that this Motion, which is one merely hostile to the Manchester Bill, ought not to be accepted by this House. MR. A. H. BROWN said, he was of opinion that the House should not appoint a Royal Commission as proposed. The whole question of water supply was one which deserved the attention of the House. At this moment there were before Parliament 23 Bills and 10 Provisional Orders dealing with water supply; and when he informed the House that these schemes involved an expenditure of nearly £6,000,000, the importance of the subject would be perceived. The practice of the House had been when such Bills had been read a second time to refer them to Select Committees, who dealt with them according to the evidence that came before them. One great objection to that system was that there was no uniformity in the action of those Committees. The General Acts which governed the question of water supply, though sufficient in former years, were not sufficient at the present time; and if reference were made to the Acts of 1835 and 1847, it would be found that they might now be greatly improved upon. As regards the purity of the water, for instance, it was not of such a high standard as it ought to be. Then, again, it very often happened that the Water Companies or Corporations taking powers to supply areas failed to supply portions of those areas, and thus practically created a water famine in the parts which they were bound to supply. This was a question which ought to be scrupulously investigated and guarded against in every private Water Bill. In the case of the Manchester Bill, the Committee were empowered to consider questions outside the area which the Manchester Corporation was supposed to supply; but in all the ordinary Water Bills it was impossible for the Committee to consider the water wants of any village or town which might be outside the particular area proposed to be supplied. These were matters which ought to be remedied; and he would suggest that the Chairmen of the various Committees which would be formed should have some means of laying down a uniform line of action. He desired to see some kind of uniformity with reference to these Water Bills; and if they would compare one Bill with the other, they would see that these points should receive attention, and that uniformity was required. He believed it was necessary that further provisions should be made in these Water Bills for the protection of the public. His suggestion would be that a number of experienced Members of the House should be chosen as Chairmen of the Private Bill Committees who would consider all the water schemes submitted, and that they should be formed into a panel, similar to the General Committee on Railway Bills, and by that means the House would insure that not only uniformity would be preserved, but that justice would be done. He cared very little what the remedy was to be; but he did object to the present system, which was really chaos, and anything they could do to improve it would be acceptable. He hoped in making these remarks he was not out of Order; and he made the suggestion simply that more experienced Gentlemen in the House should take the matter up and do something in the direction he had indicated. He must, however, conclude by saying that he should oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for East Cumberland. MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: The House will hardly expect that the Government will be prepared to assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the statement which we have heard from the hon. Member who proposed the Motion. The statement he made was of a very limited character, and resolved itself into the details of what is known as the Thirlmere Water Scheme-which will, I believe, be before the House to-morrow and the view the Committee took of that matter last year. I should have thought, in bringing such a subject forward, the hon. Member would have done so on broader grounds; that he would have attempted to show that the Lake Districts were being injured, and that the water supply of certain localities was in danger in consequence of a preference being given to certain large towns over some of their smaller neighbours, or that there was fear of a water famine in Lancashire or South Yorkshire. Indeed, I should have supposed that the hon. Member would have brought forward a case which unmistakably called for the intervention of Parliament; but in that respect he has, I consider, entirely failed. The question of a Royal Com mission on the subject of water supply | The House was not last year prejudiced is a large one, and it was brought before in favour of that scheme. It was read me by an important and influential depu- a second time after ample discussion; tation in 1874, and by the Society of Arts it was referred to a Hybrid Commitin the early part of last year. Had the tee; and when that Committee was hon. Gentleman proceeded on broader appointed the whole subject was left to grounds, and applied for a Royal Com- them. The Committee amended the mission as a reformer in respect of water Bill and reported in its favour, and it supply, and as one anxious to promote was lost in the Lords because the prothe general interests of the public, I moters accepted the suggestions of the should have been able to give informa- | Committee and embodied them in the tion from Blue Books, as there are not Bill. It has now been revived, and the only the Report of the Duke of Rich- Manchester ratepayers have strongly mond's Committee, but in the sixth supported the policy of the Corporation Report of the Commission on the Pollu- in bringing the subject again before the tion of Rivers in 1874 there is a mass of House; and the Bill, I believe, is set evidence of an exhaustive character and down for second reading to-morrow. I great precision, and a number of sugges- cannot, therefore, see what the House tions as to a quantity of districts, all would gain by accepting the Motion, more or less bearing on this subject. and thus delaying the second reading of There are also other Reports, and other a measure which comes to us so strongly Blue Books and Notices, having reference supported. The hon. and learned Memto water supply generally, which are ber for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) went open to the inspection of anyone, and so far as to admit that there was an are of a most valuable description. I ample supply of water for Yorkshire may mention that there is a compendium, itself already existing; but that is not which was arranged last year at the the case at Manchester. Manchester, request of the Society of Arts, which however, does not seek to monopolise gives information as to the whereabouts the Lakes; but, on the contrary, a large of any of these Reports; and for that, population will be supplied by the aqueamong other reasons, I do not see the ducts which carry the water. In these necessity of further special inquiries. If circumstances, I do not see that any case I had been challenged as to the grounds has been