in the negative.

  Irish Butter—Treatment in Transit.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether
  670
  he is aware that a resolution was adopted by the Irish Dairy Association at Limerick calling attention to the increasing complaints made by buyers of Irish butter to them as to its treatment in transit, and stating that while similar produce arrives in the markets of Great Britain in good condition from Russia and Australasia, Irish produce is neglected; arid whether, under these circumstances, he will direct the Department of Agriculture to make inquiries into the matter in order to remedy this grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham) Inquiry has already been made in regard to the methods of dealing with Irish butter in course of transit, and the Department is satisfied that during the past year a considerable improvement has been effected in the treatment of consignments of this substance by the several carrying companies.

  South Africa—Claims of Reserve Officers.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state when the claims of the reserve officers, as put forward in answer to a Circular-letter from the War Office on 3rd April, will receive an answer; and when those officers who desire it will be relieved from employment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The recommendations in response to the Circular-letter have been received, and will shortly be dealt with. The reserve officers will be gradually released as their services can be spared, but it is improbable that, as they are doing the work of regular officers, they can be relieved at once pending the return of the regular troops from South Africa.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  MR. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Sir John Leng and Sir Walter Thorburn (added in respect of the Lauds Valuation (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Bill; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Edmund Robertson and Mr. James Reid.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

LONDON WATER (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee
(In the Committee.)
MR. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
Clause 1:—
MR. LOUGHhad on the Paper an Amendment, to leave out in line 9, the words, "managing and carrying on."
THE CHAIRMANruled the Amendment out of order, on the ground that it was contrary to the principle of the Bill, as it had been passed by the House, which had decided in favour of establishing a Water Board to "manage supply," To cut out the word "manage" would be to destroy the principle of the Bill.
MR. LOUGHsaid he would like to point out that they had not so far had an opportunity of obtaining from the Government a definition of what was meant by the word "manage," and this was the only chance they would have of getting such an explanation. It was a very vague term, and very hard to interpret, and surely it would be advisable to allow the discussion at this point; for, after all, it was the most important word in the whole Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: No; if the hon. Member were successful in carrying this Amendment, it would destroy the principle of the Bill to which the House assented on the Second Reading. But I think the hon. Member will be able to raise the point he wishes in connection with the following words dealing with the "carrying on" of the undertakings of the water companies.
MR. LOUGHthereupon moved to amend the first sub-section by leaving out the words "and carrying on." He said he should have thought that the very object of the Bill was to get rid of the undertakings |of the companies when the proprietors had been paid for them, and to substitute for them a unified system of
672
management and control of the London Water Supply. He feared that if the Clause passed as it stood, an obligation would rest upon the Water Board to carry on the water undertakings in more or less the same form as at present. Necessarily the Water Board should have some function, but the exact nature of the function was subject to a good deal of discussion. It had been decided to form the Water Board and to purchase the undertakings of the various companies, and the question now was as to how the work of bringing water to the London area and distributing it was to be carried on. The chief object in forming a Water Board was to buy out the interests of the water companies, but not necessarily to carry on the system of distribution pursued by the companies. The distribution of water by the Board in the way the companies had carried it on was not the usual method sanctioned by Parliament. Throughout the kingdom there were 931 water authorities established for the distribution of water, and of these all but thirteen were municipal authorities, and of the thirteen not one was in the least like this proposed authority. There was no precedent for such a body as was constituted under the Bill taking up the precise work of the companies. It would be better to omit these words, and by subsequent Amendment confine the efforts of the Board to bringing in the water and distributing it to the municipal authorities within the water area of the new authority, leaving to each municipal authority the details of distribution. The second objection he had to raise was, that if the Clause were carried as it stood, the different local authorities within the area would stand on a different footing—there would not be any equality in their functions. He thought few people realised what was comprised in "WaterLondon." Therewas a population of 6,000,000 to be supplied. The proposed area embraced three great towns with populations exceeding 100,000; three other towns with populations exceeding 90,000, and twenty towns with populations ranging from 30,000 to 70,000. Some of these towns were dealt with in one way, and some in another. While the great majority

673
were put under the Board, and while the powers of the various water companies were conferred upon the Water Board, several of the towns were given the right to distribute the water, and to do the immediate local work. That was the case with regard to Croydon, Richmond, Enfield, Guildford, Hendon, and Dorking. In each of those towns the Water Board would supply the water in bulk, and the local authorities would distribute it. Would it not be wise, in view of those facts, to there consider the desirability of placing the whole area on an equality? The question would be asked whether, if this Amendment were adopted, and the functions of the old companies were not transferred to the Water Board, but that it was obliged to supply water in the way he had suggested, such a scheme would be practicable. His reply was in the affirmative, for the plan had already been adopted, as he had stated, in various towns within the proposed area. In the case of London there were only eight or ten intakes of water, and it would be perfectly simple and easy to stop the control of the Water Board at the intakes and to allow the distribution to be made by the local authorities. When they were discussing some of those points on a previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill suggested that, on the whole, public opinion in London was in favour of the creation of such a Board as that to do the detailed work, instead of leaving it to the local authorities. He had since Loked into that matter. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to point to the Parliamentary representation of the Metropolis as indicating a view in favour of the local authorities being set aside, and the distribution of water placed in the hands of the Water Board, he thought the inference was very different indeed. The votes cast for the Liberals at the last General Election numbered 159,000, although they only succeeded in carrying eight seats, whereas the Unionist aggregate of 250,000 votes secured fifty four representatives in the House of Commons. If representation had been proportionate to the voting power the Liberals should have had twenty-four seats instead of eight.
CAPTAIN JESSEL: Does the lion. Member include the unopposed Returns?
MR. LOUGHsaid he did. He had no wish to waste the time of the House, but the hon. Gentleman might take it from him that, if the representation of the House were in accordance with the votes cast at the last election, there would be thirty - eight Metropolitan Members on the Ministerial Benches, and twenty - tour on the Opposition Benches.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order ! The hon. Member is going a long way from the Amendment under discussion.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was afraid he had done so, but he was led to digress by the question put to him. What ho wished to insist upon was that the expression of opinion in London was very much stronger with regard to this matter than the state of its Parliamentary representation indicated. The real body which represented the views of London on such a question as this was the London County Council, and the great majority of the members of that authority were in favour of the work of distributing the water and carrying on the business of the Water Companies being undertaken by the municipal authorities. A very large question was there raised. He did not think that the precise meaning of the words contained in that and the succeeding line of the Bill had been sufficiently considered, and he did ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was absolutely necessary to impose on the Water Board the duty of carrying on the work in the same way as the eight companies had carried it on. He thought it was contrary to the spirit of the Government proposal. What was wanted was the amalgamation and not the maintenance of eight separate authorities to distribute the water. In his opinion it would be much better to strike out the words "carry on," and to substitute other words which would make it quite clear that the object of the Bill was to unify and amalgamate the London water system, and to secure a better method than now obtained.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words 'and carrying on.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the words ' and carrying on' stand part of the Clause."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): There was one remark which I heard fall from the hon. Gentleman with unfeigned pleasure, and I hope he will carry it into full practice as we proceed with debates on this Bill. He has told us that this first Clause contains practically the whole of the Bill, and I therefore trust that when we have got through that Clause there will be little delay in completing the Committee stage. Apart from that remark of the hon. Gentleman, I confess I find myself unable to understand his intentions. His Amendment, no doubt, is a very simple one, but if it were adopted it would have the effect of reducing the Bill to mere nonsense. The duty of the new Board is to purchase and acquire the undertakings of the Water Companies and to carry them on, but what foundation the hon. Gentleman has for his statement that they are to be carried on in precisely the same way as they are managed by the Water Companies I do not know. I can see nothing in the Bill to justify that conclusion. The hon. Gentleman has covered the whole ground of opposition to this Bill. He has dealt with the opinion of London, he has dealt with the new bodies, and he has dealt with the London County Council. But, with the utmost respect, I must decline, on an Amendment to leave out words of this kind, to travel over again the whole ground in connection with the general policy of this Bill, a ground which was covered on the Second Reading, and which will be raised again when we approach the consideration of the actual constitution of the governing body. The omission of these words would leave this Clause in an altogether incomplete condition. The hon. Gentleman is apparently afraid that the new Board will not only be compelled to carry on the water undertakings precisely as now, but that they will not have sufficient power to carry out those reforms which we all desire to see adopted with regard to the administration of London water supply.
676
I do not think there is any foundation for his fears in the Bill before the Committee. The Board will have all the powers, duties, and obligations now possessed by the Water Companies, and it will be able to treat the whole area as one. It will, therefore, be able to effect such reforms as may be desirable. I submit that Parliament is doing all that is reasonable and just in transferring the undertakings to the now Board. With the powers to be conferred on it, the Board will carry out such reforms as experience suggests, and, if further powers should be required, Parliament will be asked to grant them. I earnestly hope the Committee will reject the Amendment, mainly because if adopted it would deprive the new Board of power, which obviously it should possess, viz., the carrying on the work of the Water Companies.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman evidently misunderstood the remarks of his hon. friend as to the importance of the first Clause. No doubt it was the most important Clause but it did not follow that the subsequent Clauses did not involve a very largo number of important points. The point dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman was not the main point raised by the Amendment, but a comparatively small point which could be dealt with on Clause 3. The Amendment also raised the more important point of the suitability of the proposed new Board to manage and carry on the water supply of London. In every other case in the kingdom the municipal body had been taken as a body capable of dealing with the water supply. The Bill departed from this principle of recognising the municipality, and instituted a body perfectly unknown to our present municipal life. His hon. friend was justified in raising this question, because they wanted to know the reasons which actuated him in this departure arid in instituting a grotesque, fantastic, and unworkable body, founded on no principle, and apparently intended to prevent a municipal body from carrying on the work. Even if the new body were a suitable body to purchase they would not be a fit body to manage and carry on, most of their interests being antagonistic. It would not be able to carry on the work anything like as I efficiently as it was now performed. Look at the position in which this fantastic

677
body would be placed in regard to management. The day on which the undertakings were to be taken over had been extended to two and a half years hence. What was the present proposal of the Government? It was that on an appointed day the Water Board should be compelled to take into its service all the officers of the existing water companies. What did that mean? It meant that for two and a half years, covering by far the most important period of its existence, the Water Board would either have to duplicate the stall of the water companies or it would have no officers of its own. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in taking that first opportunity of drawing attention to the powers to be conferred on this Board, especially as the Committee was now in a position to consider the Bill on its merits in the light of the evidence which had been published.
MR. COHENsaid this was a most unbusinesslike discussion of an unbusinesslike Amendment. They were being asked to constitute a Water Board and not to allow it to carry out the objects for which it was to be brought into existence. The proper time to discuss the question whether the new Board was or was not fantastic was when the Clause respecting the constitution of the Board was reached. It was reducing the Clause to nonsense to propose that a Board should not manage and carry on a business which they were created in order to acquire and carry on.
DR. MACNAMABAsaid the hon. Member who spoke of the unbusinesslike discussion of an unbusinesslike Amendment should have
rounded oft his statement by adding the words "touching an unbusinesslike Bill." The right hon. Gentleman had declared that the Amendment would reduce the Bill to mere nonsense. But that would be a gratuitous effort on their part, for the fact was it had been reduced to nonsense already by the insistence of the Government on the form of the Water Board. Surely before they agreed to conferring on the Board the duty of purchasing, managing, and carrying on the undertakings of the various water companies, they had a right to know something about the complexion and size of the Board. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the Committee would have a free hand in considering the constitution of the Board, the passing of the Bill would be facilitated. All they wanted to do was to create a workable authority. They were successful upstairs until the Government and the Cabinet hustled the Committee.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
DR. MACNAMAEAsaid that so long as the Government adhered to the Board as constituted by the Bill he would have to oppose the measure tooth and nail. All he wanted was that the Committee should have a perfectly free hand to constitute the Board.
(12.58.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 99; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 303.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Flower, Ernest

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nain)

Arrol, Sir William

Chen, Benjamin Louis

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Groves, James Grimble

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Gunter, Sir Robert

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Baldwin, Alfred

Crost, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Horner, Frederick William

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

Crossley, Sir Savile

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hoult, Joseph

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jeffreys, rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Bill, Charles

Doughty, George

Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Douglas, Rt. hon. A. Akers-

Lawrenee, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lawson, John Grant

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Purvis, Robert

Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

Randles, John S.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Valentia, Viscount

Macdona, John Cumming

Richie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

M'Crae, George

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Manners, Lord Cecil

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

Montagu, G. (Huntington)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E, R. (Bath

Murray Rt. Hn A Graham(Bute

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Spear, John Ward

Wylie, Alexander

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingtn

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesl'y

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Percy, Earl

Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

Sir William Walrond and

Plummer, Walter R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Mr. Anstrather.

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Sir William

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W,

Boland, John

Harrington, Timothy

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Brigg, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burns, John

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Russell

Caldwell, James

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Reddy, M.

Cameron, Robert

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Joyce, Michael

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Channing, Francis Allston

Kennedy, Patrick James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clancy, John Joseph

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Cremer, William Randal

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Acc ington

Thomas, J A(GlamorganGower

Doogan, P. C.

Leng, Sir John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Lundon, W.

Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

Duncan, J. Hastings

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank

Mooney, John J.

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, John

Young, Samuel

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Nannett-, Joseph P.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

Furness, Sir Christopher

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Mr. Lough and Dr. Mac

Grant, Corrie

Nussey, Thomas Willans

namara.

The next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of Captain Norton (Newington, W.), was—
"To insert after 'on' in line 9 of Clause 1, the words 'until the transference is completed.' "
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not see any meaning in the Amendment.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill referred to the transfer of the undertakings of the water companies to the Water Board. If there was a transfer, the Water Board might be in a position to carry on separately the duties of the eight water companies for a period of nearly two and a half years. Therefore, it was a matter of great importance that words should be added to make it
680
perfectly clear that the Board was only to carry on these separate undertakings until the period when the whole would be amalgamated and carried on as one concern.
*THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that the Committee has already decided that the Water Board which is to be established is to acquire by purchase and carry on all these undertakings. The hon. Member's Amendment says that the Board shall only do that "until the transference is completed."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was some difference between the words "managing" and "carrying on." What some hon. Members on this side thought was

681
that "management" meant general control of the undertakings; while "carrying on" referred to the carrying on of the separate undertakings of the companies.
MR. LOUGHsaid the particular words of the Amendment referred to what was to be done with the separate undertakings.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board to give definitions of what was meant by "management" and "carrying on." There must be some reason for having these words in the Clause.
CAPTAIN NORTON: May I be permitted to move the Amendment formally, in order to obtain an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman?
*THE CHAIRMAN: I confess I cannot understand the Amendment in the least. I do not know whether the hon. Member can throw any fresh light upon it, but so far as I do understand it, it appears to be nonsense, and if it is nonsense it would be out of order.
MR. LOUGHsaid he would move the Amendment of which he had given notice, to insert after "on" the words "until the purchase is completed." After the speech which the President of the Local Government Board made half-an-hour ago, he thought it was necessary to insert some words like these, though he did not say these exact words. The right hon. Gentleman said that there could be no intention to throw the obligation on the Water Board to carry on indefinitely the eight separate undertakings as they stood at present. The whole Bill read as if that was the intention of the Government. The Board was to carry on each particular work. He found the word "each" in Clause 3, where it was stated that the Water Board should hold the undertaking of "each" Metropolitan Water Company, and be subject, to all the duties and obligations of the company. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that they ought not to keep open six or seven different offices.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'on' to insert the words 'until the purchase is completed.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was sure the hon. Gentleman did not want to absolutely waste the time of the Committee. There was nothing in this Clause or in Clause 3 which was capable of the construction which the hon. Gentleman placed upon it. There was nothing about separate accounts or separate offices. The duty was imposed on the Water Board to do the work of the companies and to carry on their undertakings. It was quite obvious that it would be impossible for all the transfers to take place at the same time or on the same day; but as soon as all the undertakings were in possession of the Board, there was nothing in this Clause or in Clause 3 to prevent the Board carrying them on as a general concern, subject to the powers given under various Acts of Parliament.
MR. LOUGHsaid he thought that that settled the matter.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think the Amendment ought really to be pressed. It would limit the action of the Board until such time as the purchase was completed. That would be to make nonsense, and certainly it would destroy the principle of the Bill.
MR. LOUGHsaid he quite saw that, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGHmoved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after the second word 'the' to insert the word 'water'."
This was, he said, only a drafting Amendment, but he thought it was necessary, in order to include the Staines Reservoirs Joint Committee.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the Staines Joint Committee was included in the first schedule.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the Staines Joint Committee would have to go to arbitration in regard to their reservoirs, and he thought it was a

683
dangerous thing that it should be treated as a separate question of arbitration. The arbitrators might be inclined to think that the House had instructed them to deal with the Staines reservoirs as a going concern.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that was a question that was dealt with by Clause 10.
Amendment negatived.
MR. LOUGHsaid the next Amendment he had to move was—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after 'water, to insert 'in bulk to the local authorities.' "
This question, he said, had been a good deal discussed upstairs, and the Chairman of the Surrey County Council gave evidence with regard to it. That County Council had executed an agreement with the London County Council that if the latter obtained their Bill they would secure severance. The Chairman of the Kent County Council also gave evidence in regard to the question, and stated that the local authorities throughout Kent wished for a supply of water in bulk.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Committee had already decided that the duty of the new Board was not to supply water in bulk, but to distribute it within the area described in the second schedule.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought the Amendment would be a limitation of what had already been passed.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was quite sure that the supply of water in bulk to the local authorities would be a much better system to adopt than that proposed by the Bill. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill only authorised the Water Board to carry on the duties of the Water Companies, but that did not shut out the case of supplying water in bulk, because some of the Companies already supplied water in bulk. The duty which the Water Board ought to perform should be to secure the water, filter it, and then supply in bulk the water to all the local authorities, leaving the latter to settle their local difficulties within their own areas. Otherwise, the streets of those local
684
authorities might be pulled up by the Water Board, and the local authorities would be interfered with in hundreds of ways.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he could not possibly accept the Amendment, because it would be contrary to the scope of the whole measure. The hon. Gentleman had said that his proposal had been discussed by the Committee upstairs; but it also had formed the subject of very careful examination by the Royal Commission, which condemned it, in paragraph 136 of their Report, as being not only inconvenient, but expensive. If the plan of supplying water in bulk were adopted, it would mean, in the western areas, the entire re-construction of the existing mains, would involve an enormous expenditure, and obviously would deprive the new authorities of any opportunity of raising sufficient revenue to do the very work which the hon. Gentleman said they ought to do, viz., to reduce the cost of water to the ratepayers.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the Amendment, for be had argued as if it meant severence, and not the supply of water in bulk. Severence no doubt would involve the construction of new mains. The County Councils in the outside areas would have preferred severence, and they gave evidence to that effect; but the majority of them would rather have water supplied in bulk than come under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. They felt that this new body would be of such a character, and London would have such a monopoly of influence, that they would be practically impotent to control their water supply. The system of supplying water in bulk had worked successfully in other parts of the country. He thought that under the plan in the Bill a great deal of the work of the Water Board would be hampered by conflicting interests. He did not think it was quite fair that this matter should be treated, and that they should be asked to settle it, as if it were a totally different matter. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division, as it was a matter of material importance. The large amount of evidence brought before the Committee

685
fully justified the proposal made, and what the Committee felt was that if it was accepted, this Amendment would enable those authorities, if they so desired, to have their water supplied in bulk. It would in no way destroy the Water Board that was created by this Bill, but would, on the contrary, make it more compact, and get rid of those difficulties which must occur between the inside and outside authorities, and make it more convenient for them to deal with the water interests in their own localities in their own way. He thought it was rather hard that districts like Halford should not be allowed to deal with their water as they desired. There was no principle involved, and he thought the outside authorities ought to have an option in the matter, and ought to be allowed to come upon the Board in the way in which he had suggested.
MR. HARRY SAMUELexpressed the opinion that if this Amendment were accepted the Clause would be reduced to absolute nonsense. If this Amendment were carried, the powers of the new Water Board would be limited to supplying water in bulk and in no other way. It would compel everybody to take water in bulk, and in his opinion it was a most ridiculous proposition.
SIR ROBERT REIDagreed that if the Amendment were accepted it would render it compulsory for the Water Board to distribute to all the areas within the schedule water in bulk. It might be a desirable thing that some of these authorities should take their water in bulk, but if they did, it was desirable that it should be regulated in some way. This Amendment, therefore, would go further than his hon. friend desired or the hon. Member beside him advocated. This subject was of great importance and should not, it seemed to him, be raised by an Amendment of this kind, but rather by means of a separate Clause in the Bill.
MR. CORRIE GRANTasked what was meant exactly by the words "generally for the purposes of supplying water" The preliminary words gave the Water Board
686
all the power of the companies, and it seemed to him that those words, unless qualified, would cover the supply of water in bulk.
DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the Bill provided that, if a local authority so desired, it should be permitted to have its water supplied in bulk by the Water Board.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Bill did not make it compulsory on the Water Board to supply any local authority in bulk. His answer to the hon. Member was, therefore, in the negative.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that in that case he would move to amend the Amendment by adding some words to it. He begged to move after the word "authority" to insert "if so required."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he only agreed to the insertion of these words in order that the whole Amendment, when put, might be rejected.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthought the Amendment would materially assist not only the Water Board but the local authorities to carry out their undertakings. It was desirable, in his opinion, that in this matter there should be some decentralisation, and the local authorities should be allowed to take water in bulk if they desired so to do. It was, he thought, a step in the right direction. It was the right of every locality to supply its own people with water if it wished to, and he had always striven to prevent the introduction into these various local areas of foreign influence. All local areas should be self-contained, and one of the most valuable privileges they had was the distribution of their own water. It might be suggested that it would deprive the Water Board of a certain amount of profit, but that could not be so, because as the outside areas developed, more water would be required. He urged in the interest of local government that this Amendment as amended should be looked on with favour by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Amendment would so alter the words of the Clause as left by the Committee that it would practically destroy it. The Amendment, if adopted, would deprive the Water Board of a considerable proportion of the revenue of their undertaking. The result would be that the Metropolitan Water Board would become a sort of wholesale water broker for the purpose of distributing wholesale lumps of water to the local authorities, who would make a profit on it. He also called attention to the drafting of the Amendment.
SIR ROBERT REIDpointed out that the Amendment as it now stood raised the question of whether or not there ought to be an opportunity, under proper conditions and safeguards, given to local authorities to take water in bulk. He had ventured before to suggest that this Amendment was not the proper way to deal with that question, because it could not be fenced round with the necessary safeguards. He now wished to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not wish to prevent legitimate business questions being discussed. The point raised by this Amendment was of great importance, and it seemed to him that it might be a great convenience, not only to the local authority, but also to the central Board itself, that water in some districts should be taken in bulk. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee reason to anticipate that he would fairly consider any proposal put forward with proper safeguards.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that as he was advised there was nothing in the Bill to prohibit the new authority from entering into an agreement with a local authority if it was desirable to do so to supply water in bulk, except that they would be under a statutory obligation to supply the district. He would, however, immediately respond to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would certainly give such a clause as ho suggested the consideration he asked for.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had at last seen that there was material substance in the Amendment.
MR. WATER LONG: I did not say so. The hon. and learned Gentleman made an entirely different proposition.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given an assurance to favourably consider a Clause upon this point when brought in. He, however, desired to point out that with regard to some of the outside areas there was already power given by Clauses 13 and 14 to supply them with water in bulk. He therefore did not see how any principle was affected by the Amendment.
CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to meet the Committee so far that he had consented to consider a new clause, which would have for its object the giving of such powers to the Water Board as would enable it to give water in bulk to such authorities as desired it. The Water Board would be, under certain circumstances, as the hon. Member for Lynn Regis had suggested, a wholesale water broker. It must be remembered that it was not only the question of water that was affected by this Amendment, but also sanitation, which was largely a question of water; and it certainly was not unreasonable to suggest that such localities as desired it should have the distribution of their own water.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn [2.0].
MR. CORR1E GRANTmoved to leave out in Clause 1, lines 13 and 14, the words "subject to such alterations therein as may be made by or under this Act." It seemed to him that the words were quite unnecessary.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was proposed to make certain changes with regard to districts now supplied by the water companies. The words proposed to be left out were necessary in order to make it perfectly clear that certain places mentioned in other clauses of the Bill were excluded from the operation of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. LOUGHmoved—
"In page 1, lines 14 and 15, leave out ' (which area is in this Act referred to as the; limits of supply.)' "

689
He said there were provisions in the Bill which might vary the limits of supply. Some places might go out and others might possibly be added. He did not see the good of the parentheses at all.
THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,)said the expression "limits of supply" was in the Bill, and it was desirable to have some definition of what was meant by that.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CORRIE GRANTmoved the following Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Stroud Division of Gloucestershire —
"In page 1, line 15, after the word 'supply, to insert 'Provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudice any future application that may be made to Parliament on behalf of any County or District Council for withdrawing the whole or any part of the area under its control from the said limits of supply.' "
MR. WALTER LONGsaid this proviso was unnecessary, because it must be obvious that whatever power Parliament possessed now to change the existing condition of things, it would possess in future to change the condition of things brought into operation by this Bill.
Amendment negatived.
DR. MACNAMARAmoved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, to leave out Subsection 3. He was opposed to the Subsection, because he was at variance with the proposal contained in it. There was no precedent for the scheme, either in regard to size or constitution, and it was grotesque and unworkable in itself. He was opposed to it, too, because it offended against all the principles of financial propriety. The Board, as proposed, not only represented the counties, but also the smaller areas within the counties. From the point of view of finance, there was absolutely no ground for the inclusion of these smaller areas, which were already represented through their county.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 19, to leave out sub-section (3).—(Dr. Macnamara.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'Subject to the provisions of this Act the Water Board shall consist of stand part of the Clause.' "
SIR ROBERT REIDsuggested that the Amendment should be put in such a way as not to oust subsequent Amendments.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not complain of the Amendment, though it appeared to be a little inconvenient. Alt the arguments he should desire to use in answer to the objections the lion. Member had raised were arguments he must address to the Committee when they came to the Amendment which definitely raised the question of the number and constitution of the new Board. It was quite obvious that a a sub-section of some kind must find a place in the Clause. If there was to be a Board it must be constituted in some shape or form; and therefore, if they omitted the whole of the sub-section, the Bill would be left in a very incomplete form.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONadmitted that there was a great deal of force in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but what they were anxious to do was to raise the question of the introduction of the Borough Councils into the constitution of the Board, a proposal to which they had great objections. It was fairer to them and to the Committee that the discussion should take place on this Clause rather than on the Schedule.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for North Wilts definitely raised the question of the choice between the county constitution and the constitution in the Bill.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to distinguish between the question of size and that of constitution.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid their objection to Sub-section 3 was that it would fix the number of the Board before they knew what its constitution was to be. It was not desirable to fix the number before the Committee had decided what bodies were to be represented on the Board.
MR. LOUGHexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would promise to leave the question of the Members of the Board to the Committee for decision. A promise to do this would be received with a great deal of satisfaction, and would do something to facilitate the progress of the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the two questions of the number on the Board and of its precise constitution were quite distinct. The hon. Gentleman opposite had asked that the Government whips should not tell when they came to decide the constitution of the new authority. He had often heard this appeal made to Ministers, and, as a rule, he had not the smallest sympathy with it, as it was generally made with regard to some vital principle which had the support of the supporters of the Government. He was convinced that if the question were left to the decision of the Committee in the open form, the result would not vary in any degree from that which would follow in the ordinary course. There was the solid fact to keep in view, that out of sixty-three Members for London, fifty - five had supported these proposals. Therefore, he tailed to understand why Members, who did not represent London or Metropolitan constituencies, should believe that they could convince London against itself. But, however that might be, he could not assent to the proposal. The scheme of the Government had been carefully considered; it had the support of the great majority of the representatives of the Metropolis and of the Metropolitan constituencies, and when the time came he would be
prepared to defend it. He hoped the Committee would be allowed to pass on to the consideration of the next Amendment which would raise the first question in a definite form.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the point they had now to consider was how best to discuss these matters. There were two questions which were inextricably bound up with one another. One referred to the number and the other to the constitution of the Board, and the decision on the one must affect the other.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was sorry to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as, on the Second Reading, he had said that he would leave the matter to the House.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. There were two distinct questions. As to the actual number of the Board, he still held the view that proposals made for the reduction of the number, which were consistent with the principle underlying the constitution of the Board, might be left to the House. But that did not apply to the question of the principle of the representation of the Metropolitan boroughs.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he felt bound to take this opportunity of dividing the Committee after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
(2.58.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 304.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir AlexF.

