HC Deb 09 August 1911 vol 29 cc1225-73

(1) If any operations of the Board for the purposes of or in connection with the construction of any reservoir by this Act authorised has caused any diminution of the supply of water from any well, borehole, pond, pool, spring, stream, or watering-place, or other source of supply existing at the date of the passing of this Act within the administrative county of Middlesex, and within a radius of two miles from the site of any such reservoir, the Board shall, upon the written request of the owner (which term in this section shall include any lessee or occupier) of such source of supply repay to the owner all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the owner in obtaining such additional supply of water as may be or may have been reasonably necessary to make his supply of water the same as nearly as may be as his supply was before the commencement of such operations of the Board.

(2) The owner shall afford the officers, servants, or other representatives of the Board at all reasonable times after the passing of this Act access to the source of supply in respect of which any claim is made under this section for the purpose of ascertaining particulars thereof and the level of the water therein.

(3) Any question or dispute arising under this section shall be referred to and determined by a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties, or, in default of agreement, to be appointed on the application of either party by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and, subject as aforesaid, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall apply to any such reference.

I have a Motion on the Paper to the effect that this Bill should be considered on this day three months. If that were carried it would mean that the Bill as a whole would be destroyed. The object which I, and those who are working with me in this matter, have in view is not the destruction of the Bill, but its modification in certain respects. I propose, therefore, not to move that the consideration be postponed to this day three months, but that the new Clause which stands in my name should be inserted. Under the Bill the Water Board seek to acquire power to construct certain reservoirs. The particular reservoirs in which we are interested are those known as Nos. 6 and 7, which are to be constructed in Middlesex, between the villages of Laleham and Littleton. These are to be very large reservoirs, and in order to construct them it will be necessary to sink a trench for a very considerable depth until the London clay is reached. When this Bill was last under discussion, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) informed us that nowhere in the Thames Valley would it be necessary to sink what is known as a puddle trench to a greater depth than 10 ft., though he did admit that there might be what he described as "a solitary spot" where it might be necessary to go to a depth of as much as 80 ft. He informed the House, however, that if was extremely unlikely that it would be necessary, in the case of large reservoirs of this kind, to sink a trench of anything like that depth. All that I can say is that, if that be so, the Metropolitan Water Board appear to have selected one of these "solitary spots" as a site for their two reservoirs. With regard to that point I should like to refer to the evidence given by the Chief Engineer to the Board (Mr. Bryan). I think I can make it quite clear that a long trench would have to be sunk for a very considerable depth in parts before London clay is reached, and it must be quite obvious if a trench of that kind has to be sunk to a very great depth, the subsoil water in the adjacent district will probably be drawn away. The Board themselves admit that they will have to indulge in pumping operations during the construction of the trench in question. With regard to the depth to which the trench will in all probability have to be sunk, Mr. Bryan gave the following evidence:— Yon have got to 110 feet and not found London clay?—I will not say 110, but we have gone a considerable distance down. Do yon think it is necessary for the safety of these reservoirs to carry your puddle wells and tooth them into the London clay?—Yes. That will be pretty costly to construct?—It will only be for a short length. And you will have to pump all that water out of the 110 feet above it?—Yes.

Mr. Hunter, one of the experts employed by the Board, gave the following evidence:— Have you left out (reservoirs) 6 and 7?—As to 6 and 7, at one part of the area there the clay is rather deep, but I think Mr. Bryan has had borings made at different places there. They would be a little bit expensive to make. Yon heard the other day that he did not reach the London clay until 110 feet?—I think that was only for a short length. I cannot answer a question like that distinctly, because I have not had the whole thing bored to see how it is, but I know that in part of that reservoir it does go down deep.

I quote that evidence to show that as a matter of fact the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stoke that it would be necessary only to construct a trench of some ten or twenty feet was erroneous.


The hon. Member at least ought to be correct. Just after that I said that the average of these trenches, according to the evidence which I myself listened to, was between thirty and forty feet.


I accept the hon. Member's correction, but I do not think I was misrepresenting him. This is the passage in his speech to which I was referring:— ….in excavating you can take it for granted that in the Thames Valley the average depth is twenty, or fifteen, or ten feet I did not go beyond that. I said that the hon. Member suggested that in the Thames Valley you would not have to go to a greater depth than ten, fifteen, or twenty feet—the precise words which he used in his speech. However, that is not a point of great importance. I think it is generally agreed that you would have to sink a trench in the case of these particular reservoirs for a very considerable depth. What would be the effect of sinking a trench of this kind? We assert, and I do not think it will be disputed, that during the period of construction—that is to say, while the actual trench, which in the end is to form the wall of the new reservoir, is being sunk—the effect must be to drain the water from the soil in the adjacent area, and in all probability to destroy the supply where that supply is provided by wells of no very great depth, pools, and so on. Upon that point as to the effect of sinking this trench, Mr. Bryan gave the following evidence:— I think you told my friend Mr. Hutchinson this morning that during the time your trenches are open through the gravel to the London clay you will have pumping machinery here?—Yes. Is that liable to pump the water out of the surrounding gravel for a radius of some distance?—It is. I may also quote the evidence of Mr. Hunter on this point.


