I desire on this Motion to raise an urgent and important question. This Motion, I may point out, is only necessary because of the exceptional circumstances under which we are met. When Committee of Supply and of Ways and Means is open, the House under Standing Order 18 adjourns automatically from Friday to Monday, but it not being now open, standing Order 18 does not apply, and we come back under the old Rule which enables Members to call attention on the Motion for adjournment to any matters they deem of importance or urgency. I am not, however, going to detain the House at any length. The matter to which I wish to call attention—

Order, order! I am not aware of any Rule under which the Motion for adjournment from Friday to Monday may be made the subject of discussion. It is not like a Motion for adjournment over Easter or Whitsuntide, or any unusual period. But this is quite an ordinary proceeding.

I should like to point out, Sir, that Sir Erskine May, in his own last edition, dealing with the Standing Order of 1861, says—

"Considerable laxity has prevailed in allowing irrelevant speeches upon questions of adjournment, which are regarded as exceptions to the general rule. In 1849 the Speaker endeavoured to enforce a stricter practice, and called upon Members to confine their observations upon such Motion to the question properly before the House—viz., whether the House should adjourn or not. But the House has not since acquiesced in any limitation of the supposed privilege of Members to speak upon every subject but that of the colourable question of adjournment. In moving an adjournment, however, during a debate upon any Question, a Member must confine his remarks to that Question. Until the discontinuance of the weekly question of adjournment from Friday till Monday, in 1861, an inconvenient latitude of discussion was also permitted. Nor did the House deprive Members of this opportunity of raising general debates, without an equivalent; but required the Committee of Supply to be the first Order of the Day on Friday, when there is the like freedom of discussion."

Will you allow me to say that, in addition to the Standing Order which I have read, there was Standing Order 11, now repealed, which was as follows:—

"That, while the Committees of Supply, and Ways and Means are open, the first Order of the Day on Friday shall be either Supply, or Ways and Means, and that on that Order being read, the Question shall be proposed, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.'"

I submit as a point of order that while during continuance of order that while during continuance of the Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, the House is, under Standing Order 18, automatically adjourned from Friday to Monday, yet, when, as now, Committee of Supply is not open, we are still under the old Orders of the House and under the old practice, which there is nothing to impair or affect. That being so, I submit that I am within my rights in calling attention to a matter of importance on this Motion.

On the point of Order, may I suggest that the power of raising debate on the Motion is similar to that of calling attention to questions on the Motion for adjournment at the conclusion of the day's sitting? We often do that.

My impression was that this was an obsolete practice. But I am very anxious not to interpose where any doubt can exist with regard to any opportunity of debate which may belong to the House, and therefore I will call on the hon. Member.

I think the House will agree that this which I am about shortly to raise is an extremely important subject and precisely one of those matters which show the extreme value of the privilege that has fortunately been retained by the House. I sent word this morning to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs of my intention to raise a question on this Motion at noon, and I had hoped that he would be in his place to hear what I had to say, because it mainly concerns his Department. This is my point. Ten days ago the House approved of the policy of the Sugar Convention, and practically gave power to the Government to ratify the Convention. Since then new facts of the most alarming and unexpected nature have been revealed, as is indeed avowed by His Majesty's Government. These facts, I submit, ought to cause the Government to reconsider their position; and it behoves them to dispose finally of all the grave doubts that have undoubtedly arisen in regard to the Convention, before ratifying it. It is admitted, first of all, that the translation is incorrect. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has had to admit to the House, for the first time in the history of the Foreign Office, that a Wrong translation has been issued. I submit that this alone should cause the Government to pause before they ratify the Convention. Now, the binding text of the Convention is in French, and, therefore, whether the translation is good or bad, we are bound by that text. The noble Lord has had to admit that in a most important Article of the Convention —the Article which concerns its duration, and the method of putting an end to it—the translation is incorrect. It is to be regretted that there does not seem to be any one at the Foreign Office who knows either French or English; for I could show that in many other respects the translation is incorrect. I have reason to believe, however, that mistranslation is not so much the fault of the Foreign Office as it is the fault of the Treasury, which refuses to supply experts for these translations. But the effect is that the House has decided the question on a false translation and an incorrect statement of the facts before it. But there are two other points far more important even than that. Doubts have arisen since the debate as to the effect of the Sugar Convention on other treaties containing the most - favoured - nation Clause. The noble Lord told me the day before yesterday with regard to Russia that the affair had been settled in l899, that the question was raised by Russia, and that we had then taken up the position that in our view such a Convention as this was not affected by, and did not affect, the most - favoured-nation Clause. He also said that Russia had made no reply to our representation, and it followed, consequently, that we retained our opinion and Russia hers. But yesterday the noble Lord told the House an entirely different story. He said, in reply to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh, that Russia had protested that this Sugar Convention was a violation of the treaty of 1859 with her. When did she protest? She had not done so on Tuesday, because the noble Lord did not mention it in reply to my Question.

I never denied it.

Really, that is too bad.

But you suppressed it.

I was never asked the question.

I am not anxious to detain the House, but if the noble Lord persists in his denial I must quote his words. I asked the noble Lord—

"Whether, in view of Article II. of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation with Russia, of 12-th January, 1859, which binds this country not to place other or higher duties on any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of Russian dominions than on those of any other foreign country, and not to prohibit the importation of any such articles, and of Article X., which binds this country to grant to Russian subjects every privilege, favour, and immunity granted to subjects of any other Power, it is the intention of His Maesty's Government to give notice of the expiration of that treaty in order to place itself in a position to carry out the Sugar Convention, Brussels; and whether, in view of Article XXII. of the Treaty of 1859, which stipulates that the treaty shall remain in force until 12 months after either party thereto shall have given notice to the other to terminate the same, such notice has already been given by His Majesty's Government; and, if not, how His Majesty's Government propose to place themselves in a position to give effect to the Sugar Convention as therein stipulated on 1st September, 1903."

In reply the noble Lord said:—

"The Russian Government were informed in 1899, when the Government of India had imposed countervailing duties against sugar imported from Russia, that this was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and that if the Russian Government were unable to agree in this view Her Majesty's Government were prepared to denounce the Treaty of Commerce of 1859. No reply was made to this communication."

I am sure the noble Lord-intended to be candid, but was it a full statement in reply not to state the fact that though there was no reply to the communication of 1899 there nevertheless had been the statement quite recently on the part of Russia that this Convention was an infringement of the most-favoured-nation Clause in the very treaty of 1859 to which he had been referring? It was not until yesterday that this information was given to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh. It is, therefore, a new fact which has transpired since the debate on this Sugar Convention, that Russia not only declares that the Convention is an infringement of her treaty, but it is so important that she actually proposes that we should go to arbitration upon it. But it is not a case merely of Russia; there are other nations, not parties to the Convention, with whom we have a most-favoured-nation Clause. If it is true of Russia it is also true of all these other treaties as well; and it is clear, therefore, that most serious doubts hang over the effect of the treaty in this respect. On referring to the procès-verbaux, I find that even before signing the Convention the Government were aware that doubt hung over the question. On January 23, 1902, Mr. Phipps, the delegate for Great Britain, declared that the British delegates could not definitively adhere to Article IV., which imposes the obligation of countervailing duties without an understanding being established as to its application to this most-favoured-nation Clause. But, notwithstanding that declaration, when the delegates came to Art. IV., although they raised other questions upon it, they did not raise this question again; they signed the Convention on 5th March without any such understanding being arrived at, and recorded in the procès-verbaux. That is not all. To the two points of serious doubt and question already mentioned, I have to add a third, even more serious. The Finance Minister of Holland declared two days ago that in his view—and, if I may say so, it is my own opinion also—the Convention does oblige Great Britain to put countervailing duties, not only on sugars, but on all sugar products, such as biscuits containing sugar; it does oblige great Britain to put a countervailing duty on these products when coming from any one of our self-governing Colonies—I am not speaking of our Crown Colonies—which gives in any way a bounty on the manufacture or export of sugar or sugared products. Yesterday the noble Lord admitted to me in answer to a Question that it is not Holland alone that takes that view, but that it is also held in other quarters. Other Powers have declared the same thing, according to the avowal of the noble Lord. We, however, flatly deny this and take the contrary view, and he admits that a correspondence on this disagreement is proceeding; but he does not say with what Powers. I ask, therefore, with whom is the correspondence going on, and with how many Powers? I am quite certain from what is in the procès-verbaux that Belgium, and I think probably Germany also, holds the same view. But since this is the case, are we to proceed with the ratification of a Convention of this kind, on which there is so much disagreement and which is so vital to us and to our Colonies? It would be absurd to do so; no man fit to be out of Bedlam would ratify such an agreement if he were told before doing so that the other signatories were in entire disagreement with him. It is quite clear that there is a complete disagreement as to the meaning of a most important article between some of the signatories to the Convention. Will the noble Lord lay the correspondence on the Table of the House? Will the Government undertake to arrive at an agreement before it ratifies the Convention? Will it find out whether there is an obligation to impose countervailing duties upon sugar coming from our Colonies? Queensland gives a bounty; Ontario also gives a bounty by lending capital for the building of refineries at five per cent, interest. It may be said that that is only a temporary arrangement, but still it maybe renewed. Any Colony may give a bounty in the future, and this Convention is made for the future. These facts must be borne in mind. Ten days ago the House was induced to pass a Resolution approving the Convention, and to pass it after a debate which was almost entirely monopolised by the Government and those of its supporters who are capable of making long speeches, and which debate was then ruthlessly closured without hearing many who had claims to speak to it. But in view of the new facts, the doubts and disagreement that have since transpired—it would, be monstrous to ignore the gravity of the position or to proceed to ratify a Convention as to the effect of which both signatory and non-signatory Powers wholly disagree with us. I therefore ask the Government to give an undertaking that before the Convention is ratified on the 1st February next they will resolve all the doubts which have arisen concerning it, and that until agreement is reached on them they will abstain from ratification. Unless I get an assurance to that effect, I shall feel I ought to vote against this Motion.