Bignold, Arthur

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Allhusen, AugustusH'nryEden

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Bond, Edward

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Arrol, Sir William

Bowles T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carlile, William Walter

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Balcarres, Lord

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Baldwin, Alfred

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Doughty, George

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

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

Chapman, Edward

Durning-Lawrenee, Sir Edwin

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colliags, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Fisher, William Hayes

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penorse-

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone. W.)

Flower, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn.)

Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morrell, George Herbert

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

Greene, W. Ramond (Cambs.

Morton, Arthurt H. A.(Deptford

Spear, John Ward

Groves, James Grimble

Mount, William Arthur

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Myers, William Henry

Thornton, Percv M.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Nieol, Donald Ninian

Tomlin-on, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Horner, Frederick William

Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pemberton, John S. G

Valentia, Viscount

Hoult, Joseph

Pierpoint, Robert,

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

Houston, Robert Peterson

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Hudson, Gearge Bickersteth

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Whiteley, H (Ashton und Lyne

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest (George

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Purvis, Robert

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

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Randles, John S.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R.(Bath

Lawson, John Grant

Rankin, Sir James

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

Lock wood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wylie. Alexander

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

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

Russell, T. W.

TELLER FOR THE AYES—

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Sackville, Col. S, G. Stopford-

Sir William Walrond and

Macdona, John Cumming

Sadler, Col, Samuel Alexander

Mr. Anstruther.

Maconochie, A. W.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

NOES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Boland, John

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Kelly, James (Bosconunon, N

Brigg, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea

Paulton, James Mellor

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jordon, Jeremiah

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Burke, E, Haviland-

Joyce, Michael

Pirie, Duncan V.

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kennedy, Patrick James

Rea, Russell

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Reckitt, Harold James

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Reddy, M.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

Causton, Richard Knight

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rickett, J. Compton

Channing, Francis Allston

Leamy, Edmund

Rigg, Richard

Clancy, John Joseph

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Craig, Robert Hunter

Leng, Sir John

Roe, Sir Thomas

Cremer, William Randal

Levy, Maurice

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Crombie, John William

Lundon, W.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stevenson, Francis S.

Delany, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Strachey, Sir Edward

Doogan, P. C.

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, Donal

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dunn, Sir William

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Edwards, Frank

Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Emmott, Alfred

Mooney, John J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moulton, John Fletcher

Whiteley, George(York, W. R.)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Murphy, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Grant, Corrie

Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

TELLER FOR THE NOES—

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Dr. Macnamara and Mr.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Lough.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Amendment he now rose to move was really one of the most
694
important Amentments on the Bill that they had to discuss. He was glad to hear what had fallen from the

695
right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, that, though unfortunately he did not see his way to surrender on this question, he would leave the constitution of the Board an open question, and allow the House to exercise its judgment as to the size of the Board. In what he desired to say to the Committee he wished to separate the question of the, size of the Board from its constitution. He confessed he very much regretted the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up in regard to the matter within the last few months. This was a very great question affecting all the ratepayers and consumers of water in London; and he thought that the matter ought to have been settled by some more or less general agreement. He should be very glad to give up his preconceived opinions, perhaps even prejudices, in order to make a broad and strong and workable body, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not so far, apparently, been able to come to any arrangement. What they had got to find out from the right hon. Gentleman was, on what basis he had fixed the number of members for the Board. So far as he could see, it was a purely arbitrary figure. Neither in the House on the Second Reading of the Bill, nor in the evidence before the Committee upstairs, was there any basis on which this particular number had been fixed. The proposal that he had ventured to make to the Committee was in the nature of a compromise. That the London County Council should be the authority was obviously out of the question at the present moment; but it was equally clear that the proposal of the Government was not acceptable to the House. He therefore submitted a compromise which might very well meet the views of both sides of the House. He did not altogether agree with it, but he would accept it as a working arrangement. Substantially the proposal of the Committee was that the constitution of the Board should be on a county basis, and that the numbers should be materially reduced. That was agreed to by the Committee by the weight of the evidence brought before them. It was an impartial Committee, and the Government had a majority
696
upon it, yet by a majority of six to three they adopted the proposal that he submitted that afternoon. Everyone would agree that what was wanted was a business-like body which would carry on their business with efficiency and despatch; and unless they got such a body as that, it would be a very serious matter for the ratepayers in reference to the price which they would have to pay to the Water Companies, and also in regard to the manner in which the business of the Water Board I would be carried on afterwards. He himself would rather go on with the existing system of eight Water Companies, which managed their business very well, than that an unbusiness-like Board, such as that proposed in the subsection, should be substituted for them. What had been done before was in favour of the compromise now proposed. In 1880, when the first Water Board was proposed by Lord Cross, then hon. Secretary, the number suggested was twenty-one. And the present Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member, at the beginning of their career proposed that the number should be thirty. Then there was the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Landaff, which recommended that the number on the Board should not exceed thirty, and they based their recommendation on the knowledge they had acquired of the duties which would be required of this particular body. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the introduction of the Metropolitan Borough Councils had altered the circumstances. But he would point out that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who was a Member of the Landaff Commission, said he was quite certain that they would not have created a body consisting of sixty-seven Members. In no other part of the country, in great cities like Liverpool and Birmingham, the Board or Committee to manage the water supply did not consist in numbers anything like approaching those proposed by the Bill. That was the position when the right hon. Gentleman produced this Bill, and it ought to have indicated to him that the Board should be a small one, of working proportions. What they wanted from the right hon. Gentleman was some real arguments to show that a

697
body of seventy-three Members would be a workable, homogeneous, and business like Hoard. The right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech, stated that the largeness of the Board was to a great extent founded on the opinion of experts. But he thought that it was hardly treating the House fairly not to call the evidence of these experts in reference to this particular point. There was no such evidence laid before the Joint Committee. On the other hand, there was evidence of the experts who controlled the water supply of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Gloucester, and else A-here, that the proposed body was far too large, and that the number should be thirty or under. He ventured to point out to the Committee that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman had met with no support from any quarter—from the Royal Commission, from the Joint Committee, or elsewhere. In the first place, the Moderate Members of the London County Council had one and all said that they were opposed to the proposal of the Government. Again, during the two or three debates in this House, every Member who spoke, with the exception of the Member for Lime-house, drew attention to this matter as the real blot on the Bill, and very strongly objected to the size of the body. Then his hon. friend the Member for the Strand Division, who was Chairman of the Committee of London Unionist Members, on the First Reading of the Bill, implied that the Board was of a rather unwieldy size, and that statement was cheered by hon. Members on his own side of the House. Then, the hon. Member for Chelsea, who had great experience in these matters, said that there were certain changes he should like to see in the constitution of the Board, and that he should prefer that the numbers should be reduced. The hon. Members or South Islington, East Islington, and Tewkesbury, and every speaker on the Ministerial side of the House condemned this part of the Bill. As to the Joint Committee, it appeared from their Report that the majority of that Committee were convinced by the evidence before them, and had by a majority thrown over the proposal in the Bill, and adopted that which he now submitted to the Committee. It was true that, for
698
some reason, they did not adhere to that view, but they had never affirmed the schedule in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, through his Under Secretary, stated that when the Bill went into Committee, while other matters were matters of principle, this question of numbers should go to the Committee as an open question, and the right hon. Gentleman himself had affirmed that. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman adopt the same attitude now?
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him. What he said was that, while he might agree to a reduction in the number of the Board, he adhered to the view that that reduction should not involve the exclusion of the representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the whole question turned on the number of the Board. This was a purely administrative body, and it was important, especially in regard to the question of. purchase, that it should be a strong, homogeneous body with some purpose in their mind, and able to work together. It was quite clear however, that in the large and unwieldy body proposed, they would not secure such a body as that. They would not get that individual responsibility on the part of the members by which alone the duties imposed upon them could be properly discharged. A spirit of "What's everybody's business is nobody's business," would prevail. The Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were to be paid officials; and it was quite certain that practically the whole business of the Board would get into their hands and into the hands of the other paid officials. Unfortunately, they in London had had experience of that in the past. It was largely that which had caused the old Metropolitan Board of Works to be so inefficient, and had caused so much dissatisfaction to the ratepayers. The Under Secretary argued that the numbers were not too large, because the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and the London County Council had equal or larger numbers. [AN HON. MEMBER: And the Liverpool Corporation.] He did not know that anybody who was a member of the London County

699
Council, would say that the; numbers of that Corporation wore too largo for the work they had to do. As to the Metropolitan Asylums Board, they had a very large number of Boards of Guardians necessarily represented on it; and, as regarded the Liverpool Corporation, it should be remembered that they had to manage all the city's affairs, beside the water supply. In his opinion, if the London County Council had been allowed to control the water supply, they would have been able to handle it easily, with the number of members at their disposal. The Committee must remember that this was a going concern; that it was not the creation of a large number of new concerns; and he would appeal to any Water Company director whether, supposing the Water Companies had themselves agreed to amalgamate into one company, the Board of Directors would not have been far fewer than the Board now proposed by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that ho wanted to bring on the Board, representatives of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, but the impression left on the minds of some of them by his speech on the First Beading of the Bill, and the evidence given before the Joint Committee, was that the right hon. Gentleman had got his numbers first, and then afterwards looked about to see what authorities should be represented on the Board. No one would assert that the Board would be a directly representative body. It would, in any case, be a secondary body; and, in part of its composition, it would be non-representative. The essence of the matter was of whether the purchase of the Water Companies would be a success or a failure. It would not be against the principle of the Bill if the Borough Councils were amalgamated in order to reduce the number of members. The Amendment proposed thirty-five; but that was not a figure in which he wished to pin his vote or his opinion. Looking at the body as a whole, and at the different authorities from which it would come, he believed it would be unworkable, inefficient and expensive; and the Amendment merely expressed that view without pinning the Committee to thirty-five members.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, after 'of' to insert 'thirty-live members including,' "— (Mr. Buxton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid it might be convenient at that stage for the Committee to hear the views of a member of the Joint Committee. He did not claim to speak in behalf of his colleagues; nor could he speak with the authority of an expert; but he claimed to have brought to the consideration of the evidence submitted to the Joint Committee an impartial mind, and approached the subject without prejudice. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken stated that the sole functions of the new Board would be administrative. It appeared to him, however, that it would also have a representative character; and if the smaller number had advantages from the point of view of administration, the larger number certainly had merits from the point of view of being more directly representative of the water consumers. With regard to the proposal to reduce the number to thirty-five, including the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, he submitted that for the purposes of administration there was essentially little or no difference between a Board of seventy and a Board of thirty-five. If the hon. Gentleman had the courage of his convictions he should have suggested, not a Board of thirty-five, but a Board of ten, twelve, or, at the outside, fifteen members.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he submitted his Amendment, not because he thought it the best solution, but because it afforded a means of arriving at a compromise.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid that the suggested compromise was in reality no compromise. The real difference was between a Board of a large number and of representative character, and a small Board of ten, twelve, or fifteen members, which should be mainly, if not exclusively, administrative. He admitted that for purposes of administration a small body would be more convenient; but any one who had experience of administration of that character would admit that large bodies did their work very largely through Committees, and were guided to a large extent by

701
their Chairmen and Vice Chairmen, and this applied both to a Board of seventy and to one of thirty-five. The Joint Committee had before it a large amount of evidence with reference to the Water Board. A point which he thought impressed the Joint Committee very much was that the previous proposal of Lord Llandaff's Committee, that the Board should consist of a small number of members, had met with the most energetic opposition from the London County Council. When the proposal was put forward, the London County Council, which was to a great extent the strongest opponent of the present scheme; said it was altogether opposed to a Board consisting solely of the salaried nominees of a Government Department. Mr. McKinnon Wood had said that, although he had been right through the London County Council, he had been unable to obtain any support whatever for such a proposal. Now, when his right hon. friend brought forward a proposal of an opposite character, it was met with precisely the same opposition. The Joint Committee received evidence from gentlemen connected with the water administration in the large provincial cities and towns in England. He believed that in no ease in which these gentlemen had any experience did the population exceed 800,000 or 900,000, whereas the Bill had to deal with Water London with a population of between 5,000,000 or 6,000,000. There was, he submitted, no analogy between the cases. Then, again, the disparity between the area to be served in London, and the area served in a provincial city, was equally great. Further, he believed that the wants of the different sections of Water London were more diverse than were the requirements of districts in provincial cities. Then as to the alternative which was termed the county basis, all the other counties concerned were more afraid of one result than of any other; namely, that they would be left alone to deal with the question in conjunction with the London County Council. There was absolute unity of opinion on that subject. The counties said in effect that if they were handed over to the London County Council the argument would certainly be brought
702
forward that representation should be allotted in proportion to population; and on that basis the Board would be constituted in a manner which would give the London County Council an enormous predominance. It had been said that the representatives of the various counties were altogether opposed to the scheme proposed by his right hon. friend. He confessed that, although the Joint Committee did receive evidence from them that they desired to reserve the right of subsequent severance, there could be no doubt whatever that they expressed a decided preference for the present scheme over any other which had been mooted. It appeared to him to be incumbent on those who opposed the present proposal, not merely to find defects in it, but also to bring forward a practical scheme, which would receive an equal amount of public support from the various bodies interested The impresion he gained from the evidence was that the present proposal was an ingenious attempt to solve a most difficult problem. He felt convinced that the Water Board when established would carry through its work efficiently; that it would deal with the most difficult problem of the transfer of the water undertakings with full regard to the rights and interests of the ratepayers of London, and that by unity of authority the whole problem of the water supply of such an enormous population as that of Water London would be dealt with with a thoroughness and comprehensiveness impossible under present circumstances.
MR. McCRAEsaid, speaking also as a member of the Joint Committee, that the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the Committee had not established a case as to why the Board should consist of seventy-three members. What the hon. Gentleman had said was more by way of criticism of a smaller body; and he gave no reason whatever in support of the larger number, lie thought the hon. Gentleman put the point with regard to the London County Council rather unfairly—quite unintentionally he had no doubt. He said that the London County Council objected to the

