NEW RIVER COMPANY BILL. (Hansard, 11 February 1852)

MR. COWPER
said, he had to express his regret that he should be under the necessity of opposing this Bill. His objections went rather to its principle than to its object. His main objection was, that the Bill contained a clause which enacted robbery and plunder. The Bill professed to improve the supply of water received from the New River Company; and if it were desired only to improve the supply of water, he would not offer any opposition. But the Bill gave the company power to take water which did not belong to them. It gave them power to take a portion of the river Lea, and the whole of one of its tributaries. For a great many years the property of the Lea had been admitted to rest in the river Lea trustees. A question had arisen between the river Lea trustees and the New River Company relating to the amount of water allowed to be taken from the river Lea; and it had become the subject of a suit in Chancery. If the clause to which he objected in the Bill were to pass, the company would acquire a right to which they had no claim. The money which would be wasted in the proceedings before a Committee might be better applied to the improvement of the navigation of the river Lea. There was another reason for which he asked the House to refuse a second reading to this Bill. The New River Company had at that moment two Bills before the House; and the other Bill—which had been brought forward last year, to enable them to make such improvements as might be necessary in the distribution of the water—would give them all the powers they required. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Bill be read a Second Time.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, that he had been requested by the promoters of the Bill, in consequence of the absence of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir J. Johnstone) and another hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, to watch the proceedings at the present stage of its progress. The argument of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper) rested mainly on the ground that the Bill interfered with suits at law now actually pending. He had been informed 398 that the company were not aware that any suit was pending, for Vice-Chancellor Turner had rejected the petition of the trustees of the river Lea, but during the interval which had elapsed since that statement was made to him, that is, within the last two hours, the first step had been taken towards commencing an action, notice having been given. Was it fair, then, to prevent the promoters of the Bill from bringing their case before a Committee of that House, or to prevent the inhabitants of the metropolis from deriving the advantages they would obtain from this Bill? There were other interests to be considered besides those of the trustees of the river Lea—the supply of water to 87,000 houses would be affected by the decision of the House.

§ MAJOR BERESFORD
said, that as one of the Members for the county of Essex, he had looked into the trusts of the river Lea. He found that under several Acts of Parliament the trustees had exercised their rights not as a speculative company, but for the purpose of doing justice to the objects of the trust, and preserving the navigation of the river Lea in serviceable order. If any surplus remained, they applied it to lowering tolls or otherwise for the public benefit, because the trustees did not desire to accumulate money for their own advantage. They thought it unjust that they should be dragged before Committees to expend the produce of their tolls in defending property protected by Acts of Parliament. When certain rights had been conferred upon them by such Acts, it was not fitting that they should be told those rights were to be taken from them in favour of a private company. It was almost insinuated by the promoters of the Bill, that the trustees of the river Lea had never obtained an injunction in the Court of Chancery; but the fact was that an injunction had been obtained at one time, but the New River Company having altered their tactics, the trustees were advised to go to a court of law to recover damages. Therefore, whether the notice of the action was given on that day or a month ago, made no difference. He trusted the House would at once reject the Bill, on the ground that it was an invasion of the rights of the trustees of the river Lea, and an interference with questions submitted to the highest court of judicature in this country.

§ MR. HUME
thought the House ought to decide this matter in accordance with the Resolution it adopted on the 1st of 399 August last, to the effect that this and other Bills mentioned therein should be allowed to proceed next Session to the stage at which the proceedings respecting them had been brought last Session. Those Bills should be passed through their earlier stages sub silentio, and as a matter of right.

§ MR. FORBES MACKENZIE
said, he had acted as Chairman of a Committee to which, three years ago, had been referred a Bill relating to the river Lea navigation, and having for its object the improvement of the navigation for the public good. The trustees were compelled to incur great expense; but it was obvious that if the tributary stream were taken away, so great a quantity of water would be abstracted as to occasion serious detriment to the property of the trust. He should, therefore, support the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper).