Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. intention of the Government that an extraneous or co-opted person should have privileges which were denied to directly elected members. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. (9.30.) DR. MACNAMARA next proposed an Amendment which, he said would express the original intention of his hon. friend the member for Battersea. was MR. WALTER LONG: That is not the proposal of the Government. We say that members of the Water Board should remain members for the time of their election to that Board. It simply and solely to meet the hon. Member's objection that I accepted his Amendment, providing that when a man ceased to be a member of the constituent authority he should also cease to be a member of the Water Board. MR. JOHN BURNS said it would be intolerable if a Borough Council had not the power to terminate at once the official life of a representative who acted contrary to its wishes. MR. WALTER LONG said that point was not before the House at all. It was clear, whether the representative on the seat was a member of the Battersea Borough Council or an extraneous person chosen by that body, the Council would have no power over him during the three years he was a member of the Board. MR. JOHN BURNS said they might not have direct power, but it possible to bring him in contact with the views of the district, and to subject him to allowable pressure-to, in fact, keep him straight in the narrow path that led to righteousness on the water question--if he were a directly elected member. However, under the circumstances, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. MR. WALTER LONG: No, no. Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 35, line 5, at end, to insert the words,-2. A person appointed to be a member of the Water Board shall be a member of a constituent authority, and shall, if he ceases for two months to be a member of that authority, at the end of that period cease to be a member of the Water Board.'”—(Dr. Macnamara.) Question proposed "That those words. be there inserted in the Bill." Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would reconsider his position in this matter. This did not raise a principle to which he was in any sense committed, and it was obviously not the original intention of the Government. It was put in on the suggestion of one of the outside Councils, and the arguments put forward did not justify such a considerable The Amendment would put change. a sound basis. the representation on was It certainly would be illogical if a the Board for three years, and a repreco-opted member were able to sit on sentative member were only allowed to sit while he was a member of the constituent authority. He had never desired to cast any reflection of any kind on the members of the Borough Councils, although they had said that the members of the London County Council who had taken, for many years, the greatest interest in the water question, were more likely to be valuable members of the Water Board. He would turn the tables on the right hon. Gentleman who said that the Borough Councils were eminently capable of dealing with this question. If that were true, he was casting a reflection upon them when he went outside the Borough Councils to obtain members for the Water Board. He was quite content that the Borough Councils should elect one of themselves; he believed that there would always be found one righteous man amongst them. He hoped that the right 2 C MR. JOHN BURNS said the House was always a tolerant and generous body, There had been a misunderstanding, and he hoped he would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment, because it would discriminate between an elected member and a member chosen from outside the constituent authority. It had not been his belief that his Amendment would so penalise the member sent up from the constituent authority out of their own number. VOL. CXVI. [FOURTH SERIES.] hon. Gentleman would not add to the blots on the Bill this system of indirect election. it an easy passage to something else. He altogether denied that by the proposals in the Bill they were casting any reflection. on the Borough Councils. On the conCAPTAIN JESSEL said he did not trary, they were trusting in their judgattach much importance to this point. ment in the fullest possible manner. Municipal bodies were usually very However, for his part he had no perjealous of co-opting anybody; but if there sonal feeling in the matter; this was no was co-option at all, it was best illus-principle of the Bill, and he was perfectly trated by the election of aldermen who willing to adopt the suggestion of his did not wish to go to the trouble of a hon. friend behind him, and to accept contested election. By co-option they the decision the House arrived at. might, for instance, obtain the services of an old water director, who would not take much interest, otherwise, in municipal matters. It would be better not to restrict the choice of Borough Councils, but he suggested that, as there was no great matter of principle involved, the Government should leave it an open question for Members to decide. MR. WALTER LONG said he had already frankly acknowledged that in the Bill, as originally presented to the House, membership of the Water Board was confined to members of the constituent authorities; but the Government had adopted the conclusion arrived at by the Joint Select Committee, which had taken a good deal of evidence on the point. In fact they divided upon it, and their recommendation was carried by six to four. He desired to be perfectly frank on this matter. He did not regard the point as important, but he thought hon. Members were riding the idea of popular government too hard when they insisted upon carrying it out in the way proposed by the Amendment. As an illustration, he took such a case as that of Lord Llandaff, who had frequently been referred to. His Lordship would probably be a valuable member of the Water MR. CAUSTON said he should like to appeal to hon. Members to remember that if they were to have representatives from the Borough Councils on the Water Board these should be in daily touch with the electors. MR. JOHN BURNS said that there was really very little difference between the London Members and the President of the Local Government Board, who had released his followers from Party obligations on this point. They must convert this into a luck-penny, and proceed with it in the spirit of Christian charity. He appealed to hon. Members on the other be side of the House to accept the Amend Board, but he was not likely to seek election on the Borough Council. DR. MACNAMARA: He might made an alderman. MR. WALTER LONG said he did not agree with that idea of popular government, using the position of alderman for other than municipal purposes, or making ment. 56. AYES. Allen, Charles P.(Glouc.,Stroud Brigg, John (9.48.) Question put. The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, (Division List No. 629.) Buxton, Sydney Charles Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw.H Mr. Sydney Buxton. Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea NOES. Forster, Henry William Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) MR. LOUGH said he wished to move the ommission of sub-Section (c), which was that a shareholder in any of the Water Companies concerned should not be disqualified from serving on the Board. He would not elaborate the point, because the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the principle involved in the Amendment which he had put down with reference todirectors. The disqualification which was to be imposed on directors should apply with still greater force to shareholders. When hon. Members were sent to decide a private Bill upstairs, they had to make a declaration that they were not interested in the matter one way or the other; and he thought that every member on the first board should be asked to make a similar statement. The transaction which the first Board would have to carry out would be the greatest that had ever been undertaken in this country. The Water Companies had many share holders, and, surely, the disqualification which was to be applied to directors should be extended to shareholders. His Amendment would only apply to the first Plummer, Walter R. TELLERS FOR THE NOESMr. Bull and Mr. Cohen. Board, and would not entail a disqualifi· cation for more than a year or two. Amendment proposed to the ill— "In page 35, line 22, to leave out sub-Section (c)."—(Mr. Lough.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." MR. WALTER LONG said that the omission of the sub-Section would not carry out what the hon. Gentleman desired. He had already stated that he thought it was altogether undesirable that directors should be qualified to serve on the Board; but he could not see why the same principle should be laid down as regarded shareholders. That would narrow the area of selection in a manner which would be altogether undesirable. The House might rest perfectly satisfied that any shareholder in a London water company would, if elected to the Board, be actuated by the most honourable motives in the discharge of his duties. MR. LOUGH said he would withdraw thought if the principle of the Amendhe Amendment, and move it at a later ment were accepted, that large water stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 35, line 24, at end, to insert the words, "A director of a metropolitan Water Company shall, until the compensation payable to the company is determined, be disqualified for being appointed or being a member of the Water Board.""-(Mr. Long.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." MR. LOUGH moved to insert, after "director," the words "or shareholder." He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the Amendment with reference to directors, but directors had no greater interest in companies than shareholders, and very often much less. Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill. "After the word 'director,' to insert the words or shareholder.'"-(Mr. Lough.) Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amend. ment." *SIR CHARLES DILKE said he should strongly support the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend. Circumstances had come to his knowledge during a long connection with the London water question which showed that it was necessary. Directors were perfectly well - known persons, but shareholders were very little known as such. He had known cases where men had obtained election on metropolitan Borough Councils who were very large shareholders in the Water Companies, the fact not being known at the time by those who returned them. Looking at the enormous sums of money involved, he felt that the Amendment of his hon. friend was necessary. ratepayers should not be eligible. An enormous number of men had shares in the Water Companies, and, in future, it would be found that a large number of working men would be holders of the new stock. MR. CREMER said he had previously moved that no person who had any pecuniary interest in any of the Water Companies should be eligible for election. The Minister in charge of the Bill said that he could not see his way to accept that proposal, as he considered it would narrow the area of choice if they precluded all persons who had any pecuniary interest, large or small, in the existing Water Companies from sitting on the Water Board. He wished to know why the right hon. Gentleman now proposed exclude directors. He was very to anxious that the new Board should start on its career, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. Everyone knew that one of the mischievous causes of the terrible results in connection with the Metropolitan Board of Works was that members were pecuniarily interested in questions which came before them. wanted to prevent that, and to keep this Board clear and above suspicion. Therefore, he hoped that, even at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman. would accept the Amendment. Surely there would be plenty of men available who had no pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the Water Companies. He *COLONEL BOWLES said that if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were carried it would be impossible for a shareholder, who might have only an infinitesimal share in one of the companies, to serve on the Board, and his place would be filled by someone else, with perhaps less knowledge of the subject. If the Amendment was that a shareholder could be elected, but should not be eligible to act until after the purchase had taken place, he would quite agree. SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (Camberwell, Dulwich) said he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist with his Amendment. The next thing CAPTAIN NORTON said he wished to that would probably be proposed was draw attention to the fact that the that no large water ratepayer could Amendment would only operate for one be elected to the Board. He was not year. a water shareholder or director, but he was a large water ratepayer, and he (10.8.) Question put. The House divided :-Ayes 33, Noes 87. (Division List No. 630.) AYES. Allen, Charles P. (Glouc.,Stroud | Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert John Bayley, Thomas (Derby shire) Broadhurst, Henry Burt, Thomas Caldwell, James Causton, Richard Knight Cremer, William Randal Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dickinson, Robert Edmond Goddard, Daniel Ford Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland NOES. Galloway, William Johnson Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Plummer, Walter R. Words [of Mr. WALTER LONG'S Amendment] inserted. MR. WALTER LONG formally moved the following Amendments :- "Schedule 3, page 35, line 25, leave out of the members,' and insert the member.' "Schedule 3, page 35, line 26, leave out one.' Schedule 3, page 35, line 29, at end, add as a new paragraph,-'4. The members of the Water Board appointed by the Conservators of the River Thames and the Lee Conservancy Board shall not vote or act in respect of any question arising before the Water Board as regards the transfer of any undertaking to the Water Board under this Act.' "Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, leave out and.' "Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, after 'Penge,' insert 'Bexley, Dartford, Erith, and Footscray.' Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R(Northants Tully, Jasper Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. Weir, James Galloway Whittaker, Thomas Palmer Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) TELLERS FOR THE AYESMr. Lough and Captain Norton Pretyman, Ernest George Rasch, Major Frederic Carne TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir Alexander AclandHood and Mr. Anstruther. "Schedule 3, page 36, line 4, leave out 'twelve,' and insert twenty.' 'Schedule 3, page 36, line 6, leave out from 'Bromley,' to end of line 13, and insert three by each of the councils of the urban districts of Erith and Penge, two by each of the councils of the urban districts of Bexley and Dartford, and one by each of the councils of the urban districts of Chislehurst and Footscray.' "Schedule 3, page 36, line 39, leave out 'and.' "Schedule 3, page 36, line 39, after 'Surbiton, insert Barnes, the Maldens and Coombe, and Wimbledon.' "Schedule 3, page 36, line 39, leave out sixteen,' and insert thirty-three." "Schedule 3, page 36, line 40, leave out ‘six,’ and insert seven.' "Schedule 3, page 36, line 40, leave out 'two,' and insert ten.' |