5 per cent., but probably much higher. He had figures also to show that the Bill would alter the assessment of London by something like £62,000. He had put the position as shortly as he could, but he hoped he had also put it clearly before the House. He had endeavoured to show that the system of rating under the old companies was on the whole just. There were anomalies, no doubt, but on the whole the system was fair. A uniform rate would not work well. He would point out that the rate was highest where the water had to be pumped the highest, and that was the case at Lambeth, which had the highest rate, because, standing as it did on high hills, the water had to be pumped higher to supply that district than it had to supply any other. He had endeavoured to show that the percentage was right, and that the Water Board had gone far beyond the necessity of their obligation under the Act or 1902. He begged to second the rejection of the Bill.

Amendment proposed

"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"-(Sir F. Dixon-Hartland.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

*MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster) said the seconder of the Amendment had expressed his strong approval of the position held by the old companies, and had stated the opinion that the Board should occupy the place of the eight companies and two urban councils which they succeeded. He did not point out, however, that there was a section in the Act of 1902 which imposed on the Water Board the distinct obligation to bring in a Bill to insure a uniform scale of charge, and it was to fulfil that obligation that the Bill before the House had been introduced. It was perfectly well known that there were ten different sets of charges in the great metropolitan area, and the Water Board took the opinion of counsel, and were advised that the proper course was to introduce a Bill on the lines of that now before the House. The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment seemed to imagine that the Water Board was necessarily going to charge a maximum Sir F. Banbury.

of 5 per cent., but all the Water Board had to do was to produce to the House a scheme which would lead to a scale of fairness and justice between the 7,000,000 people living in the area of the Water Board. They were not there in the same way as the promoters of an ordinary private Bill. The ratepayers, who were also the consumers, were represented on the Water Board, the membership of which was sixty-six, of whom fourty-four came from London proper. These members were therefore well able to look into the whole matter in the committees of the Water Board when the Bill was put forward. They came from various parts of London, and represented a variety of interests, and if there had been any particular injustice they would have been certain to argue it in order that it might receive consideration. It would not perhaps be out of place if he pointed out that the Water Board was responsible for providing water for 7,000,000 people; that it had to find 250,000,000 gallons of water a day, and that for this undertaking they had been required to pay £45,000,000. The hon. Baronet had. said they ought to be saving £70,000 a year, but it had to be borne in mind that a public body could not always do what was done by a private individual. They had to pay higher wages and they were glad to do it. Another thing the

hon. Baronet had not alluded to was that although they issued their stock at 3 per cent. that stock had to be issued just after a war, for which they were not responsible, and the additional cost to them in consequence was about £3,000,000. Then there was the price they had to pay owing to compulsory purchase, which the County Council would have avoided if they could. The real point about this Bill was that they first of all had to contemplate the public health question, and to see before they came to the business arrangments that they safeguarded the sanitation and matters of that description. The mover and seconder with a good deal of skill had avoided the issue he desired to bring before the House. The Water Board had come to the conclusion that all the extra charges for water closets and baths and other things must be abolished in order that there should not be any excuse for stinting the poorer houses. The Board had not increased the water rates in London since they had been in office, and yet they had been able

earning, and when they had paid that money they were confronted by those who said that they should not have the income for which they had paid. Now he came to the very important question of the fire brigade. The hon. Baronet had told them that the City was described as the fire danger zone of London, and the Water Board were obliged to provide water, without any charge, to guard the City in the event of fire. The mains had to be kept fully charged at very heavy expense. If the Board were to lose their income from the City, where were they to get it from? In 1884 the City promoted a Bill in which they deliberately asked that they should be allowed to take water by meter. That Bill was defeated, and in a memorable speech Lord Randolph Churchill said they were seeking to raid the water companies, and that if they tried these socialistic ideas they would be making a rope for their own neck. The Bill was thrown out. The City of London and its Members were again divided that night. The present junior Member for the City was the Leader of the Opposition on the occasion to which he referred and voted in a direction opposed to that in which the senior Member for the City had just spoken. He came to the last point, that relating to the trade supply, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesex as a very dreadful thing. The Water Board simply regarded themselves as trustees, and that they were not entitled to give up any of the rights which apparently they possessed. Neither the mover nor the seconder of the Amendment had given a clear description of the position as to the trade supply to-day. The Southwark and Vauxhall Company as late as 1884 had an Act of Parliament, in which they put distinctly that they were not to give a trade supply unless the domestic supply had been first satisfied. In other words, they simply asked that if there should be a shortage of water, human beings should have the first drink. That was the principle he found in the legislation affecting water throughout the country. In the present Bill they had copied the model clauses, and if the Committee had anything to say as to that the reply was that the Board had simply followed the ordinary custom in the proposition they were putting forward. Clause 23 of the model Bill of 1906 was absolutely the one, Mr. Barnard.