I consider that the course taken by the hon. Gentleman is one not only absolutely without precedent, but one most improper to be taken on such an occasion. Let me remind the House what precisely is the opportunity which the hon. Gentleman has selected for raising those delicate international questions. The House is perhaps aware that among the obsolete survivals in the Rules, which in face of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman I have been attempting to amend, there is one which lays down that when Supply is set up the House shall adjourn from Friday till Monday without Question put. That means that for the greater part of every session the adjournment till Monday is automatic, but during the debate on the King's Speech and in an Autumn Session when Supply is not set up, the Motion comes on; but in the whole of my Parliamentary experience it has invariably been treated as an absolutely formal Motion. The hon. Gentleman did not even give notice.

I could not give notice, because some of the facts to which I have referred did not transpire till last night.

I am not discussing objections to the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken, although I think that is open to the gravest an animadversion. I think he might have sent notice to my noble friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs or to the President of the Board of Trade.

That is exactly what I did. I sent notice to the noble Lord this morning as soon as I was able to do so.

At what time?

This morning.

But that is not the gravamen of my complaint against the hon. Gentleman. The complaint I make is that he has chosen to use this survival in our Standing Orders to raise a subject of debate, absolutely, as far as I know, without precedent.

We often make precedents.

Precedents should not be made in this way. Nothing can be worse than that it should be in the power of any hon. Member to interrupt the ordinary business of this House by raising, on a purely formal Motion, a Motion which has been regarded as formal for at least a generation, a debate on any subject, however important, however difficult, and however delicate.

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that we have this privilege every night on the Motion to adjourn.

There is no analogy between the two cases. I certainly should suggest to my hon. friends, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade, that they should not lend themselves to this most unfortunate proceeding by taking any part in the debate which the hon. Gentleman has initiated.

If the admonition or expostulation of the First Lord is addressed to anybody, I am afraid it is to Mr. Speaker, because he has ruled that this is a perfectly proper opportunity for the hon. Member to seek the information he desires to have. I agree with my hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark that this is absolutely analogous to the daily Motion that this House do now adjourn. It would, of course, be absurd if on frequent occasions that Motion were used, but it is sometimes used for the purpose of extracting information from the Government. The Sugar Convention is a most urgent matter, and one of very great importance to this country, not only within, the narrow limits of the immediate matters with which it deals, but in its effect on the general policy and international position of this country. There has been only one night's discussion on the Sugar Convention, which was terminated by the Closure, and since then—to show that there was no great pressure—there has been an Evening Sitting when the Government had nothing to do, and did not occupy the time at all. I said at the time that one night was not sufficient for debating this great subject, and since then many new points have been exposed by the assiduity of the hon. Member for King's Lynn—points which throw fresh light on the matter. Here is a case where the Government is rattling through business in order to wind up this unusual and protracted session, but this great question of the ratification of the Convention is before us, and we have got to know whether the House of Commons has really given a substantial and final approval to that instrument in the light of all the facts that have come up. The hon. Member takes the opportunity of bringing certain new facts before the House; it is not a chose jugee, because we are in a position to take any line we choose upon it, and I am not at all surprised, seeing the gravity of the interests involved, that the hon. Member should have taken this opportunity, which the forms of the House permit, to call attention to the matter. The right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid because it is open to his colleagues to say that they have not had sufficient warning. They can promise a reply later on to the question put by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to raise the question, and if there is substance in his point—that I cannot say, because I was not present when he raised them—but if there is substance in them he has done a public service in bringing them before the Government and the country.

I confess that I am unable to follow the Leader of the House in the censure he has passed on the hon. Member for King's Lynn. In my humble judgment my hon. friend deserves the thanks of the House and of the country. I say, with some knowledge of Parliamentary procedure, that I never heard such a doctrine laid down as that, on a Motion for Adjournment, it is not competent for a Member to raise a question if he thinks fit. It is notorious that in the debate on the Sugar Convention a large number of hon. Members who desired to take part were arbitrarily precluded by the Closure. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman closure the House, but he closured his colleagues.

Order, order! The question of the Closure cannot be discussed.

I beg pardon. But the point apparently needs no further comment. I apologise, however, for having to that extent infringed the Rules of the House. I think, Sir, that I am entitled to complain that a great and important international question has been hurried through the House of Commons, and will, in the natural course of events, be settled finally, without the House having a reasonable opportunity of discussing it. I strongly feel that the few old forms of the House remaining ought not to be abandoned, and that my hon. friend was perfectly right in availing himself of the privilege which every. Member possesses of drawing attention to the matter. As to the merits of the question itself I admit that I do not approach it from the same point of view as my hon. friend. I think there is one extremely objectionable feature of it, and that is that it ties the hands of this country behind its back, and prevents it from dealing as it thinks fit with its trading and commercial arrangements throughout the entire Empire.

Order, order! On this Motion for Adjournment the range of debate is limited, and the right hon. Gentleman will not be in order in re-discussing the question which was debated and decided by the House when it approved the Convention. The hon. Member for King's Lynn has called attention to certain matters which have occurred since that debate took place. He spoke of them as "new" and "urgent" matters. On that point I utter no opinion. But the right hon. Gentleman is treating now of matters which might have been discussed by him in the debate had he had an opportunity of speaking. He must confine himself to something new and not now attempt to re-discuss matters which were then debated and decided.

It is not a question of my repeating my speech, since I had no opportunity of laying my views before the House when the debate took place. I must apologise for not having made it sufficiently clear that it was the fresh information which has oozed out, since the hurried debate the other night, that necessitated, in my judgment, my hon. friend calling attention to this subject. It was the revelation as to the alleged disagreement on an essential point among the high contracting parties to this Convention, information which has reached this House since it parted with the subject last week, which justified the action my hon. friend has taken, and I think we have a perfect right to protest against the doctrine which has been laid down by the Prime Minister. I am glad my hon. friend has raised this question, and, for so doing, I think he deserves the thanks of the House and of the country.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us another opportunity, before the session closes, of discussing this question—of course before the ratification of the Convention? If so, I am sure that the House will agree with me in thinking that this inconvenient Motion need not be persisted in any longer.

It is not my Motion; it is that of the Government.

I wish to call attention to a new fact, which seems even graver than those referred to by the hon. Member. He has told ns that in the Dutch Parliament the Finance Minister threatened us that we would be compelled to impose countervailing duties on sugar coming from our Colonies. But something else took place in the Dutch Parliament, for, immediately after that statement was made, the treaty was accepted and ratified by a unanimous vote. What is the meaning of that? The meaning is that we have not only to impose countervailing duties against our Colonies, but we are agreeing to give preferential treatment to foreign nations. Other countries see the advantage of this, although apparently our Government do not realise it. Continental nations realise the great advantage they are going to get from this convention. They see that the sugar tax provided under Clause 3 gives them preferential treatment in this country—it gives their manufacturers' products a preference. This is a matter of the greatest gravity to manufacturers in this country, who see that their great enterprises here are likely to be ruined. They come to me and to other Members. [Cries of "Order."] Well, I have been studying this subject for seven years, and I did not have an opportunity of saying a single word upon it in the debate. Nothing qualifies a man more to take part in a debate than the fact that he has devoted years of his life to the study of the particular question under discussion. I appeal to the Prime Minister if he will not reconsider the situation and give us some moderate opportunity, before the session closes, of calling attention to these new facts.

in the Chair.

said that in moving the omission of line 11, he should explain that the effect would be to deprive Walthamstow of its separate representation. He had, however, a consequential Amendment which would add that urban district to the group of other Essex urban districts which was given one representative on the Board. Something must be done with regard to Essex before they passed away from that part of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had already promised to re-consider the position in regard to the outside districts. Some reduction of the representation proposed to be given to them could not be resisted. The Committee on the previous day decided that London was only to have forty-one representatives on a Board of sixty-eight members. It had been stated that the representation was based on two grounds—population and ratable value. On the basis of population London would be entitled to 75 per cent. of the representation of the whole Board, or, in other words, to fifty-two of the seats. As a matter of fact, however, only forty-one of the seats had been so allotted. Then on the basis of ratable value, London would be entitled to fifty-six of the seats, so that, whichever of the tests laid down by the Government was relied upon, London had been given a number of seats far short of that to which it was entitled. Now the only way that remained to correct the disproportion in the representation of London was to reduce the representation of the outside areas. To these twenty-seven members were allotted, although on the basis of population, they were only entitled to eighteen, and on the basis of rateable value to fifteen. It was absolutely necessary therefore that some change should be made. It might be suggested that his proposal would make the urban districts some-what unwieldy in size. But he would like to point out that in London the districts had populations ranging from 50,000 to 340,000, and they only had one representative each. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, for Essex could well spare one of its seven representatives.

