EAST LONDON WATER BILL. (Hansard, 26 February 1897)

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
said he did not intend to oppose the Bill in any way, because it was essential that the company should have the powers they sought to carry out the projected works. But he felt constrained to express the regret which he believed the ratepayers of London felt that the question of the water supply of the metropolis was being dealt with piecemeal, thus involving great additional trouble and expense. It had been understood that the Government were prepared to deal with the whole question last Session, and that, not having done so, they would have introduced. Bill this Session. But it was evident that they did not intend to legislate on the matter. Under the circumstances, as representing an East End constituency, he should support the Second Reading, and he was glad to learn that the company had come to a satisfactory agreement with regard to land.
Bill read a Second time.

§ MR. J. M. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)
moved— That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the East London Water Bill is referred that, having regard to the Resolution of this House of March 12, 1896, they do insert such provisions in the Bill as will insure the acquisition by the local authority of such a suitable area of open space as, in the judgment of the Committee ought fairly to be substituted for the common rights proposed to be extinguished under the Bill. He remarked that he thought he was justified in moving the Instruction, on two considerations—the protection of important public interests, and the fact that those interests could be protected without interfering with the purpose of 1247 the Bill. The Bill was introduced to enable the East London Water Company to obtain powers for acquiring certain lands in the neighbourhood of Tottenham to construct a new storage reservoir. Those lands, much of which was common land, were situated in the Lea Valley, and were in the midst of growing population, and this made it all the more desirable that regard should be had to the preservation, of open spaces. Last year the House not only rejected. Bill for the enclosure of certain common lands, but, on his Motion, unanimously passed a resolution declaring that they were not prepared to entertain any proposal for the enclosure of common lands within the metropolitan area. By this Instruction he sought to maintain the principle then laid down by Parliament. The circumstances in this case admitted of the view that these particular lands were required, and were especially suitable, for the purposes demanded by the company. The public interests involved would not suffer by the substitution of other land to be given by way of exchange for the common rights which were thus extinguished. The Board of Agriculture, in the excellent report they had made on this Bill, had said that, in their opinion, an amount of land equal in extent to the common land proposed to be taken under the Bill should be given by the promoters in substitution. Under the special circumstances of this case, he did not go so far as that, and his Instruction left it to the judgment of the Committee to say what, in their opinion, would be a fair and sufficient equivalent in the way of an open space in substitution for the common land to be taken. It was important to observe that this land should be acquired by the promoters and handed over to the local authority, who had long been desirous to acquire land for this purpose in this particular district. The promoters of the Bill had met them in a fair and reasonable spirit. They had in that spirit agreed to accept this Instruction and he therefore did not offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, because the Instruction really carried out the object he had in view. He confidently believed that the result would be not only to maintain a very important principle of public policy, but to confer on the inhabitants of Tottenham a lasting benefit which they had long desired.

§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
said that, though this company still believed that the Government would bring in. Bill dealing with the water question, they thought, with the scarcity of water which occurred last year, they would not lose an hour in presenting. Bill to enable them to increase their storage. With regard to the common rights that must be extinguished by the taking of the site for their new reservoir, they were extremely anxious to provide an area for the commoners to replace them. They confidently left it to the Committee to state what should be done, and the company would endeavour to meet them in the most equitable and fair way. He had no doubt whatever that there would be no difficulty in providing such lands as could recompense the commoners for the rights they had given up.

§ MR. JAMES BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)
said he had heard with the greatest pleasure of the arrangement made by which the company agreed to accept the Instruction. This question was one which used to cause a good deal of difference in that House. Some 12 or 15 years ago or more, when railway companies especially, and, to some extent, water companies also, were entitled to acquire common land, conflicts used to frequently arise in that House. In 1883 or 1884 a plan was devised, by which companies applying for power to take common land should be bound by an Instruction such as this to substitute land of an equal extent or equally well situated, so as to provide adequate compensation to the people of the neighbourhood for the land taken away. He believed that, although that was adopted in certain Bills, it had not been so in all cases, though he did not know why. He was all the more pleased that the principle should be revived on this occasion, and that the reasonable desires of his hon. Friend, acting on behalf of the commoners and of the people of Tottenham, should have been met in so frank and liberal a spirit by the company. He hoped that, now this principle had been revived, it would pass into a precedent, and that they would have it generally accepted that, where common land might be taken for a purpose of public utility, those who took it should be bound to 1249 have regard to the interests of the commoners and to provide equal land or equal convenience for the purposes of the community.