If the hon. Member will refer to the evidence he will find that this evidence was given, not in relation to the reservoirs that he is talking about, but in relation to reservoirs several miles away.


I do not want in the least to misrepresent the case. Mr. Bryan's evidence did, I believe, refer to the other reservoirs, but the point which I wish to bring out is this: If you do sink these deep trenches in order to construct such reservoirs the effect must be to drain the water from the adjacent land. In regard to Mr. Hunter's evidence, which I am now about to quote, it was given in respect to these particular reservoirs. If I am incorrect in that assumption the hon. Member, who, I know, was on the Com- mittee, will be able to correct me, but I believe Mr. Hunter's evidence was given in respect of the reservoirs of which I am now speaking, that is Nos. 6 and 7. That evidence was as follows:— When you constructed the Staines reservoirs you had a good deal of pumping to do in the trenches, had you not?—Yes, a good deal of pumping. And that would drain the surrounding areas?—Quite. You have heard of the depth of the clay and of the London clay from Mr. Bryan's evidence, and what I put to him?—Yes. From your experience of Staines, would not a very large amount of pumping be necessary to keep the puddled trench in the lower corner—— That is to say the lower corner of No. 6 reservoir—I was quite certain that it referred to the lower corner of No. 6 reservoir— dry?—No doubt. Would not that affect the property within a very 3arge area from there?—Temporarily, yes. As my client's property is within 100 yards of the puddled trench it would affect it seriously?—For a time, yes. Now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, after carefully considering that evidence, I do not think it can be disputed that, in the opinion of people who are competent to express an opinion upon such a question, that sinking the deep trenches would have the effect of draining the land in the vicinity of the proposed reservoir. If we establish that point, I would like to point out to the Committee exactly what it is that we are asking, in asking the House to insert this proposed new Clause. All we are asking is that during the period of the construction of the reservoirs—it may not be long, perhaps three or four years altogether—a statutory right should be. given to the residents within a certain limited area in the vicinity of the reservoirs, who shall be affected by the pumping operations carried on in that construction to the payment of compensation from the Metropolitan Water Board for any injury that may be caused to them as a result of the destruction of their sources of water supply. I do not think that that is really a very large thing to ask.

I remember quite well when this matter was under discussion in this House on the last occasion the chief arguments of hon. Members opposed to us were that it was very improbable that any of these sources of water supply would be affected. My answer to that is if that is so, then the proposed new Clause will be inoperative. Nobody will be any worse off. We maintain that not only is it possible, but that it is probable that some of these small occupiers who are living in the vicinity of the new reservoirs, market gardeners, and so on, will have their water supply affected. We say that it is only a matter of justice that compensation should be paid to them if they suffer injury. After all, it is the more necessary that we should insert a Clause in the Bill to the effect proposed, because, as is very well known in this House, there is no remedy in the courts. The courts do not recognise any property in underground water. Therefore, unless you insert a specific Clause in the Bill it is quite impossible that these injured men will receive any redress from the courts.

It is, however, said that there is no precedent for inserting a Clause of this kind in a Bill of this kind. I very respectfully beg to differ from that assertion. I believe there are many precedents. I believe you will find in many Water Bills of this kind passed during recent years a similar Clause to that which we desire to insert. Let me take the case of the South Staffordshire Water Works Act, 1909. It seems to me to be very much a case in point. The particular Clause in that Act to which I would call the attention of the House is similar to what we wish to include in this Bill. I will read the important part of the Clause:—

If any diminution has taken or shall take place in the water supply from any well, borehole, pond, pool, spring, stream or watering place which exist, or has existed, as an effective source of supply, at or since the date when pumping by the company first commenced, at any pumping station by this Act authorised or confirmed. …"

And these are the important words, because this Clause is almost identical with a Clause we desire.

Either during such construction (of such pumping station) for the purposes of supply."