said he thought the hon. Gentleman was trying to do what he desired to do in a wrong way. As he understood him, his wish was that the number of members given to outside London should be reduced, and a proprotionate number be added to the representation of inner London. Surely he could secure that end by some better plan than that proposed in this Amendment. It appeared to him that if this proposal were carried it would only make matters worse. If Walthamstow were dealt with in this manner, it would seem to be very unfair, seeing that it had already been decided that East Ham and Leyton, with populations of respectively 96,000 and 98,000, should each have one representative. Walthamstow had a population of 95,000, and the Committee would see at a glance that it would be most unjust to deal with it in special manner simply because it was desired to reduce the representation of outer London. This basis of representation which had been adopted in the constitution of the Water Board was the result, to a large extent, of a compromise between the various localities interested. He might have failed to secure a satisfactory arrangement, but at any rate it had not been from any want of trying. He sought to obtain the views of everybody concerned, from the Water Committee of the London County Council down to the representative of the smallest urban and rural areas. His object had been to find out what would satisfy them. He had tried to constitute a Board which would command their confidence, and his whole work would be undone if the Committee were now to make a change in the particular part of the scheme under debate. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would realise that, however good his object might be, he had adopted a very bad wav of attaining it.

thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that they were now dealing with a small matter of purely administrative detail, which need arouse no Party feeling. They were endeavouring to arrive at an adjustment as between inner and outer London. He was perfectly ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman could deal with it in far better manner than any private individual Member, because he had all the necessary sources of information at his command. No one would deny that he had devoted a large amount of time and energy to the carrying out of the idea; with which he started. But then they did not accept his ideal, and they had always occupied that position. What the hon. Member for West Islington was trying to do by his Amendment was to suggest some change whereby the representation of inside and outside London should be made more proportionate to population and rateable value. No doubt the change proposed was not altogether satisfactory. But could not the right hon. Gentleman, who had himself suggested that the necessary alteration might be brought about in some better way, give them an idea of what the better plan was? Let him take this matter into his consideration as part of the scheme which, in the course of the previous day, he had promised to review. All they wanted was to get some reduction in the representation of the bodies outer of London, and they would be only too glad to hear what suggestion the right hon. Gentleman had to make on the point.

, said he hoped the Committee would not listen to any proposal to deprive Walthamstow of its representation on the Board. Ho would like to remind hon Members that the East London Water Works in the parish of Walthamstow covered 431 out of the 4,350 acres of which it was constituted. Again, the rateable value of that property was, £22,600 out of a total rateable value of £348,000. He thought it would be excessively wrong, under these circumstances, to decline to give Walthamstow direct representation on the Water Board.

pointed out that the balance of representation laid down in the Government scheme had already been upset, by reducing the number of representatives of inner London by five, it was therefore, essential that they should revise the scheme for outer London. He confessed he was at some loss to understand the grounds on which the right hon. Gentleman had based his scheme of representation. But it having been entirely revolutionised as far as inner London was concerned, they had no alternative but to reconsider the case of outer London. The Member for Walthamstow naturally did not desire that his constituency should lose its representation. That was a proper spirit of patriotism. But the grounds upon which he had put forward his claim were somewhat extraordinary. He personally could not see why the fact that the East London Water Company had some works in the parish of Walthamstow justified t he demand that that parish should have special representation. Admittedly they could not deprive Walthamstow of representation unless they also considered the cases of Leyton and East Ham. To touch one without dealing with the other was to create an injustice, and, therefore, the whole plan would have to be revised. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that, before the Report stage, he would consider whether some better scheme could not be devised, which would redress the balance between outer and inner London. If so, then the Amendments could be withdrawn.

said he had no hesitation in responding to the first practical suggestion which had been made for the solution of the whole question. He admitted that the reduction of the number of representatives for inner London altered the proportion between the inner and outer areas. As he had thought the original proportion, fair, it must be taken that the present proportion was not fair. It was now proposed that the disproportion should be redressed by depriving a populous part of Essex of its representation. He could not possibly entertain that proposal, but the question remained, Could they rearrange the general grouping of the outer areas in such a way as to obtain from them a certain number of representatives who could be given to inner London? If they were allowed to regard the scheme of representation as complete, subject only to revision by the Government between the Committee and Report stages, he would be prepared to give the assurance asked for.

said they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having given them a clear statement, which he accepted as a pledge that he would deal with this matter by some form of grouping. Some of his hon. friends around him had considered this question very carefully and had put down Amendments which would enable them to lay their suggestions before the right hon. Gentleman. There was this difficulty, that, by at once sweeping away all these Amendments, they were depriving themselves of the opportunity of laying their views before the right hon. Gentleman. It might be of some advantage to him to listen to some of their arguments. It was admitted that the representation of inner London was considerably below its proper proportion, when compared with outer London, on the basis of either ratable value or population. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in considering the re-grouping of the outer areas, would endeavour to make the final representation more equitable than it now was.

said he desired to be perfectly frank with the Committee, so that there might be no misapprehension as to the course he proposed to take. He thought it would be possible by some simple rearrangement of the outside areas to secure the release of four members. Those four members might, with advantage, be added to the representation of the London County Council. That would bring their representation up to the number proposed in the Amendement of his hon. friend the Member for North-West Wiltshire, and would redress the balance between London Within and London Without. He could not absolutely commit himself now to any particular plan, because in grouping they were compelled to have regard to something more than numbers. There must be community of interest. He did not think, however, that such an arrangement as he had indicated was beyond the power of the Government; but he must ask that if this concession was made it would be in the spirit indicated in the closing remarks of the hon. Member of North Camberwell, viz., by the settlement for the time being of the present scheme of representation.

thought the Committee, and especially his hon. friends behind him, would recognise the very reasonable spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. The right hon. Gentleman had made a very substantial advance towards what was aimed at on both sides of the House. There would still remain what in the view of the Opposition was an overgrown governing body; but that, he was afraid, was beyond redemption. The right hon. Gentleman was very proud of his huge bantling, and he was afraid they could not induce him to abandon it. Without committing himself or anybody else to particulars, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate an arrangement which would meet a good many of the objections of his hon. friends, and if it was understood that kind would be considered and proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, it would get rid, to a large extent, of elaborate argument.

said he welcomed very heartily the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, because he believed it provided a most hopeful solution of the difficulty of securing a proper balance of representation.

said the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of community of interests. Might he point out to him it frequently occurred that a greater community of interests existed between two districts in different counties than between two districts in the same county, and so far as the outer circle of London was concerned, there was no reason whatever why there should not be a grouping of districts in different counties.

joined in thanking the President of the Local Government Board for the statement he had made. When he suggested that they should drop all their Amendments, he did so on his own responsibility; but he would like to draw attention to the fact that he very much disliked the proposal to give representation to the Thames Conservancy and the Lea Conservancy. He thought that proposal, at any rate, would have to go. Still, hon. Members might under the circumstances hold over their Amendments until the right hon. Gentleman brought up his revised scheme.

said he also would like to express his gratification with the statement of the President of the Local Government Board.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had met them in a very liberal spirit. The change he had foreshadowed would, he believed, greatly improve the Bill. Of course, they would have to discuss the question of the representation of the Conservancies.

said the representation of the Conservancies formed an important part of his scheme, but obviously, under the new proposals, that part also would have to come again under his consideration.

said that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, which he looked upon as most important, to reconsider the representation of the Conservancies, he did not propose to press his Amendment.

said he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, in putting tile Conservancies into the melting-pot along with the representation of the outside areas, would bear in mind the fact that the Royal Commission on the Port of London had recommended that, so far as the water way was concerned, the Thames Conservancy should be abolished.

said he would like to make one or two observations with regard to the representation of outside London.

Order, order. There is no question before the Committee. Does the hon. Member intend to move his Amendment?

No. I shall withdraw it.

Then there being no question before the Committee the hon. Member is not entitled to speak.

said he would formally move his Amendment, in order to explain his own position and to ask whether the President of the Local Government Board would be willing to consider the principle which was embodied in his various Amendments.

said he understood that the object of the hon. Member in this and the following Amendment was to bring into the scheme of representation some places which were now excluded. But he was bound to point out that a proposal of that kind would necessarily add largely to the size of the Board, whereas he had just undertaken to reconsider the scheme with a view to the reduction of the number of seats allotted to outer London. He had no reason to believe that the localities to which the hon. Member's Amendments referred were not perfectly satisfied with the general principles he had laid down in his scheme. But, in addition to that, he would point out that these districts had certain statutory rights which were protected by the scheme of the Bill, and, if at any time their position was so altered as to render it desirable to give them representation on the board, such a procedure was provided for in the Bill. He intended with all loyalty to carry out his promise to the Committee with regard to re-arranging the representation, and, under the circumstances, he could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.

said he, agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the cases dealt with in the Amendments of the hon. Member were covered by the Clause alluded to. If at any future time they should become entitled to representation, power was given them to obtain it.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would allow any of the outside authorities who wished to communicate with him before he produced his revised scheme.

Certainly.

said that after the concession on the more important point made by the right hon. Gentleman, he was quite willing to leave the less important question raised by his Amendments to his consideration.

asked what course the President of the Local Government Board proposed to take with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North West Durham dealing with the date of appointment of the Water Board. Would that have to be dealt with on the Schedule?

Yes; it is a matter which appertains to the Schedule.

inquired if it would not be more convenient to deal with it when the right hon. Gentleman, brought up his new scheme on the Report stage.

said he could have no possible objection to deferring all these matters to the Report Satge. It was obviously to his advantage.

said he did not propose to insist upon his undoubted right to generally discuss the Amendment of the Government, although he held that, by applying the Closure after three hours debate on the preceding night, the Government had deprived themselves of any title to consideration in that direction.

rose to move the following Amendment—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end, to insert ' A member appointed by a constituent authority shall cease to be a member of the Board if he cease to be a member of the authority appointing him.' "

stated that this would come more properly as an Amendment on the Fourth Schedule of the Bill.

appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to take the proposal into consideration between now and the time when the Fourth Schedule would come before the Committee.

had the following Amendment on the Paper—

"In Clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end, to insert 'Provided that the term of office of chairman, and vice-chairman appointed by the Local Government Board shall be one year and no more.'"