made out for a Royal Comupon which I objected to the Motion, I mission. Whether the Committee did should have said simply that I did not all the hon. Member thinks they ought see what useful end could be gained by to have done or not I am not prepared appointing such a Commission. The Pub- to say; but if he desires to challenge lic Health Act of 1875 greatly increased the conduct of the Committee, I think he the powers of local authorities with should have done so by a more specific reference to water supply, and protected Motion, so that the Members of the them against Water Companies, and Committee might have been prepared under that Act large sums of money are to meet it, and might have been made being borrowed for the purpose of water aware that their conduct was under supply. Again, we are indebted to the examination. It is a little unusual to hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. H. make such attacks as the hon. Member Brown) for the Committee which sat has levelled at the Committee without last year, and which greatly facilitated giving the Members of it notice; and the powers of local authorities to obtain we shall be led into endless controversy water. That Committee, I consider, if the action of every Committee is to be obtained ample information, and the brought in review before the House, as Bill which was before them came out a has been the case here. If the Comgood and improved measure. Having mittee obeyed the instructions given to thus dealt with the general subject in them by the House, as I must asthe way I have mentioned, the present sume they did, those instructions were Motion does not commend itself to not very wide from what the hon. my mind, because it is not only an Member would give to a Royal Comattack upon the Committee of last mission, and the House will see that year, but it is also an attack upon the Committee did obey their instructhe Thirlmere Water Scheme, which tions, because they improved the Bill is to come before us on another day. in a manner acceptable to the House, and put the whole subject in a form | chester had set their minds upon getting which was still further developed in water from Thirlmere; but he believed the Bill of this year. On the part of they were doing what they could to sethe Government, therefore, I may say cure that as little harm as possible was that we do not feel called upon, simply done to the scenery; and, looking at all upon the ground stated, to issue a Royal the circumstances, he was unable to vote Commission on the subject. for the Motion. MR. RAIKES said, that the hon. Member for East Cumberland was not open to censure for bringing this subject forward. His hon. Friend asked him whether it would be regular for him to move an abstract Resolution on the second reading of the Bill; and he (Mr. Raikes) pointed out the difficulty that would naturally arise if he did so. The consequence was that the Bill was read a second time after a very full and important discussion. He (Mr. Raikes) had taken an active part in the proceedings of the Hybrid Committee of last year, and he considered that no Committee was ever better constituted. His greatest difficulty, which was one of policy, was removed by the action of the Committee in depriving the Bill of the speculative character it originally possessed, and in insuring that a reasonable price was paid for the water. But he thought that the hon. Member had a perfect right to be dissatisfied with the result arrived at, and to come before the House to ask, if he deemed such a course necessary, for a Royal Commission, thus challenging the opinion of the House on the subject before the Bill that had been brought in could be read a second time. At any rate, this was a much more convenient course than if the whole question had to be raised on the Motion for the second reading. He had not the advantage, apparently possessed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, of being familiar with the large amount of information upon this subject to which he referred; and he regretted that so much confusion should exist on this question throughout England in those districts where the different communities were fighting for the water which was to be had from the several watersheds-a rivalry that was, in reality, a great scandal. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had, however, stated that the Government would supply Members with the Rules under which, in their opinion, water supply should be regu MR. W. E. FORSTER said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Howard) had stated his case to the House, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) felt bound to say that on public grounds he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth). He (Mr. W. E. Forster) said this as one who had taken considerable interest in the water supply from Thirlmere Lake, and the question of the Lake scenery generally. He hoped his hon. Friend would not put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the question. He would not now enter into the question of whether the water could be obtained elsewhere or not; that was a point decided by the Committee; but it appeared to him that the Corporation of Manchester had consented to obligations which, if Manchester was to get water from the Lake at all, would, as far as possible, protect the Lake scenery. Looking at the matter from the point of view in which he was most interested, he did not think that any advantage could accrue from the appointment of a Royal Commission. On the other hand, he was not at all sure that even greater interference with the Lakes than had already been proposed would not be the result of such a step. It was said that care would be taken to prevent the water being taken from the Lakes, unless it were clearly shown that it could not be obtained elsewhere. But he would not like to guarantee that this Commission, or the Committees, to whom future Bills might be referred, would endorse this view of the matter. With regard to the Bill of last year, he confessed that he thought the promoters had a good case. The Hybrid Committee appointed last year gave great consideration to the subject. That Committee had come to a conclusion he regretted; but he could not deny that it was a Committee which included many able men, who fully entered into the subject, and they made certain recommendations which the promoters accepted, and it was in consequence of that that they lost their Bill in the House of Lords. He repeated he was sorry the Corporation of Man-lated. It would be very convenient to Members to be supplied with those was not a Local Bill, but one geneRules. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present, MR. RAIKES, in conclusion, advised the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a division. rally affecting the great manufacturing districts of the country, that to form another Royal Commission would cast some doubt on the fulness of the labours of that Committee; and therefore he trusted the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Howard) would not press the matter to a division, but would be contented with having called attention to the subject. MR. E. S. HOWARD wished to be allowed to state, before withdrawing his Motion, that he was very much obliged to the hon. Member for Cheste; (Mr. Raikes) for coming to his assistance, and saying that he had done nothing irregular; because he thought, from what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) said, he had done something which was not only irregular, but atrocious. He begged leave to withdraw the Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Mr. HANKEY, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Sir JOUN LUBBOCK, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. O'REILLY, Mr. SEELY, and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBRETSON nominated other Members of the Committee. PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE BILL. MR. LYON PLAYFAIR said, he had had the honour of being Chairman of the Hybrid Committee that had sat for many weary days, and had devoted much time to the examination of this question last year. The Committee was, indeed, more like a Royal Commission than an ordinary Committee of that House. Its Members had examined the whole question in an impartial sense. They had to deal with a general meteorological fact, for the great south-western winds swept over the Atlantic and evaporated a large quantity of water on the way, while the high mountains of Westmoreland and Cumberland acted as condensers, so that the water was poured over the district in which those mountains were situated. The Committee had to consider whether the Lake regions thus formed were to be regarded as the property of one district, or whether they belonged to the whole of England, from the position in which they were placed, and the peculiar function they discharged; and, consequently, they had examined the question in its fullest and largest sense. It so happened that in the House of Lords the Bill, as it passed from that Committee, was thrown out because a Local Bill had been made into an Imperial Bill. The Duke of Rich- FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDmond's Commission had examined the Bill in the same catholic spirit, and the House of Commons' Committee were, in reality, only able to ratify the decisions of that Commission. Not only had they to consider the question of the supply of other towns in Lancashire besides Manchester, but they had also to consider how all the intervening towns might benefit from the common depository of water in the Lake district. The Committee, therefore, did not restrict its labours, but examined the question most fully. Under these circumstances, he thought, considering the fact of so much time having been devoted to this question, and so much labour having been expended upon the Bill, which On Motion of Mr. ELLIOT, Bill further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ELLIOT, Mr. Rodwell, and Mr. Serjeant SPINKS. MENT BILL. On Motion of Mr. CHANCELLOR of the Ex- CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Sir HENRY Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, aud 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at half after HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, 26th February, 1879. MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE-Hall-Mark- Or Medical Act (1858) * Resolution in Committee ORDER OF THE DAY. о The House met at Two of the clock. CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS public opinion had a more considerable effect on the votes of Members of that House. But because the hon. and learned Member could not pass his Bill, he (Mr. Monk) did not see why other hon. Members should not endeavour to provide relief, even if it were not so effectual as that provided in the larger measure of the hon. and learned Member. In 1867 the Consecration of Churchyards Act was brought into the House of Lords by the late Bishop of Winchester. The object of it was to enable Bishops to consecrate additions to existing churchyards without the formalities which, up to that time, necessarily attended consecration-namely, the attendance of the Bishop's officials, the Chancellor, the Registrar, and others; and it also repealed the stamp duties payable on the conveyance of the ground so added to the churchyard. Under that Act, consecration of the whole of the ground was compulsory; but the Act had been found to be a ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL. great boon to parishioners. His present (Mr. Monk, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Forsyth.) Bill proposed that a portion of the [BILL 13.] SECOND READING. ground, according to the necessities of the parish, might be left unconsecrated. Order for Second Reading read. He had seen it stated that a mere strip MR. MONK, in moving that the Bill of the ground was to be left for the be now read a second time, said, that it burial of Dissenters; but there was nohad been conceived in a spirit of con- thing in the Bill about a strip of ground, ciliation, and with the view of providing and a-half or two-thirds of it might be for Nonconformists in the rural pa- left unconsecrated. In this Bill it was rishes the same means of burial as had proposed that the whole ground should been provided for them in the Metropo-be under the control of the churchwarlis and in all the large towns in England and Wales. He hoped the subject would be approached in a spirit of forbearance and reasonable compromise, and he could not believe that the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would approach it in any different spirit. If the question was to be considered one upon which compromise was impossible, he (Mr. Monk) admitted that the Bill was not worth the paper on which it was printed, and it would be better to make no further attempts to settle the question. It was brought forward in no spirit of antagonism to the hon. and learned Gentleman's measure. Indeed, he hoped to see that measure carried into law, and he had always voted for it since 1870; but the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that Parliament at present would not accept his Bill, and he could dens, and that the setting apart of any portion of the ground to remain unconsecrated should be voluntary, as it was desirable that the appropriation of the donor should be respected. Should the House adopt the Bill, it would greatly facilitate the carrying out the principle of the Burials Acts, which had been in operation for something like a quarter of a century, and under which boards were created to provide public cemeteries-part of the ground to be consecrated, and the remainder to be unconsecrated. His experience was that it was not the act of consecration which the Dissenters objected to, and he had found that the Dissenting as well as the Church members of the board were always willing to meet the Bishop, when he came to consecrate a burial-ground. His Bill, therefore, did not propose to interfere with free gifts of land; but it |