TOTTENHAM AND FOREST GATE JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL. (By Order.) (Hansard, 11 March 1890)

§ * MR. THEOBALD (Essex, Romford)
I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time upon this day six months. It is a Bill which proposes to construct a small line six miles in length, but it is objected to by very nearly all the inhabitants of the district, including the East Ham Local Board, the Walthamstow Local 489 Board, the Walthamstow School Board, the West Ham Corporation, the Leyton Local Board, the Vestry of Wanstead, the inhabitants of Leyton, the Trustees of the Bishop of St. Alban's Fund, the Rev. Henry Barber, the Commissioners of Sewers for the levels of Havering, Dagenham, &c, and numerous private individuals. The ground of opposition is that it is proposed to build it on a viaduct and to carry it over the roads by brick arches instead of by iron girders. Many of the best houses in the locality-overlook Wanstead Flats, and the proposed railway, by intervening between Wanstead Flats and the space which is now preserved as an open space will cut off the view from the existing houses, and also prevent the free access of air to Wanstead and West Ham. If the line were constructed on the level or in a cutting there might have been no objection to it, but it is to be made on a high embankment which forms the principal objection to the Bill. The Local Authorities have been told, that the promoters would give way in consequence of the opposition of the scheme, but I hear from the clerk of the East Ham Local Board that they have not given way, and therefore I move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.

§ MAJOR BANES (West Ham, S.)
I rise for the purpose of seconding the Amendment, and I do so on behalf of the Corporation of West Ham. Thirty years ago West Ham was a marsh lying under high water mark with 15,000 inhabitants, it has since been intersected by a great sewer and by two railways, but, nevertheless it has grown and been incorporated, and now possesses a population of from 180,000 to 200,000, and enormous sums of money have been spent in endeavouring to overcome the disadvantage of being intersected by these railways and sewers. The only part of the borough adapted for residential purposes is that very portion which this Bill now seeks to disturb by the construction of a new railway running upon arches. I cordially second the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill.

§ * MR. ROUND (Essex, N.E., Harwich)
As my name is on the back of the Bill, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words. I think that the objections which have been urged by the hon. Members are such as can only be properly dealt with by a Committee upstairs where similar matters are usually dealt with by this House. Those who object to the details of the measure are petitioners against the Bill, and will, in Committee, have a full opportunity of getting their objections inquired into. I submit, therefore, that no reason has been given to justify opposition at this stage, but that the Bill should be committed in the usual manner.

§ * MR. F. FULTON (West Ham, N.)
I trust that my hon. Colleague the Member for the Romford Division (Mr. Theobald) will not divide the House on the Second Reading. It is no doubt a Bill upon which there is a great difference of opinion, but all questions concerned in it can be better discussed in a Committee upstairs than upon the floor of the House.

§ MR. R. CHAMBERLAIN (Islington, N.)
As my name appears on the Paper in opposition to the Bill, I wish to say that my only objection to it is that it will intersect certain common land and interfere with the enjoyment of public rights. As the promoters have agreed to make compensation for any such interference, I propose to withdraw my opposition.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member for Romford withdraw the Amendment?

§ * MR. THEOBALD
Yes, Sir.