together with another, which they had adopted in this Bill, and in doing so he believed they were conforming to the ordinary custom and rules. Four of the companies were under no obligation to give a trade supply at all. The right hon. Baronet talked about injuring trade, but he could not have acquainted himself fully with the Acts of Parliament, which in four cases showed that they were not under any obligation to provide a trade supply and in three other cases they were only obliged to do it under certain restrictions. All they did by this Bill was to bring the matter to a general level. For those reasons he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea) said the hon. Member for the City of London, with some force and considerable ingenuity, had advanced certain claims for the constituency which he represented. It passed through his mind while he was speaking how much more ably and ingeniously the hon. Baronet would have been able to advance arguments for the other constituency which he used to represent in the House. The hon. Member for Uxbridge to some extent had proved a case for this Bill's going to a Committee. He had pointed out that certain trade interests ought to be delicately handled, and he had stated that if a water supply was denied to them at too short a notice they might sustain in many cases irremediable damage. Surely differential treatment of that kind should not be discussed on the Second Reading of a Bill. On behalf of the Local Government Board he had risen to say that the Water Board came to the House of Commons in discharge of a statutory obligation which was placed upon them by Parliament three or four years ago. A clause in the Water Act introduced by the last Government specifically laid it upon the Water Board that they should not until otherwise authorised by Parliament reduce the water rate below what it was in June, 1902, unless they were satisfied that such a reduction would not cause a deficiency in the Water Board funds; but at the same time the Water Board were compelled to promote a Bill to secure a uniform scale of charges. Parliament would be stultifying itself if

it did not give the Water Board the proper opportunity to prove that the scale proposed was the best method of dealing with the water rates of the metropolis. Parliament clearly intended that there should be a uniform scale of charges, and therefore this Bill ought to be read a second time and the technical matters which had been referred to should be left to the lawyers who would represent the City when the measure came before the Committee. If the City of London had a good case the House might rely upon the Committee to differentiate between general statements made in this House and that kind of information obtained by cross-questioning which produced the real facts, and which was necessary in this particular type of case. Therefore he asked the House to pass the Second Reading and allow the Bill to go upstairs. If the hon. Member for Uxbridge could prove to the Committee that market gardeners would be liable to be treated in the way he had referred to he was convinced that the hon. Member's constituency would get that protection which he desired from a Committee of the House of Commons. In due course the Local Government Board would present a Report to the Committee in the usual way. In conclusion he wished to say that the Water Board, under great difficulties, had done their best to discharge the huge task laid upon them by Parliament, and the proper tribunal to decide the points in dispute was a Committee of this House.

MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam) wished to give one or two reasons why they could not abandon their position in regard to this Bill. There were certain things which required no evidence to establish them and in regard to which no cross-examination was necessary. One of those things was a case where a local authority or a company came to Parliament with a private Bill and, under cover of discharging a Parliamentary obligation, indulged in the luxury of proposing highly adventurous legislative experiments altogether different from their legal obligations. The Water Board was under an obligation to effect the equalisation of charges over their area, but for that purpose it was not necessary to say that the owners should pay rates instead of the occupiers. In many cases

the owners were prevented by statute from making any change in the rent which should accompany an obligation to pay the water rate. It was not equalisation to say that a railway station should pay water rates upon its full rateable value when the amount of water consumed was totally out of proportion to the rateable value; it was not producing equality to say that a local authority in respect of water required for sewer flushing and road watering should pay a reasonable rate, whilst all other consumers might have demanded from them a rent which would not be reasonable. The same applied to the objectionable power to refuse a water supply for trade purposes altogether. All those matters were foreign to equalisation, and it was monstrous that any person should be compelled to go to the expense of appearing before the Committee upstairs fighting this great authority. He did not see why traders should be put to all that expense because this local authority chose to masquerade behind a pretended Parliamentary obligation for the purpose of conducting experiments which on the face of them were totally unjust and unreasonable.

*MR. ERNEST H. LAMB (Rochester) said the only argument which had been made in regard to this measure was that it had been brought in because of a statutory obligation, but surely that did not compel the Metropolitan Water Board to bring in a Bill which was so unjust as this measure. He was rather surprised at the language used by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. He might say that he was not ashamed of being a Member for the City of London Corporation. He was glad that this was not a Party question. The hon. Member for Kidderminster asked why they opposed this measure when large companies and trading concerns had the option of sinking wells. If they did that and secured their own water supply they would compel the Water Board to fall back upon Clause 15 of the Act of 1902 which gave them power to levy a general rate for any deficiency and that would fall heavily upon the very people whom the hon. Member for Kidderminster was so anxious to protect. Again the hon. Member opposite had laid stress upon the fact that the 5 per cent. charge provided for in the Bill was a