703
proposal of Lord Llandaffs Committee that the Board should consist of thirty members. But why? Because the Board was to be a non-representative body. He believed that the President of the Local Government Board had started altogether on a wrong basis. He was quite sure the right lion-Gentleman did not put before himself the Question as to the constitution of the body which would be best calculated to discharge the duties to be entrusted to it, most efficiently. Ho said that with some authority, because Mr. Fitzgerald, Counsel for the Promoters, admitted that the size of the Board should necessarily be large, not for the purpose of discharging its duties, but in order to give representation to the Metropolitan Boroughs. Mr. Fitzgerald was speaking of the proposal of Lord Cross that the Board should consist of twenty-one members; of Lord James that it should consist of thirty members; and of Lord Llandaff that it should consist of thirty members; and he said that the main difference was that at the time of these proposals the Metropolitan Boroughs were not in existence; and that it was thought desirable that they should be represented on the Water Board. Mr. Fitzgerald added that if representation were given to the Metropolitan Boroughs, similar representation should be given to the urban districts, with the result that the number of members would be doubled. He would show presently that there was no reason whatever why the Metropolitan Boroughs should be given any representation at all. He would quote evidence given before the Joint Committee in support of that view. The Joint Committee had evidence from Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. The representative of Manchester said (Question 3589) that sixty-nine members were totally unnecessary. The representative of Liverpool said (Question 3649) that a Board of about thirty would be quite sufficient. The representative of Glasgow said (Question 3735) that he did not see any difficulty in the undertakings being amalgamated under a body of, say, thirty members. He wished to controvert the proposition of the hon. Member for Exeter that as the population increased the Board
704
should also necessarily increase. He thought that that was a complete fallacy. A large undertaking, so far as the administrative management was concerned, could be managed as easily as a small undertaking. It was said that a large Board would be required, because of the many Committees which would Le necessary to manage the various parts of the undertaking. He spoke on that matter with some little experience, having served for nine years on the Edinburgh and District Water Trust; and though it could not compare with the London Water Scheme, the principle he laid down applied, namely, that a Board need not increase with the increase of population. If the Board were divided into three Committees—law, works, and finance—a body of thirty would provide sufficient members to serve on them. He should like the President of the Local Government Board to consider seriously—because they all desired that the question should be settled on the best possible basis—whether it was necessary that the Board should be over weighted with representatives of the Borough Councils. They did not form a necessary element in the constitution of the Water Board. Why? They did not want to give representation to the Borough Councils as Borough Councils, but because they represented the water consumers. But the water consumers would be represented by the London County Council. He challenged any hon. Member, who had read the evidence, to controvert that statement. The duplication of representation which was now proposed was not only unprecedented, but altogether unwarranted. The representation should be given to either the London County Council or to the Borough Councils, but not to both. If both were to be represented on the Board, it would not be conducive to the proper transaction of business, and would be a distracting element, as discussions might arise, not on the merits of the question before the Board, but on the different interests of the London County Council and the Borough Councils. There never was a Bill considered with less bias, either in one direction or the other, by any committee, than the present Bill; the only desire of the Joint Committee being to secure a Board which could most

705
efficiently discharge the duties to be, entrusted to it. He thought the Joint Committee was entitled to protest, as he personally did protest, against the conduct of the case by the promoters of the Bill. They practically refused to present evidence to the Joint Committee until they wore challenged to produce it in the most extraordinary way by the Chairman.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid it was the first time ho had heard that, He should like chapter and verso for it.
MR. McCRAEsaid he was prepared to give it. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to page 42 of the evidence, he would find that the Chairman said—
"The promoters have the opportunity, if they want to call witnesses. I do not think it necessary for me to coerce them into it. I never had such a task put upon me before."
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was not disputing for a moment the hon. Gentleman's statement. It was the first time throughout the controversy that the statement had been made that the promoters of the Bill—that was the Local Government Board—refused to produce evidence. He wanted the definite refusal of the promoters to produce evidence.
*MR. McCRAEsaid that after controversy not only with the Chairman but with opposing counsel, the promoters did submit evidence, but it was practically on compulsion.
MR. WALTER LONGasked when did the promoters refuse. The hon. Gentleman made a definite statement that the promoters of the Bill—that was the Government Board—declined to produce evidence. The hon. Gentleman's words were perfectly clear and unmistakeable. He was not contesting the hon. Gentleman's statement. He only said it was the first time ho had heard it; and he was only asking the hon. Gentleman to produce evidence of it.
*MR. McCRAEsaid that what he had read justified the statement. If the right hon. Gentleman would refer to page 29 of the Blue-book he would see that Mr. Fitzgerald stated that from the nature of the case the Local Government Board could not be expected to go into evidence, and all ho proposed to do was to put in two witnesses.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman would he the last person in this House who would desire to misrepresent counsel or political opponents on a question of this kind. What he meant was that it was not desirable that the hon. Gentleman should put his contention in a form which was distasteful to the Government. The whole contention was an argument addressed by the learned counsel on the question of procedure. On such a question it would not be necessary to offer evidence, and that was the instance the hon. Gentleman cited in support of his definite statement that when the Local Government Board were invited to produce evidence they declined to do so. This was the first he had heard of any allegation of this kind.
*MR. McCRAEthought that in that case the right hon. Gentleman could not have read the Blue-book. All that it was proposed to do was to put two witnesses in the Chair.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the paragraph to which the hon. Member referred commenced with—
"Now, my Lords, there is another matter of procedure which I wish to say something about."
which clearly showed that the learned counsel was addressing himself to the question of procedure.
MR. McCRAEmaintained his statement that the Local Government Board, until they were asked to do so by Lord Balfour, refused to put sufficient evidence before the Committee, and said that anybody who read page 42 and following pages of the evidence would find it fully substantiated what he said. He also called attention to the fact that the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman when this Bill was before the House for Second Reading, that they should be allowed to treat it in Committee as a private Bill, had been ignored by the Government who, he thought, had in this case entirely thrown over the right hon. Gentleman. What he protested against here, and what he had protested against in the Joint Committee, was that, after the decision of the Committee had been

707
given, the Government stepped in and took up a position which no promoter of a private Bill would have been allowed to do. The Committee was to consider this matter in the freest possible manner, and, having done so, and come to a decision, they had a representation from counsel for the promoters with regard to the decision they had come to. He protested against the Committee's freedom of action being interfered with in the way it was by the course which the Government adopted. But, even after their intervention, when the Committee came to the final schedule, if the Chairman had put the question in a constitutional way, that schedule would not have been before them that day. In spite of their protests, the Chairman insisted on putting the question in a certain way to produce a certain result.
*THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that, this being a Joint Committee, and a Peer presiding, the procedure would be governed by the Rules obtaining in another place and not by those which governed Committees of the House of Commons, and that the hon. Member would not be entitled to criticise those Rules.
*MK. McCRAEsaid he was not criticising the Rules of the House of Lords. The point he desired to make was that neither the Rules of this House nor those of the House of Lords were observed.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that was a matter for the Members of the other House to consider for themselves.
*MR. McCRAEpointed out that the special Report was put in by the Chairman for the express purpose of giving those who protested against this procedure an opportunity of raising this question in both Houses.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that did not appear upon the special Report. The special Report was brought in to inform the Members of the two Houses of what had occurred. He did not think they would have any right to criticise the action of the Peer who presided over
708
the Joint Committee, any more than the House of Lords would have the right to criticise the action of a Member of this House, and certainly not upon this Motion.
SIR ROBERT REIDasked if it would not be competent for a Member of this House to say, and establish before the Committee, that the form in which the Bill was now presented was not in accordance with the Rules of either House of Parliament.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think that had been suggested.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he understood his hon. friend to say that the Rules of the House of Commons were not observed, and, later, that the way in which the noble Chairman put the question as to the final schedule to the Joint Committee was not in accordance with the Rules of the House of Lords either. That was why he ventured to submit that this House could not be so impotent as not to be able to discuss whether the Rules of both Houses had been violated.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Each person was master in his own house. They had no right to say that the Rules of the other House were not properly carried out. If, as the hon. Member said, they were not properly carried out, that was a matter for the other House itself. They had no business to interfere with them. They would resent very much in this House if the House of Lords were to comment on the fact that the Rules of the House of Commons were not carried out.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid his point was this. It was one thing to say that this House could not discuss the propriety of the Rules existing in the House of Lords. It was another thing to say that a Committee, on which the House of Commons was represented, had violated the Rules of the House of Lords which governed in this case, but which, pro hac vice, became their Rules.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the person who applied these Rules was not a Member of

709
this House. Upon him was east the duty of interpreting those Rules, and he did not think they were entitled in this House to discuss his conduct on this Motion.
*MR. McCRAEsaid he had made his protest, and he would not press the matter further than to commend to the notice of the Committee the special Report which was drafted with regard to the incident. His whole point was that the Committee, with the evidence before; it, came to a certain conclusion, and he did not believe that the Committee would ! have altered its decision, even to the extent of having an equality of votes, had it not been for the pressure brought to bear by the Government. He did not wish to press his argument too far, but he felt that the responsibility was put upon them very unfairly. They had to consider whether they would take the responsibility of saying whether they should risk the passing of the measure by standing fast to principle, or whether they were to subordinate themselves to the Government. He felt the I responsibility keenly, but he came to the conclusion that if there was any danger of the Bill not passing because of opposition to the size of the Board, the responsibility would lie with the Government, who were evidently prepared to sacrifice the interests of London on behalf of prejudice and narrow political bigotry.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he had had some experience on administrative matters of this kind, and the opinion he had formed was that for a Board of seventy-three persons there would not be enough work to do. He thought there were other weighty reasons, too, why, at all events at the outset, the Board should not be constituted with too large a membership. In managing these undertakings one of the greatest difficulties arose from the constant search for new sources of supply, and the constant conflict that took place with the interests of outside areas. That was the inevitable consequence. At some future date the House, might consequently be forced to consider the increase of the area over which this Board would exercise jurisdiction. These were the general reasons; that he thought ought to guide the Committee in arriving at a decision as to the
710
number of members of this Board. He did not think anyone ought to vote for the Amendment, because even if thirty I five wais the magic and mystic number it was thought to be it was too early to say so. The real time to raise this question was when they came to address them selves to the Schedules, and then they would be able to decide what the right number was. It was possible to consider this Clause and leave entirely open tin ultimate number of members of which this Board should consist. He therefore suggested that their decision as to the numbers of the Board should be postponed until the Schedule was considered.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the suggestion of the right hon. Member-as to the propriety of postponing this point until the Schedule was considered, was not altogether new; it had already been made by an Amendment on the Paper. The difficulty was that owing to the way in which the Bill was framed it was impossible to consider this suggestion unless they in the first instance eliminated from the Clause now under discussion the word "seventy one". If the Government would separate the discussion as to the numbers from the discussion as to composition so far as it could be separated, there were two ways of doing so. One was to take the discussion on numbers with the full freedom to discuss it on the Schedule also, and the other was to leave out the word "seventy-one" so that the words of the sub-section ran, "the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and other Members," which on the Schedule would enable the Committee to come to a full discussion on the question.
MR. W. F. SMITHsaid they had no objection to the postponement of the consideration of the actual numbers, provided the principle of the representation of the Metropolitan Boroughs was preserved.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he was obliged to his right hon. friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite for their suggestions, but the Committee must clearly understand that if he adopted the suggestion of his right hon. friend there should not be a debate on this question over and over again. It was a matter of perfect indifference to the Government

