ERRATUM.

MILITARY MANOEUVRES BILL.

[April 21, page 1396.]

The Amendment moved by Mr. STRACHEY was to leave out "LordLieutenant," and to insert "Chairman of County Council."

APPOINTED TO MEET AUGUST 12, 1895, IN THE FIFTY-NINTH YEAR OF

LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES (PAY-| author of the code of bills of exMENT INTO COURT) BILL [H.L.]. Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]. Reported from the Standing Committee without amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order), and suspended for this day's sitting.

MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]. LORD HERSCHELL, in rising to move the second reading of the Marine Insurance Bill, said it was a Bill codifying the law of marine insurance. It was founded upon a Bill which he introduced in 1894. That Bill was very carefully considered by a Committee whom he requested to go into its details and suggest any alterations which might be made in its provisions, and he wished to take that opportunity of thanking those Gentlemen representing the interests of the underwriters, average adjusters, and shipowners, who formed that Committee and devoted a great deal of valuable time

any,

change and the code relating to the sale of goods. The success of those Measures afforded considerable warrant for their Lordships accepting this Bill, as also a satisfactory code on the subject with which it dealt. It would be proposed hereafter that this Bill should be referred to a sub-committee of the Standing Committee, who would carefully consider all its provisions and no doubt improve in some respects its form and substance, as was done in the case of the two previous Bills. He believed the Bill, if it became an Act, would be found to be of great utility. He had received from many members of the mercantile community expressions of the great use the previous codifications of the law had been, and an earnest hope that this code might also find its place on the Statutebook.

Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

ARMY ANNUAL BILL.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR

WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE), in rising to move the second reading of the Army Annual Bill, said this was the Annual Act for prolonging the operations of the Army Act. The only new matter in it was a trifling alteration of the law enabling the Commander-inChief in India to make the same delegation of in power to general officers commanding the districts into which

India was now divided as he made with regard to previously existing districts.

to the consideration of the Bill. The Bill aimed at representing as nearly as might be the existing law relating to marine insurance, leaving to a subsequent time such alterations, if the substance of the law, as might be thought expedient. It was a little more than a mere statement of the existing law in this respect, that some points which would have been regarded as Read 2 (according to Order); Comdoubtful had been solved by the pro-mittee negatived; then (Standing Orders visions of the Bill, but they had only Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been been so solved where those who repre- suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed. sented all conflicting interests were agreed as to the method of solution. He could not, of course, give any guarantee that the Bill as it stood was an absolute reproduction of the existing law, subject to the modification to which he had alluded, but he believed it to be so. It was drawn by Mr. Chalmers, the distinguished draftsman, who was the

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL. Read 1a; and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) read 2a; Committee negatived; Bill read 3, and passed.

*The EARL of RANFURLY: In reply to the noble Lord's question, I have to say that the present Government is by means unfriendly to the general principle of such a Bill, but the Government cannot undertake to deal with the question in the present Session.

no

House adjourned at a Quarter before
Six o'clock, to Thursday next.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Tuesday, 24th March 1896.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND). of the London County Council with LORD HERSCHELL asked whether respect to dealing with the water quesHer Majesty's Government intended to tion of London were all before the introduce a Bill to assimilate the muni- House to-day. They all contained the cipal franchise in Ireland to that which one great principle of purchase by the existed in England? representative municipal authorityfirst, by agreement, and, failing that, by compulsory arbitration. The water area of London extended beyond the County Council area, and in the various Bills it was proposed to give to each out. side area connected with the company concerned certain options. What these options were and the whole position of the Measures would be best understood if he referred to the Report of the latest important general Committee which sat on this matter-namely, that presided over by the present Home Secretary in 1891. That Committee recommended that power should be given to the London County Council to expend such further sums as might be necessary in investigating the whole question and coming to a conclusion as to the policy which should be adopted. The Report also set forth that, if the London County Council should so resolve, they should have the power to promote a Bill or Bills constituting themselves the responsible water authority of London, acting through a Statutory Committee, appointed either wholly by themselves or partly in conjunction with the Corporation of the City. The Report pointed out that the London County Council, if constituted the water authority, should be required to purchase the companies' undertakings by agreement, or failing that, by arbitration within a fixed period. Lastly, having put on the purchaser the duty of fulfilling the obligations which the companies purchased, they had said that, in the event of purchase by this new authority, power should be given to it and to the authorities outside the area to negotiate for the purchase by the outside areas of so much of the works of distribution as was appropriate to the *MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hox- district of such local authority, of the ton) observed that there were down for right to the supply of water in bulk, and Second Reading on behalf of the London possibly of some sources of supply which, County Council six Water Transfer Bills, with other works of distribution, it might with certain subsequent Motions. As be found practical and advantageous to they all embodied the same principle, he separate from the general scheme. This thought it would be for the convenience Bill was an endeavour to embody this in of the House that the general discussion a Measure before Parliament. Two should take place on the first of these features of the Bills had been specially Bills. ["Hear, hear!"] The Measures commented upon. The first was that,

