his examination? As to the question of and he was glad that so important a pensions, there was an idea in some quarters that the right hon. Gentleman was against any scheme of pensions in the Army. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reassure the House and the country on that question. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could see his way to allow the time spent in the Army and Navy to count for pensions when men from these services entered the Civil Service. He thought it was very hard that the time so spent should not count in regard to pensions in the Civil Service. spending department should be in the hands of one so capable. He agreed equally with the right hon. Gentleman in desiring efficiency in the branch of the service over which he presided. They all wanted efficiency. It must not be supposed that those who were antimilitary Members were against efficiency. They wanted value for their money like everybody else. The idea of having a striking force was offensive to him. What did we want a striking force for? Whom did we want to strike? Why did we not shake hands instead of striking at all? It was an idea which was utterly MR. BYLES (Salford, N.) hoped the ridiculous to many present. There were Committee would listen to a few some who held what was called the observations from a totally different" menagerie theory," that they were point of view from that adopted by most kept from one another by barred cages, of the speakers who had preceded him. and that they were ready to fly at one Colonels, majors, captains, and officers another's throats the moment they got in every branch of the service had been loose. He did not believe in any such ringing the changes on the details of theory. He would like to ask the right Army reorganisation. He would not in hon. Gentleman if he quite remembered the least depreciate the value or the or appreciated by what title he occuerudition of their criticisms. But there pied his exalted position. Who had was another class of Members who entrusted him with those powers and were not military men at all, and emoluments which he enjoyed? How who had no love of militarism. did hon. Members who were going to They represented a large number of support the right hon. Gentleman people outside the House-men and obtain their seats? As far as he himself women who believed that the greatness was concerned and he believed his of England rested, not on the science of experience was a very common one-it war, but on the arts of peace; not on was by vowing that they would alter the weapons of destruction, but on tools of extravagant expenditure of their preconstruction. He confessed to being dis- decessors. He had for years addressed appointed with the proposals made by crowded meetings of poor men and the Secretary of State for War. He would women, and he had told them that when vote with great hesitation for the very a Liberal Government was in power it large number of men now asked for. He could run the country on £100,000,000; could not believe that the interests of but that, after ten years of Tory rule, it the country were really served by so cost £150,000,000, He told them that enormous a number. He thought the when the Liberals went out of office the whole conception of our military system Army cost £20,000,000, and that now it -the whole scale of the military defences cost £30,000,000. He told them also that as conceived by the present Government for every shilling the Liberal Government and preceding Governments-was out of took out of their pockets for the Army all proportion to what was really neces- and other purposes the Tories had for sary if only hey cultivated a friendly years been taking eighteen pence, and policy with the nations of the earth that when a democratic Government came instead of destroying one another. He into power again they would restore things believed the idea of such a huge Army as they formerly were. It was was out of harmony with the democratic those pledges that he got his seat, and it opinion of the country. He appreciated was on those pledges that he was supportas much as anyone the great skill, in- ing the present Government. He theredustry, and patience which the right hon fore expressed sincere disappointment Gentleman had brought to this question, that such an enormous proposal as on Question put, and agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,835,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, &c., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908." that under discussion should have been cussion would be continued on another put before the House in the second Vote. session of the present Parliament. The country at the general election asked for a reversal of the extravagant policy of the late Government, and for an entire change in regard to the bloated armaments which they had built up-armaments which in his judgment, so far from making for peace, really made for war. He believed that the taxpayers of the country could not afford to pay for all the men now asked for. In this connection he thought of the poor country labourers who earned small wages and had to pay enormously high rents for most insanitary and uncomfortable houses. Having had close intercourse with that class for years he could state that they did not want to pay for costly officers and the machinery of war. They asked for old-age pensions, but the Government said they could not afford the cost, though they were taking the money of