The hon. Member was proceeding to speak in support of the Amendment, when—

interposed and said this referred to a matter which was dealt with in the Fourth Schedule.

said the proper procedure would be to move this as an Amendment on the Fourth Schedule.

moved to leave out sub-Section (4) of Clause I., which provides—

"The Water Board shall pay to the chairman and vice-chairman such salaries as the Board may determine."

He said this proposal would, in the first place, add neither to the dignity nor efficiency of the Board, and in the second place it was opposed to all the best precedents in such cases. On the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Local Government Board stated that if they wanted good work they must pay for it. This appeared to him to be a fallacy under the guise of an aphorism, if by payment was meant simply and only a money payment. If it were true, then England must be the worst-governed country in the world, because clearly our local government was in the hands of the unpaid, from the magistrates down to the parish councillors. The principle was fundamentally wrong. The elected representatives must be masters, and the paid should be their servants. The condition of payment not only failed to increase the efficiency but it diminished efficiency by practically restricting the range of choice. The best men and the most desirable to enlist in the local public services of the country were not those who would accept a paid position. Suppose, for example, that this condition had been imposed upon the London County Council when it was established, would that body have been able to secure the services of Lord Rosebery as its first chairman? And, if instead of Lord Rosebery, it had been presided over by a salaried official, would not the whole tone and character of that body have been altered, and was it likely that the many distinguished members of that Board would have sought election if they had been ruled and dominated by twos salaried officials? Still less if those two salaried officials had been imposed upon them by the Local Government Board, as was now to be the case in the first London Water Board. He said officials, because the fact of a salary tended to differentiate those who received it from the members who did not receive it. A salaried chairman was likely to become a permanent chairman, and his re-election at the end of each term to follow as a matter of course, and the real control to remain in the hands of those who were expected, by virtue of their salaries, to devote all their time to the work for which they were paid. The true principle of all local government was that the salaried official should be the servant, and the unpaid elected representative the master, and this proposal tended to reverse this order. There was a sense in which it was true that if you wanted good work you must pay, but there were other payments than money payments, and it was these other rewards—the reward of public influence, and respect and consciousness of good work done—that would attract the best men, who were altogether superior to the attractions of a salaried office. He maintained that this proposal tended to lower the dignity, and not to increase, but to impair the efficiency of the Water Board about to be established. Further, although it would not be correct to say that this proposal was unprecedented, the good precedents were against it, and the precedents for it were the bad precedents. The precedents for it which would occur to the minds of all hon. Members was that of the Metropolitan Board of Works under the Metropolis Management Act of 1855. The Metropolitan Board was required to

"elect the Chairman of the said Board, and to decide upon the amount of salary to be paid to such Chairman, such salary not to be less than £1,500 and not to exceed £2,000 per annum."

But in following the precedent of the Metropolis Management Act, the Government had not only repeated, but exaggerated its defects, and had not only proposed a salaried chairman, but also a salaried vice chairman. For the latter proposal he believed there was absolutely no precedent whatever. It was dangerous to state, and difficult to prove a universal negative, but he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee a precedent for a paid vice-chairman of a representative local authority. Against the proposal could be quoted not only the practice of all the more important Councils—Local Government, County, Municipal and others—but there were some definite precedents, very much to the point. About the same time as the Metropolitan Board of Works was created, another body of equal importance was set up—a Board upon which seats were sought as eagerly as were seats in this House—the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. It was impossible to believe that a statutory salary attached to the office of chairman of that Board would have attracted the services of the series of distinguished commercial men, who had so ably presided over that most successful and influential body. The London County Council was given power, under the Local Government Act of 1888, Section 2, and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, Section 15, to pay its chairman "such remuneration as the Council might think reasonable, "but a salaried chairman was never imposed upon it by authority; it was a matter of choice, and the Council had never paid its chairman any salary or remuneration; if it had it would never have had Lord Rosebery as chairman. It was also empowered to pay to its deputy-chairman "such remuneration as it might think fit," and when the Council was established, it did pay a deputy-chairman during the time occupied in settling the Council's organisation. But the deputy-chairman was not the president and the head. He was the head of the staff, and formed a link between the Council and the staff, and the last payment was made to him in 1895. Since that date the Council had not paid any member, and even those members of it who were appointed as representatives of the Thames Conservancy Board and the Lee Conservancy Board were required to pay over to the Council any fee or consideration received from either of those Boards in respect of their services, so careful was the London County Council to avoid a suspicion of self-interest on the part of its members. The London School Board had power under the Elementary Education Act of 1870 to pay its chairman "such salary as they may from time to time, with the sanction of the Education Department fix." But they had been far too wise to take advantage of the permission accorded to them, and no one who knew the present able and distginguished chairman could imagine him either consenting to accept a salaried position, or to act under the rule of two paid officials. This proposal sturck the keynote of the whole Bill. It was the note of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Such popular and representative elements as the Board might seem to possess were so indirect, so complicated and so cumbrous, as to be practically of little value, but this proposal, if carried out, effectually extinguished them. There were many citizens of character, influence and ability, who would be willing to accept such positions as those of chairman or vice-chairman of this Board without fee or reward; these were effectually repelled and excluded. Such men would not consent to serve on a Board, the highest positions in which were witheld from them. The sub-Section had nothing to recommend it from any point of view, except that of the two fortunate gentleman to be nominated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

appealed to the Government, if they could not accept the Amendment, to leave the payment of salaries to the option of the Board. He was sure his hon. friend would consider that a satisfactory settlement. In his view this body ought to have power to pay salaries if they liked; but it should not be put upon them as an obligation. Certainly all the precedents were in favour of giving the option to the Board in regard to the matter of salaries. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could cite a single case in which the payment of salaries to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was forced upon a public body as an obligation. The right hon. Gentleman professed to trust this new body, and, that being so, the hon. Member did not see why they should not have the option of paying the Chairman or not. as they might see fit. In connection with a large body there was a tendency for the work to fall into the hands of officials, and if the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in this case were necessarily paid, the work would get still more into the hands of officials, and thus the interest of others in it would be reduced. One of the evils of the Metropolitan Board of Works was that the Chairman was a paid official. That was the real difficulty. When a Chairman was paid he got a sort of vested interest in that particular berth, and it became very difficult to put a new person in his place. The right hon. Gentleman had been so conciliatory in these matters that he appealed to him to give at least the option to the Board to pay the Chairman and Vice-Chairman or not.

said that this was a more serious matter than some hon. Members might be disposed to admit. There were many very able and distinguished men who had enjoyed greater privileges than he could command, and who had a strong disposition—having leisure and ability—to devote these to the service of the community. Now, such men would refuse to take office if it were made compulsory for them to accept payment. He would, therefore, suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he should allow his mind to remain in a state of flux on this question, and postpone the acceptance of either view put before the Committee until the Report stage. He submitted that suggestion because he did not want any payment for any public office in London to rule out the very best men—whether they were rich or poor. Many men who had made or acquired a fortune would make most excellent chairmen of public bodies, but if payment of a salary were made obligatory they would refuse to accept office. For instance, the London School Board had, as a rule, very able, distinguished, and devoted Chairmen, and the London School Board were in a position to pay them a salary if they thought fit. He was glad to say that all the Chairmen had been rich enough to dispense with pay. On the other hand the Metropolitan Board of Works had a paid Chairman. Now, he had had a great regard for dear old Lord Magheramore, but the effect of making the payment compulsory was to keep in the Chair a man who was brilliant when appointed longer than he should have been. The London County Council did not pay its Chairman: it was not in the mode. On the other hand, he ventured to say that it was a great misfortune that the pay of the Deputy-Chairman was abolished. A very distinguished man might be induced to accept the Chair who could afford to do so without pay, and if the Deputy-Chairman were paid he would have all the technical and routine range of administration in his hands, and by consultation with the Chairman the advantages of both systems would be secured with the disadvantages of neither. He respectfully suggested that they should allow the President of the Local Government Board to consider this matter till the Report stage, and probably the right hon. Gentleman would then be able to bring up a suggestion that would be acceptable to both sides of the House.

thought that there was no real difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Government on this subject. The Government, of course, could not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester, but they might accept that of the hon. Member for Poplar. The Clause said that a salary should be paid, but it was to be such a salary as the Board might determine. As the actual amount rested with the new body there could be no objection for following the usual course of substituting "may" for "shall."