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC. Ordered, That the Standing Com mittee on Law, etc., have leave to sit this day till half-past Three of the clock, notwithstanding the Sitting of the House.-(Sir James Fergusson.)

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON WATER BILLS.

CHELSEA WATER (TRANSFER) BILL. Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

MR. C. A. WHITMORE (Chelsea): The hon. Gentleman has no right to say the County Council are unanimous.

by the Council's proposals, failing agree-, Government pass theirs, and the moment ment before a fixed date, the property that was done the County Council would on that date became vested in the pur- have to hand over their purchase to the chasers, and the arbitration as to price new authority. The purchase would be proceeded. This had been called taking effected at a time when it was eminently people's property before you had paid for essential, if it was to be effected at all, it [Ministerial cheers], and even taking that it should be. Nay, more, in this it without paying for it. But the fact matter of purchase he had behind him was overlooked that by these Bills the the unanimous opinion of the London County Council became responsible from County Council. that moment for the payment of the full dividends hitherto paid until the whole of the purchase-money had been settled. Had that arrangement come into force *MR. STUART said he could, if neceslast year the shareholders of the water com- sary, quote a Resolution of the Council panies concerned would have been better directing its parliamentary representaoff than they were. During the interval, tives to oppose the Bills of the water however, they became secure of their companies on the ground that the control income on a better security-vastly of the water should not be in the hands better the whole rateable value of Lon- of private companies, which was passed don. But the County Council were unanimously. perfectly willing to modify that arrange- MR. WHITMORE said members of ment. The second point was as to the the Council had over and over again arbitration clause. A year ago, when publicly stated that they were opposed two of these Bills passed their Second to the purchase of the rights of the priReading, he gave an undertaking on vate companies. behalf of the London County Council *MR. STUART stated that there may that they would, in addition to the have been some members of the Council arbitration clause which the Bill con- who disagreed, but they did not oppose tained, give an instruction that every- the Resolution of the Council, which thing favourable to the case of the was passed unanimously. It was sugpurchasers should be considered by the arbitrator. The whole matter was threshed out at great length before an important representative Committee, the County Council formulated a new arbitration clause which substantially carried out certain directions of the Committee. It was said that arbitration not under the Lands Clauses Act would not give the water companies all they wanted, and therefore would not be fair to them. But the Council had the public to consider as well as the companies. Their interests were not coincident, and it was on the divergence of their interests that the principle of purchase in these Bills was based. Why was the Second Reading of these Bills opposed? Those who wished the water in private hands would consistently oppose them. But there was more powerful opposition from the Government, who had introduced a Bill seeking to establish a new water authority which would take over all the powers as to water which are now in the hands of the London County Council. Let the County Council pass its Bills and the Mr. J. Stuart.

gested that an adjournment should be
sought, to come to some arrangement.
But they had tried to come to terms with
the Government and were willing to
adapt their scheme to theirs. However,
as a condition precedent to other con-
siderations, they were called upon to
accept Lands Clauses arbitration. That
was the only way to get their Bills to a
Second Reading. He did not say that
this concession would secure for them a
Second Reading. If they were to ask
now for a further delay it could only
be on the understanding that they were
prepared to make that concession. But
he and those who acted with him abso-
lutely refused to accept this condition.
Let the House observe what they
were asked to do to give away the
whole of the ratepayers' case, to give the
companies the whole of their demands,
without investigation or a Committee to
take evidence or hear arguments.
case was simply this: "Accept the
companies' terms or lose your Bills."
The Government might say these
requirements arose, not so much from

The