MR. SYDNEY BUXTON moved to leave to perform, and he was perfectly certain out in line 20, Clause 1, "a chairman, a they would regret that they did not find vice-chairman, and other," and insert themselves presided over by a gentleman "sixty-eight." He did not know that the of distinction carefully selected by the Amendment he was proposing would be Local Government Board. He regretted the best form in which to carry out that the right hon. Gentleman had the object he had in view, which was, preferred the theoretical principles of that the election of the chairman municipal Government in this matter and vice-chairman should rest with to practical considerations which he the Water Board itself. He under- thought were much more important. stood that the President of the Local He felt there was no good in prolonging Government Board agreed with that his resistance, and therefore he would object, but perhaps the Amendment only express his strong conviction that would come better on one of the the arrangement he proposed would have Schedules. been better. MR. LOUGH said if he remembered rightly this was an Amendment accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on Committee stage to which they attached considerable importance. He desired to secure that all the members of the constituent bodies should have the undoubted right to elect a member to the Water Board. *MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea) said he deeply regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to move the rejection of the Amendment which was carried in the Joint Committee at his instance. By his Amendment, as the House was aware, the first selection of a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman would MR. WALTER LONG said the hon. have been vested in the Local Govern- Gentleman was perfectly right. This ment Board. He stil thought it would was the ordinary word used on such be in the interest of the administrative occasions. efficiency of the Board that the first Chairman and Vice-Chairman should be appointed on the responsibility of the Local Government Board after anxious deliberation. He was sure the members of the Board at their first meeting would feel that they were called upon to discharge one of the most difficult and delicate duties they would ever have Amendment agreed to. MR. WALTER LONG, in moving the next Amemendment, said he would remind the House that his promise in Committee was by some re-arrangement of the outside areas to find four members of the Board to be added to the representation He did not, therefore, desire to put the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman higher than it ought to be put. of the London County Council. He to give the London County Council pracfound that the County of Middlesex tically, if not an actual majority of the under the original scheme had one Board, an overwhelming position on it. member to every 90,000 population, Essex one to every 85,000, Kent one to every 44,000, and Surrey one to every 49,000. It was obvious that that was not an equitable representation of these four counties. He had therefore decided to take one representative each from the counties of Kent and Surrey, which would bring their representation nearer to a level with that of Middlesex and Essex. He also proposed to take two members from the Conservancies, thus reducing the number of the Board to sixty-six, and placing the representation of London Within as compared with London Without on a proper footing. MR. COHEN (Islington, E.) said he wished to express satisfaction at the increase of four members which his right hon. friend had given to the London County Council. That satisfaction, however, was tempered by the fact that, in giving four extra members to the London County Council, his right hon. friend had taken away a member from a constituency in which he was interested. MR. LOUGH said he thought the London County Council had been hardly treated under the Bill. For eleven years it had been the water authority for London, and had done its business very ably indeed. He was glad to see that the London County Council were getting more representation on the Water Board, but he thought it should have been larger still. Amendment agreed to. MR. SYDNEY BUXTON said it was quite clear that the Conservancies were moribund bodies, and the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in leaving them only one member. Some of them had ventured to point out that, under a population or ratable basis inner London was not represented on the Board as compared with outer London, and the MR. CAUSTON (Southwark, W.) said alteration proposed by the right hon. that the object of the Amendment. Gentleman would bring about a much standing in his name on the Paper better and fairer proportion between the was to take away the representation representation of inner and outer London. of the Metropolitan Borough Councils. He was not going to say, however, that He desired to give the President of this addition of four members to the the Local Government Board one representation of the London County further opportunity of reducing the Council made him any the less opposed number of his Board. The most extrato the principle on which the Bill was ordinary thing was that the poorest founded. He trusted that those who took a strong view as to the position interested in the water supply, were parts of London, which of the London County Council would not in favour of being represented. feel that they were now in a much stronger position than they were under The Metropolitan Borough Councils had the Bill as it was originally framed, sentation on the Water Board; in fact, seeing that they would now have onefifth as against one seventh of the whole six of the Councils had passed resolutions representation. At the same time, the against their being represented on the argument used by the right hon. Gentle Board. The time of these Councils was man did not seem to him to have much fully occupied in strictly local matters. weight in this connection. The right hon. They had never had to deal with the Gentleman said that this would bring water question at all, but had looked up the representation of the London to the London County Council as the County Council to the proportion proper body to deal with it. suggested by the hon. Member for were most shown no genuine demand for repre North Wiltshire. He did not think so. MR. WALTER LONG said that the The proposal of that hon. Gentleman was hon. Member for Battersea had proposed Mr. Walter Long. an Amendment by which when a member had ceased to be a member of a Local Board, he ceased to be a member of the Water Board. MR. CAUSTON said that matter was quite safe in the hands of his hon. friend the Member for Battersea, and therefore he would not say anything more about it. He did not quite understand it. He understood that the members of the Water Board were to be taken from the various local authorities, and directly these gentlemen ceased to be members of the local authority they ceased to be members of this Board. Amendment proposed to the Bill "In page 2, line 6, to leave out the words one by the Council of each of the other metropolitan boroughs.'"-(Mr. Causton.