711
when the discussion was taken. He offered no objection to the course suggested, but he could not agree to leave out the number at this point if they were to have the debate not only-on the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the Chippenham Division but also on the Schedule. That must be understood.
MR. LOUGHasked whether the matter could not be dealt with by postponing the Clause.
*SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERthought the suggestion of his right hon. friend the Member for Hallam was a most reasonable one, and he was quite ready to assent to it. It was a matter of complete indifference where his Amendment was brought in, so long as the matter was discussed, and ho would gladly have it postponed.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMANsaid the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman was fully recognised, and be would, he hoped, reciprocally recognise the spirit by which he had been met on that side of the House. Everybody wished to have an adequate discussion. The only question was what was tho most convenient time at which to have it, whether upon the Amendment of the hon. Member or upon the discussion of the Schedule. As an outsider he confessed he saw some little difficulty as to how the general size of the Board could be discussed upon the Schedule, because in the Schedule they were plunged at once into a discussion as to places, distances, sources, etc. Let not the Committee say that they were willing to put off this discussion until the Schedule was considered, unless they were sure it could be taken on the Schedule. But if the right hon. Gentleman would ensure that there should be a proper and adequate discussion when they came to the Schedule, he thought that might be perhaps the most convenient place to take it.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he reciprocated the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to know where they would be when they came to the Schedule. He could riot express an opinion as to where they would be at a later stage. He had
712
thought the Clause might possibly create some Parliamentary difficulty, and, in the event of that difficulty arising, he had proposed to move an Amendment which would have the effect of taking the Schedule out of its present position in the Bill and making it a part of the first Clause. He then saw the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division. That Amendment would serve the same purpose, and on it the whole question could be debated. Both that Amendment and the Government proposal could then be discussed, because in resisting the proposal of his hon. friend he would be compelled to defend that of the Government. If, however, there was any technical difficulty in the way of that being done, he was prepared to move the omission of all words after "appointed" in order to insert what at present was Schedule III. of the Bill. That would bring the whole question within the purview of the Clause, and altogether he thought it would be better to discuss the matter now than on the Schedule. That, however, was a matter for the Committee; all he was anxious about was that there should be one discussion of a clear and definite character, and a decision come to once and for all between the two alternatives.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought that under the circumstances the Amendment should be withdrawn, as its only object was to raise the question of number. The alternatives now before the Committee were whether the discussion on both the size and the constitution of the Board should be taken on the Schedule or on the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it would be difficult to have a general discussion on the Schedule, and therefore he would be in favour of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. WHITMOEEthought it would be impossible to come to a proper decision as to how the Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed, unless they know what the constitution of the body was to be. He thought, therefore, the most convenient course would be to take the discussion on the whole question now, either upon the Amendment suggested

713
by the President of the Local Government Board, or upon the Amendment of the lion. Member for the Chippenham Division.
MR. LOUGHpointed out that if the Amendment came after the word "appointed," the word "seventy-one" would have been passed. He hoped the Amendment would be brought in, before anything controversial was decided.
MR. WALTER LONGthought the Committee could decide as to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and then deal with the important question of the number. He was quite willing to agree that the question should be put in any form which would enable the whole matter to be discussed at once.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid all were; agreed as to the desirability of discussing the whole question at once; the only point was as to how that could best be done. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep "seventy-one" in the Clause? If so, they had better discuss the question of numbers before coming to the Schedule; if not, some words should be introduced into the Schedule, upon which the question of numbers could be there discussed.
MR. WALTER LONGthought it would perhaps facilitate matters if the word "seventy-one" was formally omitted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CREMERmoved to omit the words "a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and" He wished to leave the Water Board perfectly free to appoint a Vice-Chairman in addition to a Chairman, to decide whether or not they should be paid, and to make the appointment or appointments annual or permanent as they thought best. These were important points. There was a great deal to be said in favour of having paid officials, but at the same time there were splendid precedents for attaching no salary to the offices. The Chairman of the London County Council, whose duties were of a much more multifarious character than those of the Chairman of the Water Board would be, was unpaid, and ! the Lord Mayor was in practically the same position as regarded salary, because,
714
although a certain sum was voted to him, his expenses were understood to be much in excess of the amount voted. In moving this Amendment he was not actuated by a desire to delay the Bill. He was extremely anxious that this water question, of which the ratepayers of London had been waiting for many years for a practical solution, should be settled in the interests of the people. It seemed to him, however, that the only object in retaining these words was to create two good berths to which handsome salaries attached. He was certain that men could be found to discharge the duties faithfully and efficiently without salary, and in order that the Board might be perfectly free in the matter, he moved that these words should be omitted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out the words 'a chairman, and a vice-chairman and' "—(Mr. Cremer.)
Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. WALTER LONGgathered that the objection of the lion. Member was not so much to the creation of the two offices, as to the proposal that the holders of the offices should be paid for their services.
MR. CREMERsaid whether they should be elected annually or permanently was another point.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that question was not raised by the Clause under consideration. If the hon. Member objected to the payment of a salary, he should move the rejection of sub-section (4). If the hon. Member took exception to the creation of a chairman and a vice-chairman, and in the same breath asked the Committee to believe that he had no desire to delay the progress of the Bill, he was making a rather large demand upon the credulity of Members. It was obvious that there must be a chairman and a vice-chairman, though the question of whether they should be paid or unpaid might be afterwards considered. There was bound to be a presiding officer, and it was also necessary that there should be an officer able to take the place of the presiding officer in the latter's absence.
MR. MELLORthought the purpose of his lion, friend would be met by accepting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and moving the omission of subsection 4.
MR. McKENNAsaid that if these words were omitted, it would leave the Water Board to appoint a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman and as many executive officers as they thought necessary. It was quite clear, if the Government adhered to the proposal of a Board of the magnitude at present suggested, that it could not be an executive body, and that it would be necessary to have four or five handsomely paid officials to carry on the executive work of the Board. Under these circumstances he thought it useless to provide that there should be a chairman and a vice-chairman. There must be a chairman and a vice-chairman, but the Board ought to be left perfectly free to elect its own executive officers, as it was admitted on all hands that such a Board could not be anything more than a debating assembly.
MR. GREMERsaid he had not imagined for a moment that the Board could be constituted without a chairman to guide its deliberations. It was such a self-evident proposition that it was totally unnecessary to incorporate it in an Act of Parliament. For many years he had had a great deal to do with drawing up rules in connection with trades unions, but he had never known a body of working men who thought it necessary to, provide that a chairman should be appointed to preside over the deliberations of the executive body.
MR. COHENpointed out that the London County Council, which by universal consent was an admirably constituted body, had not only a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman but also a Deputy Chairman, and it was by statute obliged to appoint those three officers, each of whom was fully occupied.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the hon. Member was mistaken as to the County Council being obliged to appoint those
716
three officers; the election was optional. He desired to know why this special provision had been introduced into the Bill, instead of the matter being left, as in the case of the London County Council, entirely in the hands of the body itself. This Board would be so large that he was afraid too much of the power would get into the hands of the paid officials. He thought it inexpedient that both should be statutory positions, and he could see neither precedent nor reason for such a proposal.
MR. LOUGHthought the main reason why the Clause was in its present form was that the Board should be enabled to elect two officers from outside if they desired to do so, and thus increase the unrepresentative character of the Board. This authority was already sufficiently far removed from the electorate, and he should therefore support the Amendment. The seventy-one members should be obliged to select their chairman from among their own number. No such provision existed in regard to any other public body, and in view of the fact that it would increase the unrepresentative character of the Board, he thought the words ought to be omitted.
MR. WALLACEreferred to the Local Government Act to show that the London County Council was under no statutory obligation to appoint a vice-chairman. He did not say that a vice-chairman would not be necessary in connection with the Water Board, but he thought the Committee ought to understand that the office under the County Council was not a statutory one.
CAPTAIN JESSELsaid that, in giving the Water Board power to appoint a Chairman from outside, the Government were only following precedent, inasmuch as the Metropolitan Boroughs, as well as the London County Council and the London School Board, already possessed that power.
(4.58.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 25. (Division List No. 305.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Plummer, Walter R.

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Galloway, William Johnson

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs. Hn. A.G H (City of Land.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Godson Sir Augustus Frederick

Purvis, Robert

Arrol, Sir William

Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn

Rankin, Sir James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Staly bridge

Bard, John George Alexander

Groves, James Grimble

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Thomson

Balearres, Lord

Gunter, Sir Robert

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Baldwin, Alfred

Hain, Edward

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Royds, Clement Molynenx

Balfour. Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Hatch, Erne-t Frederick Geo.

Russell, T. W.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Hay, Hon. Clande George

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Banbury, Frederick George

Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

Samuel, Harry S. (Lim-house

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Hoult, Joseph

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver-ham

Saunderson, Rt. Hn Col. Edw. J.

Bignold, Arthur

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecal

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone.W.)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hudson, George Bickerstc

Shaw-Stewart, M.H. (Renfrew

Bond, Edward

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Bowles, Capt, H. F. (Middlesex

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Smith, Abel H.(Herford, East)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Kimber, Henry

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

Bull, William James

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Spear, John Ward

Campbell, Rt. Hn J. A. (Glasgow

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Carlile, William Walter

Lawson, John Grant

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

Legge, Colonel (Ion. Heneage

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. H.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Chamberlayne, T. (S'hampton

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Thornton, Percy M.

Chapman, Edward

Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Charrington, Spencer

Lonsdale, John Brownies

Trevelyan. Charles Philips

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tufnell, Lt, -Colonel Edward

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Lyttelton, Hon. Ahred

Valentia, Viscount

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Macdona, John Cumming

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Compton, Lord Alwyne

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wallace, Robert

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

M'Crae, George

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Majendie, James A. H.

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

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow

Manners, Lord Cecil

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Whiteley, H.(As'tonund. Lyne

Crossley, Sir Savile

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tow'r Hamlets

Morgan, David J. (Walt'stow)

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Dickson, Charles Scott

Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monm'thsh.

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Morrell, George Herbert

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Morton, Arthur H. A.(Deptd.)

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wodehouse. Rt, Hn. E.R. (Bath)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Durning,-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham (Bute

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

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Emmott, Alfred

Myers, William Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

Nicholson, William Graham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Nieol, Donald Ninian

Younger, William

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Paulton, James Mellor

Fisher, William Hayes

Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

FitzGerald, Sir Rob't Penrose-

Pemberton, John S. G.

TELLEKS FOE THE AYES—

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Pierpoint, Robert

Sir William Walrond and

Flower, Ernest

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

Allan, Sir William(Gateshead)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Burns, John

Ambrose, Robert

Boland. John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Brigg, John

Caldwell, James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bryce, Rt Hon. James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

718

719

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jones, Dav. Brynmor (Swansea

Power, Patrick Joseph

Causton, Richard Knight

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Rea, Russell

Channing, Francis Allston

Jordan, Jeremiah

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Clancy, John Joseph

Joyce, Michael

Rickett, J. Compton

Craig, Robert Hunter

Lambert, George

Rigg, Richard

Crombie, John William

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leamy, Edmund

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Leng, Sir John

Roe, Sir Thomas

Delany, William

Levy, Manrice

Runciman, Walter

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Duncan. J. Hastings

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dunn, Sir William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Edwards, Frank

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Elibank, Master of

M'Kean, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sullivan, Donal

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Murphy, John

Tennant, Harold John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Grant, Corrie

Nolan, Joseph (Loath, South)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Griffith, Ellis J,

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

O'Brien. P. J. (Tipperary N.)

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull. W.

Harrington, Timothy

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hud'rsfi'd

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Kelly, James (R'scomm'n, N.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Mall'ey, William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pease, J. A. (saffron Walden)

Mr. Cremer and Mr.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pirie, Duncan V.

Lough.

Amendment moved—
"Clause 1, page 1, line 29, to omit 'seventy-one.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
Agreed.
*MR. WHITMOREmoved an Amendment giving the Local Government Board power to appoint in the first instance the Chairman and vice-chairman of the Board. A great deal of the success of the work of the Board would depend on the good sense and ability of their chairman and vice-chairman, and the selection of these gentlemen—one of the most important acts which the new Board would have to perform—would be their very first duty which they would have to perform when they had not got into the habit of cooperation. Surely it would be better that at the outset, the appointment should rest with the Local Government Board. He was most anxious to see this new departure in the water administration of London a success, and that was his reason for moving the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out the words 'be appointed,' and insert the words 'until the time fixed by this Act for the first new appointment of a chairman and vice-chairman be appointed by the Local Government Board and afterwards.' "—(Mr. J Whimore.)
Question proposed—"That the words 'be appointed ' stand part of the Clause."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONhoped the Government would not accept the Amend-
720
ment. One of the arguments in support of this body was that it was a representative body. It was not as representative; as it might be; but that was the argument. To take out of its hands this most important power would be a serious evil. It seemed to be imagined that once the chairman and vice-chairman were appointed, they would remain in office during the period of that Board. He did not so read the Act, and he hoped the appointments would be annual. One of the things he feared in connection with this Board was that, in consequence of its size, much of the power would get into the hands of the chairman and vice-chairman, and therefore it was essential that they should be elected annually. Whether that was so or not. he thought the appointment should not be taken out of the hands of the Board. Among so many members it would surely be possible to find men capable of carrying out the duties of these offices. He should oppose the Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the original proposal of the Government was that members of this new body should appoint their own chairman and vice-chairman from among themselves, but he had received several representations pointing in the direction of the Amendment. It seemed to him very desirable that there should be two gentlemen clothed with authority in

721
office before the actual election or selection of the body was completed, to guide the new body; and, further, it was very important that the first two appointments should not in any way be made haphazard. He had had great difficulty in arriving at a decision, as there was much weight in the views of the hon. Member for Poplar, while at the same time he was greatly impressed by the arguments on the other side. He could only say that if, in the opinion of the Committee, it should be thought desirable that this duty should rest with the Department, he was quite willing to accept that decision. He proposed to leave the matter to the Committee to decide as they thought fit. In reference to a remark made in the course of the discussion, he might say that the appointments as determined by the schedule would be held for three years.
MR. LOUGHthought it a pity that this Amendment should be accepted. The Government were gradually lowering the status of this new body. It had been said more than once that if the number of members was reduced the administrative excellence of the body would be increased. That would be so if good men were appointed and they devoted their attention as business-men to the difficulties which had to be faced. But they would not be able to do that if they felt that they were in the hands of two or three paid officials appointed by the Local Government Board from
outside. The Board should have the full responsibility of its position thrown upon it. This Amendment was a step in the direction of relieving it of that responsibility, and it was a great pity that it should be done. The gentlemen so appointed would become permanent officers; they would get a life interest in the concern; and the whole Board would sink into the condition which other Boards had sunk into, and lose its administrative activity and ability. He hoped as the Government had left the Committee free to vote as they pleased many hon. Members on the other side would venture to disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Chelsea.
COLONEL LOCKWOODcould hardly believe the hon. Member for Poplar to be in earnest in suggesting that the chairman of this enormous Water Trust should hold office for one year only. His experience of water companies had shown him that the more experience the chairman had the more valuable he became. For that reason he should support the Amendment, in order that for the first chairman there might be chosen a man more acquainted with the subject than the members of this Board were likely to be.
(5.23.) Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes, 120 Noes, 155. (Division List No. 306.)