these people and spending it on the costly machinery of war. The burden of the peace charges in this country was worse, because it was permanent, than an occasional war. It was like the case of a man who paid a high premium for insurance. It was better to run the risk of a fire. He had been told on the authority of one whom he could trust that we were paying for a larger number of men than even the greatest military Power in the world. If that was so how could they support the Government? With what sort of face could they propose to other Powers a mutual and reciprocal reduction? The Secretary of State for War was in an illustrious position, but other and greater Ministers had stood at that table. Fifty years ago Mr. Disraeli had said there was a niche in the temple of fame for the ruler or Minister who would be the first to grapple with the question of military expenditure. He wished his right hon. friend would occupy that niche. He had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would in his proposals have shown a greater desire for the reduction of armaments. MR. HALDANE expressed the hope that the Committee would now give Vote A on the understanding that the disMr. Byles. MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent) said that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that it having been decided that the organisation of the Army was in a bad way and that it was necessary to reorganise that branch of the public service, his criticisms of the proposed new scheme would be devoted to removing what he considered were one or two blemishes in it. And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question pat. METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, ETC.) BILL [BY ORDER]. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." *SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge) moved the rejection of the measure because he believed it was so manifestly unjust. It was introduced because there was an undertaking that three years after the appointed day of the coming into force of the Act of 1902 a Bill should be introduced to equalise the water rates over the whole area supHe was connected with a large company plied by the Metropolitan Water Board. having premises in the City and they paid water rates to the amount of £8 a year. The water was only used for washing the hands of the clerks, as nobody rate, but the premises had to be rebuilt, lived on the premises. That was a fair and the rate was raised to £69 for exactly the same amount of water. That showed that the Bill would overreach itself. The Bank of England at the present moment were sinking wells on their own premises so as not to come within the power of the Metropolitan Water Board, and other bankers, who were not going to submit to the enormous rates put upon them, proposed also to sink their own wells. He had spoken to the officials of the Board on this matter, and they said that to equalise the rates was to make a proper payment all round, and that if occupiers of property did not use the water, certain rebates were allowed them. But under this Bill they were going to charge 5 per cent. upon the rating value, which would more than double the water rate on premises in the City which were hardly used at all. That was not equalisation of the rates in any sense. The most unjust part of the Bill, to his mind, was Clause 26, which was, he might say, a new punishment, and one that was never thought of by the old water companies. He was one of those who thought that the old water companies were not so bad as they were believed to be. At any rate, the citizens got a certain amount of justice from them. The Metropolitan Water Board acted as a public body, and a public body only cared for getting in the money. Clause 26 said that at any moment the whole supply of water that was not necessary for domestic use could be cut off. He wanted the House to consider what that involved. He represented a part of Middlesex where the land was given up to market gardening and to glass-houses for the cultivation of plants. In his own constituency there were acres and acres of glass-houses. If this clause passed, and in the middle of June the owners of these glass-houses received notice that the supply of water was to be suddenly cut off, every plant in those houses would be utterly destroyed and the owners ruined. That was not the sort of thing that they should expect from a public body. He had informed the Water Board that sufficient notice should be given before the supply was cut off, and their reply was that they wanted to give the domestic supply first. But the Board must know beforehand what amount of water they had in the reservoirs, and surely they could give notice about cutting off the supply to the owners of the glass-houses without ruining them. Moreover, he contended that the Board was bound to supply water for trade purVOL. CLXX. [FOURTHI SERIES.] poses just as much as for domestic purposes, and, therefore, they ought to make sufficient reservoirs. There was no doubt that the interchanging of the water between the old companies had after it was introduced prevented the shortage of the supply in any district. He knew that the water companies were only allowed to take so much water out of the river, but on two occasions when they found themselves unable to comply with the demand for water they went to the Conservancy Board which allowed them to draw millions of gallons more than they were permitted by their Acts. The