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." MR. WALTER LONG said the hon. Gentleman had truly said it was not possible to say anything new either for or against the proposal he made, which was that the scheme of the Bill should be altered at this the last moment by the elimination of the Borough Councils. One thing he had not said anything about, and that was the effect the Amend ment would have. If the Amend ment were carried the Metropolitan Boroughs would be cut off, and the principle for which hon. Gentlemen had so strongly contended in the previous Amendment would be cut off altogether. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of six Metropolitan Boroughs which he said were opposed to this proposal, and he had stated that those were all poor Boroughs in the south of London; he had forgotten to mention that they also sided with him politically. The hon. Gentleman had stated that none of these Boroughs had expressed a desire to be put on this governing body. But if the hon. Gentleman was entitled to quote these six Boroughs against the proposal of the Government, the Government were also entitled to quote the remainder in its favour. No pressure had been brought to bear on the Boroughs to support this measure, and since the Bill had been introduced they had not altered in MR. LOUGH thought the right hon. Gentleman had rather misrepresented the argument of his hon. friend the hon. Member for Southwark, and what his hon. friend had proved by it. The right hon. Gentleman had also omitted to mention the most important fact in this matter, which was that the Joint Committee recommended the very suggestion which his hon. friend had just made. The Joint Committee recommended that the representation of the Borough County Councils should be struck out, and it was only when the Government sent back to that Committee the message that they had received this recommendation with profound regret that those who had already voted against it agreed to the inclusion of these boroughs in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had insinuated that if hon. Members went into the Lobby in support of this Amendment they would be voting tion, but that was not s), because the for the reduction of London representaeffect of this Amendment, if carried, would be to get rid of all the inside and outside boroughs. The argument in support of this Amendment was that these boroughs had no duty analogous to that which would be thrown on their shoulders, and that if they had they would, however important these boroughs might be in themselves, derive no good by sending one member to a Board of 68. The appointment of these members did not synchronise with the election of the Councils themselves, so that in all probability the members appointed to the Water Board would remain members of that body long after they had ceased to be members of the Borough Councils. He thought his hon. friend was perfectly justified in dividing against it, and that it could not be said that they were in any way treating the representation of London unfairly by supporting the Amendment. *LIEUT. COLONEL TUFNELL (Essex, S.E.) said he strongly opposed the Amendment. He happened to know that so far from the Borough of Islington not desiring to be represented on the Board, they had sent in a requisition that they should be allowed to have two representatives on it instead of one. They thought it was hard, as they were the wealthiest and largest ratable borough in London, that they should only have one representative Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex) Forster, Henry William Abraham, William (Rhondda) Mr. Lough. on the Board, whilst the City of Westminster, where there was nothing like the extent of population, were to have two. The Borough of Islington was one of the hardest working, and one of the best boroughs in London, and they would be only too glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to allow them to have two members instead of one on the Water Board. 56. AYES. (4.53) Question put. The House divided:-Ayes, 111; Noes, (Division List No. 625.) Goulding, Edward Alfred Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Lockwood, Lt. Col. A. R. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) NOES. | Cameron, Robert Elibank Master of Percy, Earl Pierpoint, Robert Rasch, Major Frederic Carne TELLERS FOR THE AYESSir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther. Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Amendment proposed to the Bill"In Clause 1, page 2, line 39, leave out 'three,' and insert one." (Mr. Walter Long.) SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge) said he did not see why the Thames Conservancy should only have one representative on the Board. It must be remembered there was a question now before a Royal Commission of dividing administration over the river into two parts, and, if this suggestion were carried out, the Thames Conservancy should have at least two members. MR. WALTER LONG said he had been reluctant to reduce the representation of the Conservators, but the reduction was necessary from the considerations that had already been discussed, and he asked the House to abide by the distribution which had been arranged. The Thames Conservancy was no worse off than any other constituted authority. He was surprised that his hon. friend should have quoted the Report of the Royal Commission, because that surely was a strong recommendation for the course the Government had adopted. All the work which had to do with this new Board had relation to the upper Thames, and, that being so, it was only the upper Thames that should be represented on the new Board. He regretted having to reduce the representation of the Thames Conservancy, but he could not now ask the House to reconsider the matter. VOL. CXVI. [FOURTH SERIES.] Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. TELLERS FOR THE NOES- SIR F. DIXON HARTLAND said that the Thames Conservancy was the body to which the whole control of the water of the Thames was given, and therefore, he should, if opportunity arose, move that the word two" be inserted instead of one. MR. SPEAKER: The form will be to negative the word "one," and if the hon. Gentlemansucceeds in negativing "one," he may move to insert "two." Question, That the word 'one' stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to MR. LOUGH said as the Clause read now, the first words were "The Water Board shall pay to each company as compensation for the transfer of their undertaking." If the words "as compensation" were left out the Clause would read much better, and convey more clearly what the Government intended to convey. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that the House was hurried and pressed this week, but if he could convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment he now proposed to move was of great importance, and that it would not alter the principle of he hoped, yet consider whether the Clause the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman would, was outside the scope of improvement. All along, the Government had commended this Bill to the House by assuring them that it would not involve the principle of compensation for compulsory transfer of the Companies' property; and when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, these words were not in the Clause. At that stage the Bill undoubtedly more accurately represented what the Government intended than the present words did. He submitted that these words should be struck out because they were contrary to the 23rd Clause of the Bill. Sub-Clause 8 of Clause 23 provided that the Court should not make any allowance for compulsory sale, or for 2 B |