HC Deb 11 June 1901 vol 97 cc65-6

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishop Auckland)

said that in connection with this Bill he desired to make one or two observations, especially on the question of common lands, in regard to which Parliament had adopted a universal policy, having kept a jealous eye on the proceedings of public bodies in taking such lands. As that Bill was originally introduced, it contained provisions under which the Leeds Corporation were to take over a very large tract of land for the purposes of their water supply. He understood that in the House of Lords those provisions were altered, and that the corporation were now taking only a comparatively small quantity of land. Had the Bill remained unaltered, there would have been a strong case for asking that what was known as the Birmingham Clause should be inserted. It would be remembered that some time ago, when the Birmingham Corporation came to Parliament for power to acquire very large tracts of land in Wales for their water supply, Parliament insisted that they should give the public access over the common lands they proposed to acquire. If the Leeds Corporation had adhered to their original proposal, the House would have been asked to insert a like clause, but, in view of the change effected before the House of Lords Committee, although he would have liked, in view of their Report on the subject, to have heard the views of the representative of the Board of Agriculture, he did not feel justified in opposing the Second Reading. He wished it to be borne in mind, however, that it must not be supposed the House would overlook any proposal which would be contrary to its settled practice in regard to common lands. Under the circumstances, he would defer until a future stage any remarks he wished to make. His sole object was to safeguard the interests of those who cared to preserve the rights of the public over common lands, and he did not wish it to be supposed that the House of Commons in any way shirked its responsibility on that question.

MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)

said he would like to have obtained from some hon. Member whose name was on the back of the Bill some satisfactory assurance on the subject. He thought it was a case in which the Birmingham Clause ought to be inserted.

MR. SPEAKER

It is a Bill from the other House, and there are no names on the back of it.

MR. PAULTON

said he understood it was important that the Bill should be read a second time that day in order that it might go at once before a Committee. He did not therefore feel justified in moving its rejection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.