AYES.

Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

Ambrose, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

Jordan, Jeremiah

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Joyce, Michael

Atherley-Jones, L.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lambert, George

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Dunn, Sir William

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Boland, John

Edwards, Frank

Leamy, Edmund

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Emmott, Alfred

Leng, Sir John

Brigg, John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Levy, Maurice

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

Bull, William James

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lough, Thomas

Burns, John

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lundon, W.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gordon, Hn. JE. (Elgin&Nairn)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Caldwell, James

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Grant, Corrie

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Griffith, Ellis J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Gunter, Sir Robert

M'Crae, George

Causton, Richard Knight

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Kean, John

Channing, Francis Allston

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Clancy, John Joseph

Harrington, Timothy

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

Murphy, John

Craig, Robert Hunter

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Crombie, John William

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Delany. William

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

O'Malley, William

Roe, Sir Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Wallace, Robert

Paulton, James Mellor

Runciman, Walter

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Russell, T. W.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wilson, Chas Henry (Hull. W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Rea, Russell

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Younger, William

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Strachey, Sir Edward

Rigg. Richard

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Tennant, Harold John

Captain Norton and Mr.

Cremer

NOES.

Acland-Hond, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Galloway, William Johnson

Pierpoint, Robert

Allhuson, Augustus H'nry Eden

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

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Anstrnther, H. T.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Plummer, Walter R.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arnold -Forster, Hugh O.

Greene, Sir EW(B'ry St Edm'nds

Pretyman, Ernest George

Arrol, Sir William

Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

Purvis, Robert

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Groves, James Grimble

Rankin, Sir James

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Hain, Edward

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Bailey, James- (Walworth)

Halsey, Rt. Hn. Thomas F.

Ridley, Hon M W(Stalybridge)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bird, John George Alexander

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Balcarres, Lord

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Baldwin, Alfred

Henderson, Sir Alexander

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Horner, Frederick William

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Hoult, Joseph

Sandys, Lieut. -Col. Thos. Myles

Banbury, Frederick George

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Beresford, Lord Charles Win.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Seton-Karr, Henry

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew

Bignold, Arthur

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Bowles Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Kimber, Henry

Spear, John Ward

Brodrie'k, Rt. Hon. St. John

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

Cavendish, V.C.W(Derbyshire

Lawson, John Grant

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart

Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Strutt, Hon. Charles- Hedley

Chapman, Edward

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Charrington, Spencer

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

Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw M'rray

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Tufnell, Lieut. -Col. Edward

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Valentia, Viscount

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Macdona, John Gumming

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Crossley, Sir Savile

Majendie, Fames A. H.

Welby, Lt. -Col: A. C.E. (T'nton

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Manners, Lord Cecil

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.

Dewar Sir T. R. (T'wer H'mlets

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Whitely H. (Ashton-und. Lyne

Dickson, Charles Scott

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'th'sh.

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

Dixon Hartland, Sir Fred Dix'n

Morrell, George Herbert

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Wylie, Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Fisher, William Hayes

Myers, William Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Nicholson, William Graham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Finlay, Sir Fortescue

Nicol, Donald. Ninian

Mr. Whitmore and Mr.

Flower, Ernest

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

W. F. D. Smith.

It being after half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
Adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—
New Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  HULL, BARNSLEY, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK (SOUTH YORKSHIRE EXTENSION LINES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The orders made on the 1st instant and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  MEDWAY AND THAMES CANAL BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  COMMONS REGULATION (SODBURY) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a (The Earl Howe) agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6.) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4.) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: Report of Amendments to l)e received on Monday next.
LAND I RAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10.) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
  GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS (EXTENSION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1899) deemed to have been reported from the Committee: Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL.
    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
      LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL
      Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Wandsworth be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Brassey; and that the Earl of Yarborough be Chairman of the said Committee; read and agreed to.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    SEA FISHERIES (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
    Sixteenth Annual Report of the inspectors, for 1901.
    JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) 1901.
    Part II. Civil Statistics.

    IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
    Report of the Commissioners, for the period from 1st April 1901 to 31st March 1902.
    Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
    Statute made by the Master and Fellows of University College, Oxford, on 20th March 1902, amending Statute III., 12 (Fellowships held by Professors) of the Statutes of the College: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES) (IRELAND) BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
    SHOP CLUBS BILL.
    Read 3a, with the Amendments, a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

    NEW FOREST (SALE OF LANDS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES) BILL.
    Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
    LORD HELPER: My Lords, this is a small Bill, which has passed the other House, the object of which is to empower the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to sell pieces of land in the New Forest for sanitary purposes. The case for the Bill is this: The soil of the New Forest is vested in the Crown, and it appears that the Commissioners of His Majesty's Woods and Forests have no power to sell any land without an Act of Parliament. As long ago as 1884 it was found that the sanitary arrangements of Lyndhurst, which is within the limits of the New Forest, were very bad, and the Local Government Board came to the conclusion that not only the sanitary arrangements, but also the water supply, were deplorable. Since that time a proper water supply has been provided, but great difficulty has been experienced, in consequence of there being no land, in carrying out sewerage works, and this Bill is for the purpose of giving the Commissioners power to sell land, and the parish authorities power to purchase it in the interests of the public health of the locality. The Bill is carefully guarded in the matter of the consent of the Local Government
    640
    Board and a proper local inquiry. The provisions of the Bill are practically concurred in by all the persons locally interested, and have been accepted by the Commons Preservation Society.
    Bill read 2a, and committed for Monday next.

    TRANSVAAL CONCESSIONS COMMISSION—POSITION OF THE NETHER LANDS RAILWAY.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the finding of the Transvaal Concessions Commissioners in regard to the Netherlands South African Railway Company, that—
    "The Company did, before war was declared, initiate and organise elaboiate plans, and afterwards effectively carried them out, causing great damage, delay, and loss to the Queen's armies."
    And to ask whether action has been taken, or is going to be taken, to punish the Company for these belligerent operations. The active part which was taken by the Netherlands Railway Company in the late war is a matter of considerable notoriety. I ventured, just a year ago, † to bring the finding of the Commissioners before your Lordships, and to ask what indemnity, or other punishment, it was intended to inflict for the unwarrantable attack by this Company on Great Britain. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told me at that time that the matter was under consideration, that a correspondence was taking place with foreign Powers, and that His Majesty's Government were unable at that moment to give me any answer. A year has elapsed, and I now venture to repeat my question. The facts are not in dispute; they have been investigated, and I am anxious to know whether anything has been done, or is going to be done, to punish the Company for their operations. When I brought this matter before your Lordships a year ago, I entered in considerable detail into the investigations of the Commission, and, therefore, it will not be necessary for me today to trouble your Lordships with more than a very few remarks on that part of the subject. As I have said, the
    See (4) Debates xcii., 8.

    641
    main facts are not in dispute; but, lest it should be supposed that anything is wanting to make the case against this railway company complete, I would remind your Lordships that, according to their own admissions, the managers and the staff in South Africa, the board of directors in Amsterdam, and also the shareholders, aided and abetted, more or less actively, in the action that was taken at that time by the Company, Just before the outbreak of the war, M. Van Kretschmar, the directing manager of the railway in the Transvaal, took a very lively and direct interest in the prospects of the Republic. He called their attention to the fact that they had not sufficiently provided for defence and offence, and went so far as to produce schemes, and give them advice as to how they should attack Natal and defend themselves. He did more. He suggested that the employees of the Company should be commandeered, and he paid those employees while-they were actually engaged in operations against the British troops. He directed those operations, suggested that they should blow up bridges, and acted from beginning to end as an open enemy of this country. So much for the direction. I will now read to your Lordships what M. Van Kretschmar's opinion was as to the result of his action. After the fortunes of war had turned, he wrote to his directors in Amsterdam as follows—
    "I am afraid we have hopelessly compromised ourselves in deed, word, and writing. We have made cannon and ammunition; we have sold material to the Republics; we have blown up bridges on English territory, and have not discharged our staff on commando."
    Passing to the staff, how did they carry out M. Van Kretschmar's directions? They assumed open action as belligerents; they blew up the bridge at Colenso, arid when the Boers were in retreat subsequent to the relief of Ladysmith, they also broke up the line of railway and protected the retreating enemy. Another portion of the railway staff blew up bridges in Cape Colony and protected the retreating Boers by destroying the communications. We have it on record, in a letter written by M. Van Kretschmar, that the Board in Amsterdam were greatly pleased with the action he had taken in the first instance; but when the fortunes of war
    642
    changed they recognised that what had been done might prove detrimental to their interests, and they advised M. Van Kretschmar to take up a different line of action, to which he replied—
    "I like to hoar your judgment—you who were so proud when you heard of the deeds of heroism of the Company in the destruction of bridges, etc., and wished for special data in order Co refer to it in your Annual Report. We are now once for all in a boat, and must remain in it to the other bank."
    When the Transvaal Concessions Commission was sitting, they invited the Board of this Company in Amsterdam to send witnesses to give some account of themselves and explain what had been done, but from that day to this no answer has been received from the Board, and we must therefore assume that they agreed with the action of their manager in South Africa. Even the shareholders received the Report in silent acquiescence, and it was not till the war was nearly over that they ventured to intimate some doubts as to the wisdom of the course that had been followed. There is no doubt that the servants of this Railway Company openly aided and abetted belligerent operations against the British troops, and we have the right to exact the full penalty for this audacity. In justice to the taxpayer that penalty ought to be exacted, for no inconsiderable part of the cost of the war was due to the destruction of the communications by the Company's servants. I submit that the fact that there are foreign shareholders of the Company has nothing to do with the question. The point in question is, What is the damage that has been done to this country? And it is only right and fair that the people who did the damage should pay for it. I regret the long delays and correspondence which have taken place, because they suggest that this country is to get nothing in the end. This is the most flagrant case I have ever heard of; and if by any misfortune the penalty which is undoubtedly due is not exacted, then our leniency will be entirely misplaced and very much misunderstood.
    *LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEYsaid the word "punish" in the noble Earl's Question was not in accord with the general amnesty which, though not proclaimed, had been virtually acted upon in South Africa. He took it that this Company was composed, not of Trans-vaalers, but of Dutchmen, and they had

    643
    a perfect right to do the best they could for their fellow countrymen in South Africa. The feelings of the Dutch had not been properly understood, because the history of the Boer War which had been most in circulation began in 1806 instead of in 1795; thus misleading by an error of eleven years. In 1795 the Duke of York, with a British army, was in the Low Countries in alliance with, and in support, of the Dutch against the French. He had always regarded the noble Earl who had asked this Question as a sensible and moderate Liberal-; and as the feeling of the country was that the Liberal Party in both Houses wanted strengthening, he hoped to -see the noble Earl join the Opposition, and in that way make the Opposition Benches less attenuated and more respectable.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The EARL of ONSLOW): My Lords, the belligerent acts of the Company are admitted on all hands. At the time the war broke out the Company was paying a handsome dividend, and its shares stood at 230 or 240. As soon as the British troops occupied the country through which the railway ran, the railway was taken possession of by them. That itself is a serious penalty. The noble Earl said that there had been considerable delay in announcing the intentions of the Government. That delay hurts the shareholders much more than His Majesty's Government, because in the meanwhile the shareholders are not receiving a penny. The Transvaal Concessions Commission advised the Government that this concession ought not to be recognised; and His Majesty's Government thought that in that recommendation the Commission were perfectly correct. But the money invested by the railway was invested by different classes of persons. There were those who invested money on debenture. They had no voice in the management of the railway. Others invested in shares, and it was within their power to control the board of directors who sat at Amsterdam. It was in the power of the directors to dismiss their officers in South Africa. These two classes of investors ought to be treated very differently; and His Majesty's Government do not intend to allow the debenture-holders to suffer for action which they could not control.
    644
    But with regard to the shareholders, the concession not being recognised, the whole matter is entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, who are still considering what, if anything, should be done ex gratia, but hot of right, for those who have bonâ fide invested their money in the shares. The noble Earl may rest assured that the damage inflicted on the armies of the King will not be left out of consideration in any arrangement which may hereafter be come to ex gratia with the shareholders.

    CHINA—GENERAL POSITION — RUSSIA AND MANCHURIA—ANGLO-JAPAN ESE ALLIANCE — ANGLO-ITALIAN RELATIONS IN THE MEDITER RANEAN.
    *EARL SPENCERrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform the Home as to the position of affairs in China since the return of the Chinese Court to Peking, especially in regard to—

    1. The Port of Neuchwang.

    2. The Northern Chinese railways in which the British interests are large.

    3. The arbitration as to land at Tientsin.

    4. The evacuation of Tientsin by the Allied Forces.

    5. The present position of Russia in regard to Manchuria.

    6. The payment of the Chinese indemnity, and whether the effect of the depreciation in silver has led to any alteration in the mode of paying the indemnity by gold.

    7. As to the position of this country and of other countries at Shanghai.

    8. Whether his attention has been called to the statement that great surprise has been caused in Japan by language used on behalf of the Government in another place respecting the Anglo-Japanese Treaty; and whether he is in a position to correct the misapprehension which appears to have been created.