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said that his objection to this Amendment was that it did not go far enough. There was a distinct suggestion in it that both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman might be paid.

said he wanted to move an Amendment which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would accept at once—viz., that instead of the words "Chairman and Vice-Chairman" in line 1 in the 4th sub-Section, they should read "Chairman or Vice-Chairman." As the sub-Section at present stood it might be construed that if the Board paid the Chairman they would be bound to pay the Vice-Chairman.

said that, of course, he was no lawyer, but it appeared to him that this change of language might lead to another misapprehension. It might mean that the Board must pay one or other, but not both. The sub-Section as it stood would leave it to the option of the Board to pay one or the other or both.

said he wanted to raise another point. The sub-Section at present read that the Board should pay to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman "such salaries as the Board may determine." He suggested that it should read "salary or salaries." If the right hon. Gentleman accepted that Amendment he would withdraw his first.

said he objected to the withdrawal of the hon. Gentleman's first Amendment, because one salary was enough. If they were to have two highly paid officials, the utility of the Board would be imperilled. He objected very strongly that it should be open to the Board to pay both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman.

said he thought his hon. friend was pressing the matter too far. What was wanted, after all, in Acts of Parliament was to lay down a principle. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed that the Water Board should have a free hand; why should that not apply to the Vice-Chairman, as well as to the Chairman?

said he joined with his hon. friend the Member for the Rugby Division in asking the President of the Local Government Board to accept the two lines in the form suggested by his hon. friend, viz., that the Water Board might pay either the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman such a salary as the Board might determine. That would give a free hand. They wanted to give the greatest freedom to the water authority, and to get the best men possible.

said he entirely agreed with what had just been said by his hon. friend.

said that if the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman were coupled together, the strict interpretation of the law would be that however one was treated the other should be also treated. The matter would not be absolutely clear.

said he ventured to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and to the Committee, especially after what had occurred during the last few days, to restore the Clause to its original form. Towards the end of the proceedings in Committee, when hon. Members were not so wary as they might have been, and were rather weary, they allowed the Amendment to pass. Matters had altered a good deal since, and the Committee had decided to leave the question of salaries to the Board itself. It would be a great reflection on the business capacity and administrative ability of the new Board, if it was to be thought that out of sixty-eight members it did not contain two righteous men capable of acting as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Unless that power were given to the Board, it would have no voice in the election of its Chairman and Vice-Chairman during the first four years, which would be the most critical period of its existence. Purchase would have to be carried out, and the administrative policy of the Board would be put on a proper footing. For these reasons he asked the Committee to restore the Bill to its original form and reject the Amendment.

said he thought it would be rather a reflection on the Board if it were provided that it could not elect two of its members to act as Chairman and Vice-Chairman. There would be several very able gentlemen on the Board, members of the County Council and of the Borough Councils who were acquainted with the subject. Moreover, members of the Board would naturally aspire to the chief position, especially at the first onslaught; and he hoped, therefore, that the Government would put back the Clause in its original form.

said he had moved this Amendment on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Chelsea, in whose name it stood on the Paper, but he confessed that he could not altogether disagree with what had been said. It was quite clear that when the option was given to the Board to pay or not to pay its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, the Local Government Board would find it difficult to get hold of a capable man who would be ready to sacrifice his present occupation for another with a problematical salary. In these circumstances, he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

said that the Committee was practically unanimous in the matter; and he would therefore appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and above all, to stimulate the desire of the very best men to serve on the Board, by agreeing to the Amendment being withdrawn. He was perfectly convinced that if the hon. Member for Chelsea, who had a very practical mind, were present he would concur in that.

said he was quite prepared, on behalf of the Government, to agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment. They would then revert to the original proposal in the Bill. The change was made hurriedly, and since it had been made a very different position had arisen. As the Board would now have the power of fixing the salaries, he thought it would be far better to leave the appointment of Chairman and Vice-Chairman to it. He therefore suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn; and on the Report stage he would move an Amendment restoring the Bill to its original form.

said that although some steps had been taken to meet their objections, Members on that side of the House could not view with complacency the setting up of a Water Board. Concessions on points of detail had been made, but the essential principle of the Bill was now being passed, and that was a matter against which all who sympathised with the great progressive majority in London local affairs ought to protest to the last. Clause I set up a Water Board, but no Water Board was wanted. The water supply might very well be left in the hands of the municipal authority, just as was done everywhere else. The London County Council, which was constituted the water authority ten years ago by Parliament itself, and had spent a great deal of money in preparing Bills and acquiring information, could have dealt with the matter extremely well. He had never been able to recognise the substance of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the outer areas required representation on the body controlling the supply. No doubt a considerable amount of the population resided outside the limits of the County of London, but the proportion was not nearly so large as in other great cities which controlled their own water supply, for whereas in London the proportion was 23 per cent., in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford, Leeds and Glasgow it was nearly 30 per cent. Therefore, the difficulty created by the supply of outside authorities existed elsewhere, but had never been taken as a reason why the municipal authority should not have the control of the water supply. Even if it were granted that some kind of Board should be set up, that proposed by the Bill was an extremely bad one. If representation of outside bodies was to be, it should be confined to County Councils, just as inside the control should be given to the London County Council. Under the fantastic proposals of the Bill, electoral colleges were to be set up; several outside areas with local governing bodies of their own were to be grouped, and then elect one member to the Board—a scheme which no more satisfied the areas concerned than it pleased the people of London. Already a Bill had been prepared by Kent, and other counties would probably follow, to secure severance from this arrangement. Unless care were taken, the so-called "Mother of Parliaments" would lose its faculty of creating even municipal bodies capable of discharging the duties entrusted to them. This Water Board, even as amended, would be the worst and most impracticable body Parliament had ever created. It had the worst constituency; the framework was ricketty, the body was too large for its work, it would not be animated by any common interests or guided by any distinct and clear principle. He should, therefore, vote against the Clause.

said the conciliatory attitude of the President of the Local Government Board on the question of amending the constitution of the Board in detail did not affect the objections he entertained to the whole principle of the Clause, and he therefore joined in the protest against its adoption. He also protested against a Bill of such importance and complexity being taken at this stage of the session. The autumn sittings were held for the purpose of discussing, not a London Water Bill, but the Education Bill, the debates on which were closured to secure the passage of that measure by a certain date, and not to make time for the Bill now under consideration. He considered it a great abuse of the power of the majority to force such a measure through the House of Commons,

reminded the hon. Member that he must confine his remarks to Clause 1.

contended that the constitution of the Board was contrary to the principle on which municipal government was founded, viz., that questions of central administration should be put in the hands of a central body, local matters being managed locally, and that such a body should be directly representative. Some hon. Members seemed to think that because the Opposition opposed the inclusion of the Borough Councils, they were casting a reflection on the members of those Councils. That was not the case at all. The sole point was—For what purpose, and on what basis were they elected? It could not bo contended that a single borough councillor was elected because of his knowledge of, or interest in, the water question, whereas the bulk of the members of the London County Council were elected largely for that reason, the question of the water supply having been one of the principal matters on which the last election was fought. The President of the Local Government Board had said that even if borough councillors did not know much about the subject now, it would be a matter of interest at future elections, and they would be able to acquire knowledge. That might be so, but the question of whether the Board would be successful—by which he meant whether it would purchase and manage the undertaking of the companies economically—would really depend on the first four years of its existence, and it was during those years that borough councillors would be elected without any special knowledge of the subject. He cast no reflection on the Borough Councils, but it would have been far better that a matter of such importance should be entrusted to a body more or less elected for the purpose, rather than to persons not so elected. The question of the size of the Board had already been debated at considerable length. It was generally admitted that as a working body the Board was far too large. The Water Board was to take over a going concern. The Water Companies, if amalgamated, would not dream of keeping all the present directors; they would certainly effect a large reduction, and probably a Board of thirty or oven less would be considered sufficient. In reply to the argument that the water supply in other towns was managed by a comparatively small committee, it had been urged that a larger body was necessary here because London was so much larger. But a larger duty did not necessarily require a larger committee. The Chelsea Water Company, with nine directors, managed the affairs of 250,000 consumers, whereas the East London Company, also with nine directors, managed the affairs of 1,250,000, so that on the basis of the Chelsea Company the East London Company ought to have a Board of forty-five instead of nine directors. He desired to enter a strong protest against the principle upon which this Water Board was to be constructed, because it gave the go-by to what in every other town would be the natural authority, namely, the central authority. He also objected to the proposal on the ground that the new body was such a large one that the result would be that instead of the Water Board being to the advantage of the ratepayers and consumers, it would be a great charge upon the former and no benefit at all to the latter.

said he would only trouble the Committee with a very few remarks. The hon. Member for Poplar had stated that the Water Board was too big, and that the members of the metropolitan boroughs were not elected upon any understanding that the management of the water supply would become any part of their duties. The hon. Member also said that by its size and constitution it constituted a departure from the recognised principle of municipal government. He joined issue absolutely with the hon. Member upon this point. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked about disregarding the central authority, but the London County Council was given a much larger representation than any other area, and he had undertaken to add to that representation the members who might be released by any alteration in reference to any other body. It had been said that this Clause gave a dual representation to certain parts, and then it was immediately claimed that the representation of London was to be regarded only from the point of view of the London County Council. When the hon. Members opposite stated that London had only one-fifth of the representation they ignored altogether the representation which was given to the metropolitan boroughs, the members of which represented London just as much as the members of the London County Council. The hon. Member said that the Borough Councils were not elected to deal with water. He did not know from his own knowledge exactly what took place at the elections, but he had been assured that in many cases the water question did form a very considerable part of the discussions which attended those elections. How did hon. Members who opposed this proposal deal with the fact that in many cases the gentlemen who were members of the metropolitan Borough Councils were also members of the London County Council? Surely these gentlemen ought to be exempt from the general condemnation which the hon. Member sought to pass upon the Borough Councils.