In our Clause we do not ask for compensation "after construction," as we realise quite well, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board pointed out on the last occasion on which we discussed this matter—though he seemed to think we were ignorant of the fact—we do realise quite well that these are only storage reservoirs. Once the reservoirs are constructed they are going to be supplied from the Thames. After they are constructed there is no possibility of their affecting the water supplies in the immediate neighbourhood of the reservoirs. It is only during the period of con- struction that I quoted the Staffordshire Act for, because it specifically provides there, if during the period of construction any well, borehole, pond, spring, and so on, are affected, then compensations will be payable. The Act goes on to say that if such diminution arises since the commencement of such pumping the undertakers shall afford the owner of the water supply an amount equal to such diminution at such cost or rate as that the total cost to the owner shall be the same. …" I suggest very respectfully that this very Act is a precedent for the action which we are taking in this particular case. As pointed out on the last occasion—and, of course, it really is a precedent, although the President of the Local Government Board denies it—in the present Bill itself there is a Clause which safeguards Lord Fitz-Hardinge. It says:—

If at any time within two years from the date of the completion of Aqueduct No. 1 the water supply of the said Pink-well Farm shall, owing to the construction and maintenance of Aqueduct No. 1 be diminished to such an extent as to render necessary a new or additional supply of water for the purposes of the said farm, the Board shall supply free of cost such new or additional supply of water in such a manner as shall be agreed."

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to tell me that this Clause was inserted really for compensation for property which had been acquired from Lord Fitz-Hardinge under the Bill. I do not think that can be so. As I read the Clause the compensation is for depriving him of the water supply which he possesses at the present moment. That is all we ask on behalf of the small owners in the vicinity of the reservoir. I would like, in conclusion, to make an appeal to the House. Surely this is a matter of justice and fair play, the Metropolitan Water Board is a great and powerful corporation. With the sanction of Parliament behind it, it goes down to a rural district in Middlesex to put up reservoirs which are to be used, not for the people in the neighbourhood, but for a population which is entirely distinct, namely, the population of London. In sinking these great reservoirs, this great corporation probably deprives temporarily, I admit, small owners and small tenants, market gardeners, and other people of that sort of the water supply which is absolutely essential for them. Yet they refuse to consider the possibility of making them a grant of compensation, which everyone admits would be small, for the injury which may be inflicted upon them. I put this matter before the House as a question of fairness and justice, and I hope the appeal I make will not be made in vain. I ask the Local Government Board in considering this question not to be swayed by mere technical or legal quibbles such as the absence of precedent, which I do not admit, but to do what is right on a question of this kind, and to do what it can to prevent the infliction of injustice.


I desire to second the Motion of my Noble Friend. It is difficult to understand why this great corporation should have set in motion all their powers in this House in order to defeat the Clause which we are anxious to introduce into this Bill. From the position which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and others have taken up towards this Clause, one might think that we were proposing something which would entail enormous expenditure upon the Water Board. We are proposing to do nothing of the sort. The amount of compensation we ask the Water Board to give to the people affected by their works is a very small amount, and, furthermore, the compensation will only be temporary. It will be necessary for the people who claim it to prove that they have sustained damage by the sinking of these drains, and therefore it seems to me that the opposition to the Clause which the Middlesex Members wish to insert is really rather in the nature of red tape. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I used on the last occasion that this matter was before the House. The main arguments by which we were met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by the hon. Member for Stoke were, first of all, that this damage would not occur. The hon. Member for Stoke explained he had a large experience, which I do not for a moment doubt, in the construction of reservoirs in the Thames Valley, and that it was quite impossible that these wells would be drained. If the hon. Member for Stoke knows better than the engineer for the Water Board—I do not say this in any impertinent sense; I certainly hope he does know more—and if he is right that there will be no depletion, then there will be no claim upon the Metropolitan Water Board. The onus of proof will rest upon the small holders who live round these reservoirs. It cannot be said that we were making an organised attempt to deprive the citizens of London of their water. We realise that the citizens of London want water, and in Middlesex we are patriotic enough not to insist on not having our district turned into a hideous place by these great walls which are being put up because it is for the interests of the people of London, but we say, as you are going to disfigure a large part of West Middlesex, you should do everything in your power to see that the people are not unnecessarily damaged.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite informed us there was no precedent for the action we desired to take. That does not seem to me to be a very conclusive argument. Further, he goes on to say, if we pass this Clause, we should be setting up a precedent which other people will make use of in an injurious manner. I think it speaks very badly for the House of Commons, if we are to be debarred from doing justice to one set of people because we may thereby set up a precedent by which more than justice or injustice might be done to other people. It is tantamount to admitting that the House of Commons is not competent or capable in other cases to decide whether people who desire a similar Clause in other Bills, have a just claim or not. I submit the question of precedent ought not to weigh for one moment with those who are opposing the insertion of this Clause. Then we were told by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this depletion will not take place. My Noble Friend has read out the evidence of Mr. Bryan and Mr. Huntley. We admit that Mr. Bryan's evidence as to depletion was given in regard to reservoirs 2 and 3, now struck out, but this evidence applied with equal force to reservoirs 6 and 7, and we also desire to point out that Mr. Huntley, who bore out Mr. Bryan, gave his evidence explicitly in regard to numbers 6 and 7, and proved that there was to be a considerable depth in these parts, much deeper than the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to admit. Mr. Bryan was asked whether they had gone down 110 feet and not found London clay, and he admitted that they had gone down a considerable distance. I would point out these two facts. First of all, that these trenches which they proposed to build round the reservoirs will have to go down a considerable distance, and further, that the wells of the people of this neighbourhood, whose depth is only 10 or 15 feet, will be depleted. If the trench is only 30 feet deep and the surround- ing wells are on an average 10 feet there would be a depletion of water from the wells during the construction. The argument has been used by those who oppose this Clause that the Middlesex County Council, when this Bill was being discussed, did not sufficiently emphasise their desire for the insertion of this Clause. I should like to point out to the House that when they received this commission from Mr. Bryan, the engineer, he had made provision to remedy this defect in his estimate. He had made a contingent estimate, and Lord Newton, in the House of Lords, speaking with great experience as a past Chairman of similar Committees, gave a similar opinion and the Middlesex County Council naturally thought that this point was conceded, and that it would be wasting time to contest it further.