    9. Whether he can make any statement as to the relations between this country and Italy in the Mediterranean.

    He said: My Lords, notwithstanding what was said a few minutes ago by the noble Lord near me (Lord Stanley of

    645
    Alderley), I hope the House will agree that I come from a respectable Bench, and am a respectable member of your Lordships' House. I have today followed the course which I have adopted before with regard to questions on foreign affairs; and I have set out at some length the points to which I hope the noble Marquess will refer. I shall follow the divisions of the subject as they appear on the Paper in the few remarks I intend to make. First of all I have referred to the port of Neuchwang. Now we have had that before us on previous occasions, and the noble Marquess has given us explanations about it. Your Lordships all know that this port is a very important one for British commerce. I believe I am right in saying that we have more trade and commerce with that port than almost any other nation. There have been various questions as to the government of this town and port. At one time it was almost wholly under the government of Russia. I should like to know how far a change has taken place in regard to this. As we all know, there has been a considerable change with regard to the influence and interference of Russia in China within the last few years. I should like very much to know whether the government of Neuchwang has been now made over again to China, and, at all events, whether that treaty port, which is of such importance to our commerce, has now the same advantages for us and other nations as it had before the disturbances which took place in China. Now there is a question with regard to the railroads in the north of China. That, too, has been the subject of considerable difficulty in that country, and has been made the subject of various discussions in Parliament. There are two railroads, which were, I believe, entirely under the control of the Chinese Government, in which English investors have very great interest indeed. These two railroads are the railroad to Shan-hai-kwan and the railroad between Tientsin and Shan-hai-kwan. At one time, I believe, the Russian Government had, for various reasons—probably strategical reasons— taken control chiefly of these railroads. There have been various appeals that the management of these railroads should be once more transferred to the Chinese Government, and that the interests of
    646
    this country should be respected on these railroads. I should be glad to know whether that has been carried out. We all know that, by arrangement between China and Russia, Russia was to be allowed, not complete control, but nearly complete control of the railroads north of the Great Wall. These railroads do not, go as far as that, and therefore I believe I have a right to ask whether any change-has taken place with regard to these great commercial undertakings. Then there was a very acute disturbance and controversy about certain lands, also, I believe, connected with some railroads, at Tientsin. The noble Marquess—either himself or the noble Marquess the late Prime Minister—dealt effectively with that and obtained redress for the British, who claimed possession of some of the land which had been taken over for various reasons by Russia. This question was at last referred to arbitration, and we do not know—at least, I am not aware—how far that arbitration has been settled. These are all questions more or less connected with Russia in the Par East.
    Of course the greatest question of all is the position of Russia in Manchuria. I hardly know how that stands now; but we have been told in the public Press that within the last few months considerable changes and modifications in the position of Russia have been made in that country. I have always felt, in regard to our policy with Russia in the East, that we have not been altogether fortunate in dealing with this matter. We heard long ago of the vast map of the East—that it was so large that we need not be afraid of Russia's a quiring an ice-free port in these seas. We have had various negotiations, and we have had more than once to oppose the policy of Russia in China But, unfortunately, it has seemed to me, we never looked forward sufficiently in our policy; and eventually we had on more than one occasion to withdraw our opposition; and then our agreement with Russia, instead of being a gracious and spontaneous one, came in a very different spirit from us. I should like to know in what position Russia is in regard to that country. We know that she has now a railroad connecting the eastern part of her great Empire with Manchuria and China, and it may be

    647
    that all she is doing now is to defend this railroad against any inroads of the Chinese. But we hardly know yet whether she has fulfilled what I believe was some assurance on her part that at a certain time she would relinquish once more to the Government of China this large and rich province.
    Now there is another matter which we have discussed in this House, and we have had some very interesting statements from the noble Marquess on the subject. I refer to the financial position of China. We all know what an important part the tax known as the likin tax plays in that country. We have heard from the noble Marquess, if I am not wrong in saying so, that he hoped to get some large concession from the Chinese Government about this tax. Of course likin applies to the internal government of the country as well as to foreigners and to Customs. Probably if we had our way we should say it is as much in the interests of China and of the large population there as in the interests of those who are trading with China that this duty, both internal and external, should, if not altogether done away with, be greatly modified. At the same time, we know there are serious difficulties with regard to it. If the public Press is correct, there have been a great many changes of policy on that matter; but, so far as I can gather now, we are still pressing for the reduction of this likin on Customs, but we have been obliged almost entirely to relinquish our pressure with regard to the likin in the internal parts of China. No doubt the noble Marquess will be able to tell us something about that. It is a very important thing; for the financial position of this great country is of the utmost value to all those trading with her, as well as to the enormous population over which she rules.
    But I have rather diverted from the actual list of my questions. I ought to come to the question of the Chinese indemnity. We and other nations had a most absolute right to demand serious indemnity from China for the serious outrages that took place in that country both on persons and on property belonging to foreign subjects. The indemnity was settled after very considerable difficulty; but I am afraid lately a very serious addition to the difficulty has
    648
    occurred owing to the great depreciation in silver. The indemnity was to be in gold; but almost all the transactions of China are in silver, and that is the current coin in that country. If that be so, the great depreciation in silver has had a very serious effect on China with regard to the payment of the indemnity. It has added, no doubt, greatly to the difficulty which that country has in paying the indemnity; and it is a matter of great interest to know whether, in regard to the future financial position of that country, which is of such great importance to us and to the other countries of the world—whether anything has been done to try to meet, temporarily or permanently, this great additional burden on China. I am not going to refer, except in passing, to what has been often discussed—namely, our position in the Yang-tsze region. That is the region which has been rather marked out by agreements—and, if not by agreements, by understandings—between us and other countries for the influence of this country. I shall not dwell upon that, although I think a great deal might be said as to our position with regard to Germany in that region. But I should like to know, as there has been a great deal of observation about it, whether any difficulty has arisen at Shanghai between us and other Powers. Shanghai is one of the most important places with regard to commerce in the Eastern seas. It is a place where we have had a very great, if not a predominant, influence. But, as far as I know there is no reason whatever why other nations should not occupy a position of great influence there as well as ourselves; and I therefore do not quite understand the extreme jealousy that has existed with regard to the increasing influence of other countries in Shanghai. Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us something about it.
    Before I leave the question of China, I should rather like to say this. I do not say it with special reference to the noble Marquess and his administration of foreign affairs, but I cannot help thinking that of late years our whole policy in the East and in China has been wanting in foresight. We have had a policy rather of going from hand to mouth; a policy of the moment. We have not looked forward

    649
    sufficiently, and we have not made up our minds clearly as to exactly what we should do. The consequence of that has been that there has been considerable vacilliation, and from time to time our policy has been abruptly and suddenly altered. What has happened in regard to Port Arthur and Wei-Hai-Wei, I think, indicates want of consistency and firmness in the policy and intentions of His Majesty's Government. I will merely say that I sincerely trust the noble Marquess and His Majesty's Government are following a stronger and better course than that I have indicated. They may deny that their previous conduct has been characterised by want of decision; but I cannot help hoping that they have a clear and distinct policy before them, and will carry it out not only with regard to the interests of this country, but in harmony with other nations.
    I have an important question to ask as to Japan. It is not long ago that we all heard with great pleasure of the good understanding and the treaty which the noble Marquess concluded with Japan. Some of us may have doubted whether the actual treaty was necessary, though I am sure all of us, and anybody who knew Japan and the East, welcomed this proof that we were trying to encourage arid cement good feeling with that country. Nothing that has occurred since has altered that feeling. I think the feeling has been strengthened, and I think that almost every body rejoices that this treaty has been carried out. It has I hope been conducive to good results in the East. Not very long ago in another place some discussion took place upon it; and I cannot help thinking that there was some misunderstanding with regard to some words which possibly dropped out, and which certainly were not intended to have the purport which was given to them. They were words used by an important member of the Government, and some people thought the terms used were somewhat arrogant. I cannot help thinking that there was a misunderstanding about this, and there was no such intention on the part of His Majesty's Government. At the same time considerable attention was called to these words. Those gentlemen who are often very well
    650
    informed—sometimes we think almost better informed than His Majesty's Government—drew attention to them and stated that they had produced in Japan a very bad impression. It was on that account, in order to give an opportunity for explanations, that I included this question among those which I have put.
    I now come to my last point. It is a very important one, and yet I do not think that we need have any anxiety with regard to it. A good deal of discussion has occurred within the last few weeks with regard to Italy and our relations with that country. A good deal of unnecessary anxiety has been shown with regard to this matter. That anxiety arose in consequence of a rumour, which I believe to be true, that the Italian Government had come to some direct friendly relations with France. I feel sure that your lordships will agree that it is in our interests to be on the most friendly terms with France; I hope we are so at the present moment. But I cannot see why if Italy, with whom we have always had the very closest sympathy and alliance, draws nearer to France, we should feel any anxiety or jealousy whatsoever. It seems to me that the closer France is drawn to her nearest neighbour, Italy, the better security there is for there not being any trouble in the Mediterranean. I am quite sure your Lordships will agree with me that there is no country in the world to whom our sympathies are drawn more closely than to Italy. I therefore hardly understand the anxiety which is felt on this matter. I hope the noble Marquess will be able to give an assurance, which we shall all welcome, that there need be no anxiety in this country with regard to our foreign relations with any Power in the Mediterranean. I now ask the questions of which I have given notice.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Earl began his statement by a few words in justification of the form of the Questions on the Paper. Perhaps he will allow me to say that if any Member of your Lordships' House is a gainer by the detail with

    651
    which lie has worded his notice, I am that Member. It was thoughtful of him to give me so plain an indication of the points on which ho desired information. I will take first the noble Lord's question with regard to the port of Neuchwang and the Northern Chinese railways, in which, as ho truly says, this country is largely interested. The northern railways may be conveniently dealt within two parts. There are those lines which are within the Great Wall and those which are without it. With regard to the extra-mural part of the northern railways, and in regard to the town of Niu-chwang, the importance of which the noble Lord certainly did not overrate, we have to consider how matters stand in consequence of that convention between Russia and China to which the noble Earl referred, and which was signed in April of the present year. Under that convention Russia undertakes the restoration of the province of Manchuria to the Chinese Government, that it shall remain an integral part of the Chinese Empire, and that the Chinese authorities are to exercise within the province the powers of administration which they possessed before it was occupied by the Russian troops. That is qualified by an intimation that the evacuation of Manchuria is to take place by three successive instalments. In the first six months after the signature of the convention, the Russian troops are to evacuate the south-west part of the province of Mukden, and they are to restore the railways within that part of the province to the Chinese Government. In the following six months the Russian troops are to retire from the remaining part of Mukden and the province of Kirin. The remainder of the withdrawals are to take place in the third period of six months. We gather from that that the extra-mural line will be surrendered by the Russian authorities within the first six months, which I presume will run from the month of April this year, and that the city of Neuchwang will probably be restored to the Chinese in the second period, although I may perhaps add that from intimations which have been made by the Russian Government, we infer that they will be disposed to restore Neuchwang at the same time as he city of Tientsint is restored to the Chinese Government.
    652
    The intra-mural portion of the railways, your Lordships will recollect, was handed over by the Russians to the Germans and by the Germans to us, and it is at this moment in our occupation; but we have never desired to retain it a day longer than was necessary, and we are at this moment fully prepared to hand it over to the Chinese Railway Administration. But in common prudence we must before we do so be satisfied that sufficient arrangements are made and sufficient precautions taken to safeguard the large British financial interests in the line, and also to secure it as a means of communication between Peking and the sea. It seems to us absolutely necessary that for that purpose some arrangements should be made for establishing contact between the military authorities and the authorities who have the management of the railway. I am able to say that some time ago agreements were signed between representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Chinese authorities which seemed to us to provide adequately for the precautions the necessity of which I have indicated. A difficulty has arisen at the last moment, not between us and the Chinese, but between the Chinese and another Power; and that has for the moment prevented the completion of the transaction. Until these difficulties are removed we are obliged to remain in military occupation of the line. But I am glad to be able to add that, so far as I can foresee, those difficulties are not likely to prove of a very serious character, and we may look forward to being able at an early date to replace the line in the hands of the Chinese.
    Then the noble Earl questioned me with regard to Tientsin; and again in relation to Tientsin I have to say that it has for a long time past been our earnest desire that the provisional Government established there should be brought to an end, and the Government of the city again placed in the hands of the Chinese. But in this case also it was necessary for us to make some preliminary arrangements. Your Lordships well recollect the important strategical position which Tientsin occupies between Peking and the sea-board, and your Lordships also remember that it was part of the arrangement arrived at: with the other Powers that a military

    653
    garrison should, for some time at all events, be left at Tientsin. The question of these precautionary arrangements was therefore primarily a military question, and as such we referred it to the commanding officers of the international contingents. These military authorities presented us with a scheme, of which I desire to speak with the utmost respect, but of which I have to say that it seemed to us rather too military in character arid to have not quite sufficient regard for political as distinguished from purely military considerations. At any rate, we have given instructions for the revision of the scheme; and I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that it has been redrafted, that it has been considerably modified in directions favourable to the Chinese, and that the modified version has been accepted by the other four Powers interested in the provisional Government. We have, moreover, every reason to believe that it will be accepted by China also. I ought to say that the original scheme contained stipulations that Chinese troops should be excluded from a very large area indeed in the neighbourhood of Tientsin, an area which we thought unreasonably large, and that the new scheme provides that the area of exclusion shall be about one-twentieth of the size of the original area. We have also obtained the elimination of a Clause under which it was to be a part of the contract that the Powers were to insist on the carrying out of certain concessions which, it appears, had been promised by the provisional Government, and which it seemed to us it was scarcely necessary to insist upon in an arrangement of this kind. We hope that under this new arrangement the city of Teintsin may be restored to the Chinese authorities in three or four weeks.
    The noble Earl spoke of another matter concerning the city of Tientsin— I mean the dispute which arose there last year with regard to certain plots of land within the Russian concession in which British interests were involved. The noble Earl is quite correct. We have always held that this was a dispute which could be properly settled only by arbitration. The Russian Government has agreed to that. Each
    654
    side has appointed its own representative; they have accepted an arbitrator and the terms of reference, which seen to me eminently reasonable and with which I need not trouble the House have been agreed upon. It was expected that the first sitting of the tribunal would lake place in the early days of the present month.
    The noble Earl asks a question will regard to the present position of Russia in reference to Manchuria. I have already touched to some extent upon that point. All that I need add is that the Convention which I have quoted ha; been published, and we have every hope that it may be given effect to in due time. So far as we can see, the provisions which it contains are not of an unreason able kind or more extreme than might naturally be resorted to for the purpose of preventing a recrudescence of the terrible disorders which at one time prevailed in the province.
    Then the noble Earl called attention to the question of the Chinese indemnity. That is a matter which has given us not a little anxiety. I may say that the first instalment of the indemnity has already been paid, and we have thought it right to earmark our share of it for the purpose of satisfying the claims of those unfortunate persons who lost relatives during the late disorders, and also to settle the claims of the smaller claimants, who presumably stand in greater need of receiving the money; and, in order to give priority to these claims, we agreed to postpone for the present the claims of the Government. The noble Earl called attention to the effect produced upon the Chinese liability by the recent heavy fall in exchange. The sum total of the indemnity was, as your Lordships recollect, expressed in taels, but it was clearly laid down in the Protocol of 1901 that it was to be a gold debt. The idea of the Powers was that, if any one was to run a risk on account of the possibility of a fall in exchange, that risk should fall upon China, and not upon the Powers. Since that time the gold value of the tael has fallen from about 3s. to something a little over half-a-crown, and I need scarcely point out what a serious addition that involves to the indebtedness of China. I do not think I should be