They have had two elections.

said he did not care whether they had had two or twenty elections. What he was seeking to point out was that a man who was thought good enough to be a member of a metropolitan Borough Council was thought in some cases to be good enough to be even a member of the London County Council. To those gentlemen the hon. Member's criticisms are to be applied. They were asked to believe that London was in a state of hopeless poverty in regard to municipal administration; that the administration of the water supply was so abstruse and so different from any other form of local government, and so difficult in its nature to any other part of municipal work, that a man must be born in the middle of a lake to be able to understand it. How did the members of municipal boroughs obtain their knowledge and experience? Were they specially trained for the work? Was it to be seriously put forward as an argument that before they created any new bodies they must have some special training in the work they were asking them to perform? If that argument held good it meant that they were never to bring into existence new bodies for special work unless they had had some special training. There was no reason why the metropolitan boroughs should not provide as good and capable members for the new Water Board as the London County Council or any other body. Hon. Gentlemen opposite entirely ignored the fact that Water London was not the London of the London County Council. They also ignored the fact that the London County Council had produced schemes and Royal Commissions, and Joint Committees had made recommendations not one of which had ever found acceptance in London or in the surrounding areas. They might abuse this scheme as much as they liked, but it was the first measure which had found general acceptance amongst all the bodies concerned with the exception of the London County Council. He desired to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the criticisms and the attacks made upon this Clause came in the main, not from those representing the districts, but from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who made them because they were entirely opposed to the whole of the Government proposals. They said the Bill was unworkable, and doomed to failure because it was a bad scheme, but from the point of view of practical politics it was the best scheme they could produce. He did not share the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to the size of the Board, for he believed that they would find plenty of men of public spirit in London ready to join this new Board who would do the work intelligently, and with a devotion to the public interest. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] If they believed that, why did they indulge in these melancholy forebodings as to this new authority? He acknowledged that the discussions on Clause I had not been in any way unduly prolonged, and in the main they had been of a practical character. He hoped they would proceed to discuss the other Clauses in the same spirit. He was glad that hon. Members had laid stress upon the fact that the main questions in regard to this Bill were to be found in Clause 1, and he hoped the rest of the Clauses would make even a smaller demand upon the time of the House. In conclusion, he wished to say that in his opinion any other proposal different in principle from the one the Government had submitted would have failed to find general acceptance in the areas affected.

said that he entirely dissented from the view taken by the President of the Local Government Board. He was not opposed to the principle of purchase, or the terms of purchase in the Bill, and least of all was he opposed to the three distinguished men who were to constitute the Board of Arbitration. What they were opposed to was the constitution and the number of the members of the Water Board. He thought the President of the Local Government Board had met them very fairly and handsomely in dealing with this Board. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed to increase the number of representatives of the London County Council and to slightly reduce the number of members of the Water Board, but they still contended that the size of the Board would be too large and unwieldy. It would number sixty-eight. The right hon. Gentleman said that its constitution was in accordance with precedent, but it was not in accordance with the recommendations of any Royal Commission or Committee which he had studied for the special ease of London. There was not, as far as he was aware, a Water Board in the country which numbered more than twenty-six, and the number went down to as low as nine in the case of Birmingham. As to the constitution, he was entirely opposed to the representation of the Borough Councils at all. There was no justification for it. The constituencies of the Borough Councils were already represented through the London County Council. He did not say anything against the personnel of the Borough Councils, for he believed they were composed of as good men as the members of the County Councils from an administrative point of view. The issue he was most concerned with was the financial issue. On the financial question, London, as a whole, was concerned, and the fiduciary of London's financial interests was the County Council and not the Borough Councils. He objected to the secondary system of election as being a thoroughly bad one as far as London was concerned. It might develop financial scandals which brought so much discredit on the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself once stated that no system of delegated elections would by any means prove satisfactory. The Prime Minister, speaking on the London Government Bill in February, 1899, upon a proposal that the London County Council should be constituted by selection from the then existing Vestries and Boards of Works, said that such a proposal would be a revival, to a certain extent, of the principle adopted, tried, and finally rejected, in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say in the same speech that this principle would introduce in the London County Council an element of secondary election, and although he thought there were many cases in which secondary election worked extremely well, still it had not a very good record behind it in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He did not think that in the London Water Bill the Government had adopted the sound democratic principles put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister upon the occasions he had alluded to.

Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with the aldermen.

said they did not mention aldermen, and he did not quite understand the hon. Member's interruption. He had read to the Committee all that was germane to this point. Having regard to the remoteness from the electorate which many of the members of the Water Board would stand in, they might have some of the financial scandals, which had left behind such a bad odour in the nostrils of London people generally in the case of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

said that as one of the representatives of a London constituency he desired to point out that there was some evidence in the record of what happened before the Joint Committee which considered this water question which had not been duly appraised during these debates. They had been told that facts were over whelmingly in favour of minimising the number of the body to control the water supply, and it had been said that there was scarcely anything to be said on the other side. Hon. Members opposite must have overlooked the evidence on this point given by the Mayors of the Borough Councils, and others connected with the smaller districts outside London, as to the number of the Water Board. The first Mayor of Wandsworth, Mr. Lidiard, was asked what he thought in regard to the number proposed, and he replied that he did not think the number was too large, and believed that the reason why the Metropolitan Board of Works failed was in consequence of it being too small, and they had not enough to do the work. He had consulted many others connected with local government, and he found they were quite in unison with. Lidiard's opinion that if the Metropolitan Board of Works had been larger, confusion and corruption would not have been so prevalent. The business was left to a few members, with the result that it fell into the hands of those who were guilty of corruption. As to the Borough Councils, some of them were not only riparian, but also possessed water supplies of their own in the shape of wells. Indeed, this was true of the two boroughs he represented, Battersea and Wandsworth. The borough had a right to representation, and he was sure the Bill would not be so welcome if they were omitted. The Government had been very wise in bringing the. Borough Councils into their scheme, and he was perfectly certain that this measure would not have been so popular if they had not been included. He thanked the Committee for allowing him to give his experience.

said he should be extremely indebted to the Member for Clapham if, instead of going outside of his own constituency for evidence in support of this measure, he would confine himself to the views expressed by the Borough Council in his own Parliamentary Division. The hon. Member invariably quoted the case of Wandsworth, but why did he not quote the Battersea Borough Council? The hon. Member would find that on the water question the Borough Council of Battersea was strongly opposed to the view which he now expressed, had frequently, by resolution, asked that the County Council should be the authority, and had strongly condemned some of the inequitable provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member for Clapham ought to be more cautious when quoting Mr. Lidiard, who belonged to the Conservative Party. [An HON. MEMBER: Mr. Lidiard is not a Conservative at all.] Mr. Lidiard was the most reactionary Conservative that ever cursed the south-western district by his activity.

I must remind the hon. Member that we are now discussing Clause 1.

said the hon. Member for Clapham had quoted Mr. Lidiard with approval. He could only say that if he had read the evidence further he would have found a contradiction of the view he wished to convey. On the question that Clause 1stand part of the Bill, it was not necessary for him to add anything to what had been said in opposition by the hon. Member for North Camberwell and the hon. Member for Poplar except this. The President of the Local Government Board might think it rather ungracious for the London Members on this side of the House, after the concessions which had been made today, to have made certain speeches. He did not wish to say anything unpleasant after the genial and conciliatory way in which the right hon. Gentleman had acted. The right hon Gentleman had done much to facilitate the passage of the Bill by the attitude he had taken up in giving the County Council four new members, and making various other alterations in Clause 1, which, after all, was the governing Clause of the Bill. If anything had been said that grated upon the ear, either of the President of the Local Government Board or, the other London Members, it was due to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, he and others believed that the principle underlying this Clause and the whole Bill to some extent filled them with doubts, misgivings, and apprehensions for the future. They would be unwise as opponents of the Bill unless they put it permanently on record that they sincerely disapproved of the measure, that they believed it to be unworkable, and that they thought it dangerous. What was more, they believed, though they did not hope, that it would be disastrous. But why did they say this? The hon. Member for Peckham and himself were, politically, wide as the Poles asunder, but if the hon. Member was on the County Council he would probably be made a member of the Finance Committee and if they had to send fourteen members to the new Water Board, notwithstanding that the hon. Member had been too much in favour of the Water Companies' views with respect to this Bill, he himself should be one of the first to nominate him as one of the County Council representatives in order that this business might be conducted with financial knowledge and commercial probity. He should rather have the hon. Member for Peckham, in association with the members of the Finance Committee of the County Council, to negotiate for the purchase of the water undertakings than a body of sixty-eight Radical and Tory County Councillors, without financial and commercial experience, in a large room, for Mr. Pcmber, Mr. Littler, and five or six other gentlemen representing the Water Companies, to experiment with. In getting this ship ready for launching, arranging its manning, and indicating its course, the Local Government Board had a serious responsibility on their shoulders for the next two or three years, and he appealed to them to remember that this Bill must mean a heavy increase in the very high rates of London, unless it was successfully and economically worked. He would advise the Local Government Board in the first two years not to be too stiff-necked, but to be adaptable and assimilative with regard to the interests of London in this matter, and if any of their preconceived ideas should show signs of going wrong, or if there was the least sign of extravagance, perhaps maladministration, due to inexperience, want of knowledge, or to the fact that the Board was being exploited by vested interests, he would suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that he should come to the House with an amending Bill to remedy the defects or abuses. He appealed to the President, of the Local Government Board to watch the earlier stages with the closest attention and a full sense of responsibility. He could promise that, though the London County Council had opposed the Bill strongly, and disagreed with Clause 1; they would do everything in their power to make the Bill work smoothly and economically, and to make it as good as it possibly could be made. The London County Council had asked to be entrusted with this work, and it was not their fault that the House and the Government declined to accede to that; it might be London's misfortune. Having pointed out the defects of the Bill, they hoped its working would prove that their apprehensions were unfounded and their suspicions groundless, and that the members of the Water Board would show that devotion and capacity in the performance of their work which the London County Council for thirteen years had displayed in the discharge of their multifarious duties.

said he was sure the London members one and all concurred in what the hon. Member for Battersea had said at the close of his speech. They hoped the Bill would work well and for the good of London. He understood that the hon. Member for Camberwell and the hon. Member for Battersea objected strongly to the constitution of the Board on the ground that it was very much on the lines of the old Metropolitan Board of Works. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had, he dared say, alarmed some Members of the House by producing a voluminous Blue-book and suggesting that it was one long indictment against that Board. He had the honour of being elected a member of the old Metropolitan Board of Works, and he could say, most emphatically, that no body ever did its work better than that Board. Might he refer the hon. Member to the following statement in the Interim Report 0f the Royal Commissioners—

"There has hitherto been no evidence that corruption or malpractice has affected or marred the greater part of the work which it has accomplished. The same may be said, too, in relation to the conduct of the vast majority of the members of the Board.… but against the vast majority of them not even a suspicion of corruption or misconduct has been breathed. We believe that many members of the Board have cheerfully given for the public good much valuable time, and have rendered most important public services."