Conservancy Board would be sure to allow this to be done in order that traders such as he represented should not be injured or ruined. Then let them take the case of the locomotive engines running into London. the London and North Western Railway would have to stop running many of their trains if the water supply was suddenly cut off. That would be a loss not only to the railway company but to the community all round. He hoped the House would not permit the Bill, which was so manifestly unjust, to pass, and he moved that it be read a second time that day six months. He was told that SIR F. BANBURY (City of London) said that although it was true that the Metropolitan Water Board were obliged to introduce a Bill to make all charges uniform, it did not follow that the Act compelled them to introduce the Bill in its present form. While the measure would cause the rating in London to be of a most unfair description and would cast an additional burden upon a large number of people, it would only in one district result in any lightening of the existing burden. For that reason alone it ought to be rejected. But it did something which was not contemplated by the Act of 1902-it made all sorts of alterations with regard not only to charges relating to the domestic supply, but also to charges for trade purposes. It conferred powers which had never been granted before to any water company. It must be remembered that London was not one City, but a conglomeration of cities under one authority, and any attempt to charge a uniform rate for London was doomed from the first to failure. But it might be said that when the Unionist Government brought in their Bill, they were M not aware what sum of money the Water | been available for the relief of water rates. Board, having agreed to take over the In addition to that, it must be rememundertakings of the water companies, bered that the rateable value of London would have to pay in compensation to since 1902 had increased by three or four the water companies for their business, per cent., and therefore there should be and he thought it might be fairly argued an additional gain accruing to the Water that they were bound to introduce some Board by reason of that increase. He clause of that sort in order that there had brought out all these figures because might be no failure in obtaining money he wanted to show that there could be no for securing a water supply for London. contention on the part of the Metropolitan But the House now knew the actual sum Water Board that they had paid too which was paid to the water companies much to the water companies, and that for their property. It was £32,818,609. the necessities of the case compelled them That was to say, that amount of stock to come forward and raise the charges to was issued to the water companies in the consumers. Before the Metropolipayment of their shares, and as the House tan Water Board, there were eight knew, the debenture stocks were left companies supplying water. Their untouched as they were dealt with in a charges were as follows-Southdifferent manner. In addition nearly work and Vauxhall and East London, £1,500,000 stock was issued in order 5 per cent. on the annual value of the to provide for the remuneration of the house; Chelsea, Grand Junction, New directors for loss of fees, and there were River, and West Middlesex, 4 per cent. various sums paid in connection with the per annum on houses not exceeding annual Enfield and Tottenham District Councils. value of £200, above £200 3 per cent.; That made altogether £34,318,609. Kent, about 6 per cent. for houses up to That was a three per cent. stock, and a £20 per annum, 5 per cent. up to £50 simple calculation would show that the per annum, and gradually decreasing up interest on it amounted to £1,029,000 a to £95 per annum, when it was 4 per cent., year. The net income of the water and all beyond £95 was 4 per cent.; Lamcompanies in their last completed year, beth, 7 per cent, for houses not exceeding that was to say, their income after paying £20, 7 per cent. for houses not exceeding the interest on their debenture stock and £40, 6 per cent. for houses not exceedwhich was available for the payment of ing £60. In the City the old charge was dividend was £1,039,872. Therefore the 4 per cent. on rateable value up to £200 Metropolitan Water Board had at once and 3 per cent. over that figure. It an advantage of £10,000 a year, but in would be seen that in the case of seven addition to that, there was a payment of these companies the annual percentage made to the Chamberlain of London for on the rateable value, was excepting one sinking fund of £40,652, which payment class of houses under the Kent Company, was not to be continued by the Water 5 per cent. or under, but the Board proBoard. If that £40,652 was added to posed to make a uniform charge in these the £10,000 he had mentioned, there districts of 5 per cent. The consumers was over £50,000 in favour of the Metro- would not, therefore, benefit. In Lambeth politan Water Board. He would take at only the case was different, and even £10,000 the interest on the preference there some consumers would not benefit. stock, but he was prepared to leave that He said earlier in his remarks that out, and there still remained the fees London was a vast conglomeration of which were payable to the companies' cities and not one city, and it was imdirectors, which amounted to £15,000 or possible to make one rate which would £16,000, making altogether £66,000 a be fair to everybody. The system under year, and the economies which ought to which water rates in London had been have been made through the consolida- levied for a very great number of years had tion of the different companies and their been, roughly, that in regard to domestic offices, would bring up the sum that ought supply it was not advisable to charge to have accrued to the Metropolitan by meter for the actual amount of water Water Board in the way of a saving to supplied, but to levy a percentage on the something like £70,000 a year. If the rateable value, the object being that Board had managed their affairs in the people should be encouraged, as it was businesslike way that the water com- thought they would not be if they paid panies had done, that amount would have entirely by meter, not to stint water, Sir F. Banbury. because, in the interests of health, a certain amount of water must be used and it was thought that a percentage on the rateable value was the better way, because then water would be used without regard to the actual cost. Of course, the actual result of that was that in the poorer districts they obtained their water at a very much lower rate than in the richer districts. That could not be objected to, because it was necessary for the health of London, and he was sure that those who lived in the larger houses did not mind, seeing that the policy was for the health of London. In his opinion the rates in London must be different. Let them take a house in the City the rateable value of which was £1,000 a year. Under the new system they would have to pay £50 and for that sum probably no water of that value would be used. There would probably be only four or five rooms in which the clerks would number from ten to twenty, and the only water used would be for the purpose of washing their hands. In Lambeth, however, in a house rated at £50, the quantity of water used would be double or treble the quantity used in the City in a house rated at £1,000 a year. Again, in the case of a house in Belgrave Square the rateable value would be five or six times that of a house in Islington, and yet the water used in the Islington house would be five or six times as much as that consumed in Belgrave Square. What they had to look at was not the percentage on rateable value, but what the rateable value was, and as London was divided up into all these different kinds of cities, it was impossible with any fairness to introduce a uniform rate. The City was a very exceptional place. (Laughter.] Well, the City had done a great deal to make London what it was. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh at the City, but if it had not been for the City of London he was not sure they would have been sitting in their places at the present moment. In regard to the supply of water for domestic purposes only, the result of this change would be startling in the City. The charges would be some-, thing like double the present amount. He was informed that in the case of two large banks the payment would amount to from £3 10s. to £3 15s. per head per annum of the staff employed. That was evidence that the uniform charge of 5 He per cent. which the Water Board proposed would be exceedingly onerous. It was estimated that the increased payments for water in the City alone would amount to over £100,000 a year. In addition to that, it must be remembered that water was used in the City for trade purposes. Under the old companies they were compelled to supply water for trade purposes on a sliding scale varying from 6d. to 74d. per thousand gallons, accordto the quantity used. In lieu of these charges, the Bill proposed that the Metropolitan Water Board might charge 1s. a thousand gallons, which was an increase of nearly 100 per cent., but even at that price they were not obliged to supply the water, and need only supply it if they thought fit to do so. wished to put it to the House, therefore, whether they did not think that the Water Board had failed in its duty when it increased its charges from Gd. and 74d. per thousand gallons to 1s., and then added a provision that they should not be compelled to supply the water and could cut it off at any moment. That was not all, because if premises were used for both domestic and trade purposes and the supply was taken by meter the Board might levy a charge equal to 5 per cent. on the rateable value of the premises. Thus in any case the charge by meter was not to be less than the charge on rateable value could have been. The railway stations and refreshment rooms in London used water for other than domestic purposes. They used it for trade purposes. Supposing the Water Board refused to supply water for engines, they could charge 5 per cent. on the rateable value of Euston Square for the water supplied to the lavatories and the waiting rooms. He had, he thought, shown that the promoters of the Bill did not know what they were doing, or else they were not fit to introduce a Bill of such a character. The rise in the charge for trade purposes from 6d. to 1s. per 1,000 gallons must strike everybody as being most onerous, and coming as it did at the present time when trade was leaving London for other parts of the country, it would have the effect of accelerating that departure, and adding to the burden of the ratepayers, because directly the Board could not sell sufficient water to pay its way it would come upon the rates, and the ratepayers would not only have their charge put at |