    655
    far wrong if I said that it moans an addition of something like ninety millions of taels to the total amount of the obligations which China has incurred.
    My Lords, our feeling towards the Chinese, although we have been justly indignant at their conduct, has never been one of vindictiveness, and we have never sought to punish them for their misdoings by imposing on them a sacrifice so heavy that the country would be unable to bear it. In these circumstances we have thought it proper to propose to the other Powers that we should agree to some mitigation of our demands on the Chinese Government. The form which we proposed that this mitigation should take was this—that we should agree to accept during the first eight years a sum in taels not greater than that which would have been due to us had the tael remained at the gold value at which it stood at the time of the Protocol. I gather that our proposal did not, when it was first put before the other Powers, receive much encouragement. I believe, however, that we stand by no means alone in the desire to give the Chinese Government some relief of this kind. There may be a difference as to the most proper way of affording such relief, but the object which several of the Powers, and notably the United States, have in view is, I believe, the same. I hope your Lordships will not differ from me when I say that the case is one in which it seems to me we ought to strain every effort to act with the other Powers, and for this reason. In the first place the relief to China will obviously be very much greater if it is afforded not by one or two Powers but by the whole of the Powers concerned. Again, it would certainly not be fair that we should bear the burden of this sacrifice and that no share should be taken by any one else. In this as in other cases I hold strongly that we should, not each of us to play for our own hand, but that we should, by the frankest and most confidential exchange of ideas, endeavour to arrive at a common policy and a common mode of giving effect to it.
    The noble Earl referred to the position of affairs as affecting this country and other countries at Shanghai. He asked me whether we had encountered any difficulties at that place with other Powers. I am not aware of any such
    656
    difficulties. There are at present four Powers represented at Shanghai. We have a small force there, and the Germans, the French, and the Japanese have each one, but I have not heard of any friction of the kind to which the noble Earl refers. The mention of Shanghai leads me, however, to refer—indeed, I could hardly avoid doing so—to a matter in which Shanghai figures largely. I mean the negotiations which are now proceeding there under the guidance of Sir James Mackay. Your Lordships will remember that under the 11th Article of the Protocol it is provided that China should make certain arrangements for the facilitation of commerce between herself and other Powers, and for some time past Sir James Mackay has been endeavouring to arrive at an understanding with the Chinese Government upon this most important subject. He has had a task of enormous difficulty; he has had to deal with an immense number of very complex points; he has had to be constantly vigilant for fear that any concession which he might make might prejudicially affect the commercial interests of this country; and I am afraid that his difficulties have been aggravated not a little by the dilatory methods which we know are not unusual in Chinese diplomacy. I am glad to say, however, that Sir James Mackay has been able to report a very considerable amount of progress. He has, moreover, lately taken what I must say appears to me a most judicious and commendable step; he has gone with the Chinese Commissioner Sheng to Plan-kau, and he has been in direct personal consultation with the two Viceroys there. The result of the negotiations has already been hopeful.
    Sir James has reported in the last few days that he has been able to arrive at an agreement upon Clauses relating to the following subjects:—The protection of trade marks, the extension of the system of bonded warehouses, the improvement of the Canton and Yang-tsze River approaches—a very important matter—the equalisation of the duties upon goods carried in junks and those carried upon steamers—the discrimination between which had operated very adversely upon our trade—the speedier issue of drawback certificates, and

    657
    the recognition of the obligations of Chinese shareholders in British companies. What used to happen was that Chinese investors took shares in British companies, and then, when calls were made upon them, absolutely ignored the intimation they received, the state of the Chinese law being such that it was impossible to obtain redress before the Chinese tribunals. This was a point which the commercial community felt most deeply. In addition to that, Sir James Mackay has arrived at a general agreement with regard to a Clause for the establishment of a national currency which would be the only legal tender for the payment of taxes and duties. Those of your Lordships who have any idea of the present condition of the Chinese coinage, which, I believe, consists in great part of uncoined masses of silver of different size and different fineness, will be able to appreciate how greatly the interests of the country are likely to be advanced if its coinage is placed on a more satisfactory basis. Besides that there is a satisfactory Clause with regard to mining regulations on the model of the Indian mining regulations.
    Of course, what overshadows all other points in regard to these commercial matters is the question of likin. We had always hoped that we should be able to remove the great part, at all events, of the abuses which surround the likin system, and your Lordships may recollect that during the Pekin negotiations we absolutely refused to agree to any enhancement of the Customs tariff except upon the condition that these abuses should be, to some extent at all events, mitigated. We have had many schemes proposed to us, and we have found great difficulty in discovering anything that promised to be capable of satisfactory application. We have always been face to face with these two difficulties—in the first place, if we agreed to an increase of the Customs duties as a consideration for the reform of the likin, are we perfectly certain that we should not have to submit to the sacrifice and yet find that the old abuses in some insidious shape or another still survived? That is one point. The other is this—that the provincial authorities in China, who play such a large part in their political system, depend upon the income derived
    658
    from these internal duties for the financial resources of their provinces; and we have to be extremely careful that we do not bring about some arrangement under which the provincial governors would find themselves absolutely denuded of their source of income.
    Within the last few hours, I may say, I have received from Sir James Mackay a proposal which we have not yet had time to examine with the care it demands, but which at first sight seems to us to promise a basis for an arrangement which shall not be open to the objections I have indicated, and which may be the means of giving a very much extended scope and greater facilities to our commerce in the Far East. I need not say that we shall make it our business before we accept a scheme of the kind to consult the best commercial authorities available.
    The noble Earl animadverted upon what ho described as the failure of the Government to maintain a continuous policy in dealing with Chinese affairs. I do not know that we are open to that charge, and I think I can describe in a few words what I believe has been our policy, and what seems to me should be our policy, in dealing with China. I think we ought to avoid any measures tending towards the partition of the Chinese Empire. I think we ought to avoid any steps tending to place her Government in the tutelage of any foreign Power. I think we should spare no pains to obtain the utmost freedom for our commerce and for the commerce of the world in the Chinese Empire. And I think we should endeavour to do these things so far as possible in close concert with other Powers interested in the Far East.
    The noble Earl has called attention to a statement made by my noble friend, Lord Cranborne, in another place in regard to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Let me, before I go on, thank the noble Earl for the words of approval with regard to that alliance which fell from him. The expression to which the noble Earl referred was used by my noble friend in the course of a long debate, during which he replied to a great number of criticisms of very various kinds. Among those criticisms two have been conspicuous. It has been

    659
    suggested that we were in a position of such dangerous isolation that we were obligel to sue for alliances, and that we went to Japan and asked for such an alliance. The other suggestion was that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was a very good thing in its way, but that we should have had it long ago, and that we might have had it for the asking. Now, Lord Cranborne's speech was directed to those suggestions. He insisted very distinctly, in the first place, that we had not been suppliants for the Japanese or any other alliance, and in the next place, that when there is any question of an alliance between two Powers dealing on equal terms, it is not open to one of the Powers to go to the other and ask at any moment for an alliance, but that there must be negotiations, and that the appropriate moment for concluding a contract of the kind is when both Powers have compared their views and ascertained what interests are common to them, and are both ready to embody those interests in a pact of a binding character. Those sentiments, may be discovered in the speech my noble friend delivered in the House of Commons and in the statements I have made to your Lordships here, and we do not recede from them, If there was any ambiguity in his words, that ambiguity was removed by an answer given on the following day by the present Prime Minister, who explained that nothing was further from our thoughts than to suggest that the Anglo-Japanese Agreement was not made on terms of absolute equality between the two Powers concerned. The noble Earl seems to be under the impression that my noble friend's statement occasioned great perturbation in Japan. I am rather inclined to think it created more perturbation in this country than in Japan.
    EARL SPENCER: I was quoting from a paragraph, dated July 9, telegraphed from Japan to a leading journal.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Since the noble Earl put this Question on the Paper I have made inquiries, and am quite satisfied that, if any uneasiness was occasioned by the very
    660
    condensed reports which, no doubt, were telegraphed from this country to Japan, that uneasiness has been completely dispelled.
    It remains for me to say a few words in regard to the question as to the relations between this country and Italy in the Mediterranean. I could answer the noble Earl's Question almost in a single sentence by saying that I believe those relations to be of the most cordial and friendly character. I have heard it said that this country, if it has gained an alliance with Japan, has, either by its own remissness, or owing to the machinations of other Powers, lost an alliance with Italy. My Lords, I am bound to state to your Lordships that there never was, as far as I am aware, an alliance between this country and Italy of the same character as the alliance which now exists between this country and Japan. It is quite true that in 1887 there was an. exchange of views between the Governments of the two countries— an exchange of views which established the fact that those views on the question of Mediterranean policy were identical, or, at any rate, closely resembled one another. Both countries desired the maintenance of the status quo in the Mediterranean and the adjoining seas. Both of us desired that there should be no encroachment upon the independence of the territories on the Mediterranean seaboard, and both of us desired that our diplomacy should be directed, to those objects, and that, should the occasion arise, we might be found co-operating for the purpose of maintaining those interests. But that expression of policy was certainly not embodied in any treaty or communicated to Parliament as the Anglo-Japanese Agreement was. Its value lay not in the engagements assumed, but in the fact that it contained a re-affirmation of our traditional friendship with Italy and a re-affirmation of the common policy of the two countries. My Lords, from that declaration of policy we, at any rate, have never receded. We are ready today to re-affirm, the same principles—to re-affirm our friendship for Italy, our desire that the status quo in the Mediterranean shall not be disturbed, and

    661
    our hope that, should it ever be disturbed, we may find ourselves acting in co-operation with Italy.
    But what seems to me more important than any diplomatic documents of the kind described is the actual condition of our relations with the Italian Government. I say that I am not able to discern any single point at which our relations with Italy as matters now stand are likely to be affected. We had, it is true, a short time go one or two, I will not say differences, but one or two matters which required a certain diplomatic adjustment. There was the use of the Italian language in Malta. That has been satisfactorily disposed of. Then we had a question of boundaries where the British, Italian, and Abyssinian frontiers meet. That is a difficulty which, I think, was due more to our ignorance of the geographical features of the country concerned than to any other cause. It is a remote region, and consequently we found that there was a conflict of evidence as to the precise position of particular localities; but that question has also been satisfactorily disposed of. Finally—and perhaps this is the most serious matter of the three— there was the question of Tripoli. In 1899 my predecessor came to an agreement with the French Government under which a line which was to run in a southeasterly direction below Tripoli was laid down as the division between the French and British spheres of influence. I dwell upon the fact that the line then laid down was not a line of partition. It did not imply that we on one side and the French on the other claimed as our own the territory to the east and west of the line. What it did imply, and what we accepted, was that this line was one which in no circumstances either we or France should pass over, either eastward or westward as the case might be. Undoubtedly, the effect of this agreement was to create some misgivings in the minds of the Italian Government. They thought that they detected in it an intention on our part to disturb the status quo on the littoral of the Mediterranean. We have had explanations with them on this point, and they have also had explanations with the French Government. Both the French and the British
    662
    Governments have been able to give I them assurances which have been entirely satisfactory to them, assurances to the effect that the acceptance of the line in question did not indicate any aggressive tendencies in the direction of the shores of the Mediterranean.
    I may say that in giving such an I assurance on the part of His Majesty's Government we were careful to add that what we most desired was that there should be no departure from our well-known conventional obligations, among which stands in the first rank the desire that the existing condition of things in the Mediterranean should not be disturbed. That assurance was readily accepted by the Italian Government. If I wanted further evidence to show that our relations at this moment are certainly of a friendly character, I would refer to the fact that we are now receiving support from the Italian Government in the somewhat difficult operations which are ! proceeding at this moment on the Somali-land coast. An Italian officer accompanies the British force, and Italian ships of war are endeavouring to put a stop to the nefarious traffic in arms which prevails so much in these waters ! and which so greatly adds to our difficulties. I wish, in conclusion, to express my concurrence with what was said by the noble Earl with regard to the recent understanding which has been arrived at between Italy and France. I feel with him that that is not a matter which need occasion us any misgiving. It has been represented sometimes as an aggravation of our misfortunes that we have driven Italy into the arms of France. I refuse altogether to admit the correctness of that description. On the contrary, I say that we regard it as perfectly natural that Italy should desire to stand well with her powerful neighbour. We regard it as natural, considering her geographical position and her commercial requirements, that she should wish to be on terms of friendship with her French neighbour; and as for us, desiring, as we do, that she should prosper and that her international position should be as secure as possible, we should be the last to complain if by means of such an arrangement as she has arrived at she has improved and strengthened that international position. I shall sum up with

    663
    regard to Italy by saying that there is no Power with which we desire to be on more cordial and friendly terms; and, so far as I am aware, there is 110 Power with which we are on more cordial and friendly terms than we are with Italy at the present moment.
    House adjourned at ten minutes past Six o'clock to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.