He would not trouble the Committee with other extracts which he might quote, but he hoped they would accept the statement he had read as showing that there was a general acquittal of the Board. He believed the Board had left a good record behind it. Since he had been a Member of this House he had always taken the opportunity of contradicting any statement which implied a slur on that old body.

I would remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Metropolitan Board of Works.

said this was a personal matter, and if he had transgressed he hoped he would be forgiven.

thought they Were agreed that the hon. Member for South Paddington was entitled to say something in defence of a body of which he was a member, but the argument he had addressed to the Committee did not bear on the point now under discussion. The point under discussion was not whether a minority of the Board of Works were corrupt—

I stopped the hon. Member for South Paddington when he was discussing the Metropolitan Board of Works. 1 hope the hon. Member will now confine his attention to Clause 1.

said he was not going to pursue the discussion of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but as that Board had been used as an illustration in regard to the question whether indirect representation was a good thing or not, he thought he was addressing himself to that point. All he wanted to say was that they were very anxious on the Opposition side of the House to make it clear that they did not accept the principle which was laid down in Clause 1 of the Bill, namely, the roundabout indirect representation proposed. It was not entitled to be described as popular control. This measure of the Government was going backward and not forward. They should have been very pleased if the Government had seen

said he desired to move the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport, viz., to leave out of the second sub-Section of Clause 2 the words "as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking," and insert "in consideration of the undertaking so transferred." The object of this Amendment was to restore the sub-Section to the shape in which it was originally introduced. The word "compensation" did not appear in the Bill as originally drawn, and he could not understand how the word had got into the Bill. It had been agreed that the arbitration should not be strictly under the Lands Clauses Act, and that compensation for disturbance should not lie in this case. The idea of compensation came in where a private individual held some property which was compulsorily taken from him for a public purpose against his will. No such consideration came in in the present case. The Water Companies had exercised the functions which should have been exercised by the public, and they had gained the advantage of the increase in the value of property at every quinquennial valuation. He was assured that when the Government originally introduced the Bill, in Which the word "compensation" did not appear, they felt that an exceptional arrangement should be made in this case, and that the extra amount for compensation over and above the value of the property should not be given.

said he thought that as a matter of strict interpretation it would have been better that this Amendment had been moved to the Arbitration Clause rather than to this Clause. He was quite willing, however, to take the discussion on the matter of principle now. For his own part, he did not attach the same importance as some hon. Gentleman did to the distinction between the two words "compensation," and "consideration." Those who advocated before the Joint Select Committee the substitution of "compensation" for "consideration," which was originally in the Bill, held very strongly that where there was a compulsory purchase from an unwilling vendor, the words ought to be wide enough to secure that the price paid should be the full value of the property taken in the public interest. While the government adopted the Lands Clauses Act, they thought it best to fellow the suggestion of the Royal Commission, and enact that the additional ten per cent. should not be specifically paid for these purchases. He was inclined to think that the course adopted by the Joint Select committee in substituting "compensation" for "consideration" was the right one, after having heard the evidence and carefully weighed it. He therefore would ask the Committee to adhere to that decision.

said it seemed to him that the Government had originally used the word "consideration," to which no very definite meaning could be attached, in order to get out of the difficulty of the controversy; and the right hon. Gentleman now told them that as exception had been taken in the Committee upstairs to the word "consideration," the word "compensation" had been put in because it meant something different from "consideration." He took the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the case of an unwilling vendor selling a going concern; but the word "compensation" was so vague in this connection that no one knew what it meant. That was a deplorable way of meeting the case, and would give rise to great uncertainty. The Government should have some definite meaning in their minds in this matter.

said he had stated times out of number, both on the Second Reading and on the Committee stage, what the views of the Government were. They had stated clearly that in their view the purchase should be conducted on the lines of the Lands Clauses Acts, in which a property was compulsorily acquired in the general interest, but they had exempted the special addition of ten per cent.

said that his comment on the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that the word "compensation" conveyed nothing of all that. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he wished that this property should be assessed by the arbitrators on the footing that it was a property sold by an unwilling vendor; but the word "compensation" left the question which the Committee were now discussing undetermined. The law courts would not give a brass farthing for any statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee when they came to interpret an Act of Parliament. Language with some meaning should be put into the Clause. The word "compensation" was merely a way of covering up the point. Surely it was possible for the Government, either now or at some subsequent stage, to define exactly what they meant, so as not to leave the matter in unfathomable seas of doubt.

said that for his part he doubted whether there was any difference between the words "compensation" and "consideration," but the word "compensation," might have been put in with some ulterior intention or motive. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, as a short cut out of the difficulty, that both the words should be dropped, and the Clause would then read exactly what was meant. The sub-Section would then read: "The Water Board shall pay each company for the transfer of their undertaking such sum as may be agreed on, etc." What was the use of importing into the Bill a word which caused uneasiness in anybody's mind, and which carried with it, by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, no specific meaning?

said he thought that that would be a satisfactory compromise. There was a simplicity in the suggestion, and it improved the sense as well as the grammar of the Clause. He was quite willing to accept the hon. Member for Dundee's suggestion in place of his own Amendment.

said he hoped that the Government would adhere to the Clause in its present form. The word "compensation" was perfectly familiar to those who had experience in this class of case. He most strongly submitted that unless there were conclusive reasons that at this stage of the Bill for the insertion of new words the Clause in its present form should be allowed to stand. This was not a very suitable tribunal to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs.

said that the words made use of by his hon. and learned friend had inspired fears in his mind which had not been inspired by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The word "compensation" did involve something different from the ordinary purchase price which would be paid by a buyer to a vendor. He understood from what fell from the President of Local Government Board that he did not wish to give the vendors the full benefit of the Lands Clauses Act.

All but the 10 per cent.

said that the 10 per cent. was something given over and above the value of the property because it was a compulsory purchase. It was very difficult to divine the origin of this 10 per cent., but it had been given from time immemorial.

said that it had not been the custom of recent years to give this additional 10 per cent.

entirely concurred. But even supposing the 10 per cent, were eliminated, there remained a great deal more. There was the prospective value of the holdings of the Water Companies in view of the increase of the population and many other attributes. One could well see that the amount which might be awarded by the arbitrators under this Clause might be altogether outside that contemplated by the Government in introducing this Bill. Surely it was the general object of the Government that a good bargain should be made for the public, and that these properties should be acquired at a fair price as a going concern; and, if so, they should use words to define their meaning, and not leave it in doubt.

said that he personally did not attach importance to these words, but his hon. and learned friend the Member for Warwick did, and he spoke with great authority on the subject. He should have thought that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dundee would have settled the difficulty; but there seemed to be a difference of view. The case had been argued with great care before the Joint Select Committee, which had the benefit of the opinion of a room full of eminent lawyers, and the Joint Select Committee unanimously decided that the word "compensation" should be inserted instead of "consideration". In these circumstances he could not take the responsibility of assenting to the restoration of the word "consideration".

said he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and to move simply the omission of the words "as compensation."

asked whether one point had not been lost sight of in this matter. There was a distinct difference between "compensation" and "consideration." Compensation was given, as a rule, when the property of an individual was taken over for a public purpose; but in this instance it was not the property of an individual that was being taken over—it was a public service. Seeing that these public companies had made enormous profits out of the unearned increment of the community, he maintained that it would be unfair to fix on the community a further charge.

said he desired to move in Clause 2, page 2, line 15, to leave out "as may be agreed on between the Board and the Company, or in default of agreement." The object of the Amendment would be to make arbitration compulsory; and it raised one of the most important questions that the Committee had to deal with. The drastic provisions of the Bill had been commended by the establishment of the Board of Arbitration; and they were told that they might fairly leave everything to that court. What would happen if a settlement were arrived at without arbitration? If the Committee would reflect for a moment, they would see that the case was not on all-fours with other eases, where a municipal authority bought up water works or other property by agreement with the vendors. The new Board was not yet in existence, and when it was formed it would have to construct machinery and make preparation for the great work that it would have to carry on. It would not proceed with small and light tasks before it reached the crisis of its existence; but would at once have to deal with the greatest work it would ever have to discharge. Something like forty millions of money would have to be spent in acquiring these undertakings; and the magnitude of the transaction was shown by the fact that all the water-works which had been bought up during the past forty or fifty years by Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Birmingham and other Corporations, only cost twelve-and-a-half millions. The present purchase would be three times that magnitude; and, according to the Clause as it stood, it would be possible for the new Board to make an agreement with the Companies without any reference at all to the Board of Arbitration. Even hon. Members opposite would agree that that would be too great an undertaking to hand over to a body without any experience. The companies had all the skill and experience which such wealthy Corporations could command. They had made every preparation. They had the most learned counsel and the most clever engineers and valuers; and the new body would come into the field when the Companies had secured all the best assistance in the market. As the Clause stood, a private bargain could be made with the Companies. He did not intend to cast any reflection on the new body; but that would be too great and too difficult a task to give it at the commencement of its career. They were inclined to facilitate the progress of the Bill as much as possible; but there were certain points far too important to hurry over or ignore, and the Amendment raised one of them. There would be no better means of expediting the progress of the Bill than by accepting the Amendment.

said that, on behalf of the Government, he could not accept an Amendment the object of which was to make it impossible for the new Water Board to come to an agreement with the Companies without going to arbitration. The hon. Gentleman said that he made no suggestion against the competency of the new Board; and yet talked all the time of the Board as if, of necessity, it was to be composed of men of no experience in municipal affairs or in business. The existence of the Bill had been known to the local governing bodies in London for a very long time. He had no doubt that they had, in many cases, made up their minds as to who they would suggest as their representatives; and it appeared to him that the new Board would be manned by men thoroughly competent as business men, and as men of experience, in every way to lay down a definite line of policy. Then the hon. Member said that the Companies would have secured all the best lawyers and engineers, and that no one would be left to serve the Water Board. He thought that that was describing the supply of legal and other skilled services in an incredible fashion. The Committee might rely on it that the Water Board would be able to command the services of men fully competent to serve them from a technical point of view. The hon. Gentleman had persistently told the Committee that the new Board would have responsible and laborious duties, and that it would have to bear the brunt of its early labours. Was it in the least likely that the Board would give the Companies a great deal more than their concerns were worth for no reason, except the reason adumbrated by the hon. Member that it would be incompetent and ignorant. The members of the Metropolitan Borough Councils had declared—

Not in their corporate capacity.

The hon. Member talked of corporate capacity. When he referred to the competency of the London County Council to deal with this matter, did he mean in its corporate capacity?

Certainly.

Yet the hon. Member who said that a Board of seventy members was too unwieldy talked of the competency of a body of 130 members. He opposed the Amendment for the reasons he had given, and also because he declined to be a party to passing condemnation on a body which was not yet in existence.

said that the right hon. Gentleman resisted the Amendment on the ground that it would be a slur on the body not yet in existence; but the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to quite appreciate the reason for the Amendment. Without casting any reflection on the new body, it would not have that wealth of assessors, surveyors, and counsel which the water companies had already retained. What the Amendment proposed was, not litigation on every occasion, but that when one of these undertakings was valued, the sanction of Sir Edward Fry, Sir Hugh Owen and Sir J. Wolfe Barry should be interposed in each case. The Amendment would give this further security and safety to the public, and unless the arbitrators sanctioned the terms in a formal award the transaction could not go through. He thought that was very desirable when forty millions of public money was about to be expended. It did not, necessarily mean litigation; on the contrary, it might assist in getting rid of it; but the public interest would be safeguarded. The Amendment was a reasonable one, and only said that no agreement could be final until it was approved by the arbitrators.

said that ho thought the fight between the Water Companies and the new Board would not he at all equal. The Companies had, for the last eighteen months, been carefully preparing their case; whereas, the new Board would only have a very short time to make out its case. The only objection which could be urged to the Amendment was that of expense; but in a transaction involving a sum of forty millions, the extra cost for arbitration would be very small. He would therefore urge on the Government the desirability of reconsidering the question. The fight would be more equal before the arbitrators, and would do the Board no harm.

said he was very sorry that the Government could not see their way to accept the Amendment. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill quite appreciated the position. What was desired was that the companies should be dealt with on identical terms. If there were to be two processes, one by agreement and the other by arbitration, the Companies would not he dealt with on the same basis. It seemed to him that there would be greater public confidence in the proceeding if all the matters were brought before the arbitrators. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend that it would not lead to increased litigation. Probably the first arbitration would be taken as typical, and would decide the other cases. On grounds of uniformity and economy, he very much hoped that the Government, if not at present, would at all events before the Report stage reconsider the position.

said he agreed generally as to the method by which the value was to be arrived at, which was, broadly, the recommendation of the Select Committee, He would, however, support the Amendment. It was a very drastic Amendment, but the case was drastic and desperate, He would have no confidence in a body, constituted as the new body would be, entering into an agreement with the Companies; but he had every confidence in the Board of Arbitrators dealing fairly between the owners and the ratepayers. He made no suggestion against the new Board, but in a question of agreement the Companies would be bound to get the better of it. There would be four members on the Board who had no right there whatever— viz., the three Thames Conservancy representatives, and the one Lea Conservancy representative. They would represent the sellers, and he could not view with equanimity the fact that they would be parties to an agreement. He did not know whether ho dare mention the mystic words, "Metropolitan Board of Works; "but he would only say that that Board, which was constituted like the present Board, broke down in financial matters of this character, and that the very case which Lord Herschell's Commission enquired into was a case of buying an undertaking. He thought with such a large Board, with new work, drawn for eighty local authorities and not the direct representatives of the people, that the wisest plan, in the interests of the ratepayers, would be not to allow agreement, but to rely on the three distinguished men in whose hands would rest the fiduciary interests of the ratepayers.

said he did not doubt that the members of the new Board would bring to the work entrusted to them the fullest ability they possessed; but the difficulty was the question of experience. Let the Committee imagine that it had to purchase one of the water undertakings. There were a dozen matters which an inexperienced man would not find out, unless all the facts were threshed out in open Court. The public ought to have their interests fully protected. A fair price ought to be paid for the undertakings, but the public ought to be safeguarded against being induced to enter into a bargain without knowing all the facts. There would be no advantage in purchasing one undertaking by agreement if others had to be decided by arbitration, as there would, practically, have to be as much enquiry on one as on all the eight, perhaps, in regard to the New River Co. The detailed enquiry would not be carried on by the arbitrators themselves, but would be referred to officials; and the arbitrators would then decide between the contending parties. The arbitrators would not themselves enquire into the past profits of the Companies, when pipes were laid and similar matters, which would be referred to experts. There would be no practical saving of time, and no practical saving of expense; and there would be a great risk that the public would have to pay a higher price for the undertakings if the matter was not approved by the arbitrators. It was essentially a matter which ought to be fought out in public. If an agreement were made behind the backs of the public it would be said that the terms were not reasonable or fair; and if it were subsequently shown that one Company got less than another all manner of difficulties would arise.

said it was obvious from the discussion that the Committee only wished to be fair as between the Water Companies and the ratepayers; and that being practically agreed on, the question was how it could best be carried out. He was staggered when he found that the President of the Local Government Board was not disposed to accept the Amendment. Whenever disputants disagreed as to the value of an undertaking, the case was laid by both sides, in the light of their experience and knowledge, before an impartial tribunal. What did the rejection of the Amendment mean? It was admirably put by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley. It would put the ratepayers' interests at a disadvantage; but it might also put the interests of the shareholders in the Water Companies at a great disadvantage. The President of the Board of Trade knew very well that there would be no officials at the disposal of the new Board; and he did not blame the water companies for not allowing their officials to be used by the new Board against themselves. That would be unreasonable to expect. On the other hand it might not be fair to the Water Companies to employ the officials of the London County Council. The only way out of the difficulty was to abolish purchase by agreement, and to let the Water Companies submit all the facts to the arbitrators. He would venture the opinion that eight out of the nine Water Companies would agree to that. He appealed to the President of the Local Government Board not to allow this new body to agree to the purchase. They were a new body without experience, and it stood to reason that they would not be able to cope with the hon. Member from Leamington or Mr. Littler, or any of the gentlemen who might represent the Water Companies. They would be as clay in the hands of the potter, and would be twisted into every shape, and if that did not happen, they would, acting on principles of economy, probably agree to purchase at a lump sum, which must be unjust either to the Water Companies or the ratepayers of London. He did not want either of those two extremes, he wanted a fair, just and equitable decision, based only on legal skill and technical knowledge—a fair decision based on a full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case. Such knowledge the Borough Councillors could not command, through no fault of their own. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted this Amendment he would receive the thanks and blessings of the Committee; if he did not, then he (Mr. Burns) was afraid they would waste another year before they got this matter through.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make some concession on this matter, and would be able to see his way to meeting the Committee on this Amendment.

said he was very anxious to secure the progress of the Bill. He thought it was very undesirable to preclude this new body from settling these matters by agreement if they so desired, but inasmuch as in all probability they would proceed to arbitration, although he could not agree to accept the Amendment now. He was ready to reconsider the question now raised before Report. He could not go further, because it was impossible to say at present what the effect of the change proposed might be on the arbitration.

said under those circumstances he was quite content to allow his Amendment to stand over to the Keport stage.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for this concession and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

said he understood the Government was prepared to accept the Amendment he rose to move, and therefore he would move the Amendment without saying anything further.

said if this Amendment were proceeded with, the Committee might find itself in an awkward position, because if the right hon. Gentleman finally decided to accept the Amendment that had just been debated, these words would not be required.

That would naturally follow, and the matter could be remedied on the Report stage.

rose to move—"In page 2, line 27, after ' may,' to insert ' in such manner as to produce within three years from the appointed day throughout the limits of supply an equalisation of water rates in proportion to the ratable value of the hereditaments supplied, or the special services rendered, as the case may be.' "He said this Amendment raised an important question, namely, the manner in which the rates were to be levied after the passage of the Bill. The Bill as it originally came before the House, practically laid down no rule.

, on a point of order, submitted that this was not the proper place to move this Amendment. He submitted it should come in Clause 15, and not in this Clause.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is right. This is not in order here. It should come in as a new Clause.

said the object of the Amendment he proposed to move was to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman what appeared to be an ambiguity in the Bill. Under the Thames Conservancy Act the Water Companies had the right to appoint one member to the Thames Conservancy Board. In this Clause the rights of each Water Company were transferred to the Water Board, but nothing was said as to this particular right held by the Water Companies jointly. The whole of the Water Companies would not disappear under this Bill, because the New River Company would be left, in a truncated condition it was true, and it might claim the right to send a member to the Thames Conservancy. The same thing arose with regard to the Lee Conservancy Act, which he proposed to deal with by another Amendment at a later stage.