It has been argued that the people who live round the neighbourhood of these reservoirs have not come forward and protested. May I point out that the people who live round the sites of these reservoirs are not millionaires. They live in my Constituency, and they have not the money to bring expensive petitions before this House or the Committee. The hon. Member for Stoke, when he opposed this Clause last week, said that we were really passing this Clause in the interests of small people, although we had at the back of our minds the desire to leave out the reservoirs altogether, so as not to spoil the pleasure of the wealthier classes who would eventually be spinning round these reservoirs in their motor cars. The fact that we are bringing forward this Clause shows that we are genuine in this respect. I admit that subsequently I shall urge the House to leave out two of these reservoirs, but now we are only asking the House to accept the Clause which will inflict very little expense upon the Metropolitan Water Board, and which will not in the slightest degree interfere with their plans for the supply of water. We are urging this Clause in the interests of people who, on the evidence of two experts, will probably be very seriously affected, and who have not got the means or the opportunity of urging their petition themselves before the proper authorities. For those reasons I hope the House will see its way to accept this Clause.

Clause read the first time.

Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."


I find myself in rather a difficult position, because during the three years I have been in this House I have, in some thirty or forty Bills, supported a Clause something similar to the one which has been proposed this evening. The curious thing to-night is that I am going to oppose this Clause. For a good many months during this year I had the honour of sitting on the Committee which went into this question, and we heard a great number of petitions, all of which were concerned with the supply of water to the local inhabitants. I was surprised to hear from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Mills) that certain people were too poor to petition. I do not know whether that is a fact or not, but all I can say is that the district councils which represent those areas spoke up for those people and on their behalf in a very able way, and I can assure the House that those people's ideas were well put before the Committee. The Member for Hornsey told us of certain evidence that was given regarding reservoirs 1 and 2. I can assure him that the reservoirs he was really talking about, namely, 5, 6 and 7, are a very considerable distance from 1 and 2, and also the figuration of the land is absolutely different. It is rather a curious thing, but I should like to call the hon. Member's attention to another fact. I believe he was speaking on behalf of the Middlesex County Council, but if he will look into the records of the Committee he will find this extract in the cross-examination, on behalf of the promoters, of Mr. W. G. Graham, the witness for the Middlesex County Council, in support of the proposed Clause. An eminent Member of the Committee, who was the Patronage Secretary in this House not long ago (Lord Marchamley), asked the following question:— As a matter of fact, has not ninety-five per cent. of the evidence given before the Committee gone to show that the level of saturation will be raised throughout the district by the construction of these reservoirs rather than lowered? The answer given was as follows:— The permanent effect might be that the subsoil water will he slightly raised. If it was slightly raised then it could not be lowered. I give that point because I think the whole thing bears on this particular question.


Does that mean that the subsoil would be raised during construction or subsequently?


He says that the subsoil would be slightly raised. He also called attention to the fact that the depth of the trench would be considerable. This trench would have considerable effect on the surrounding districts. Those who are engineers or who have had anything to do with the making of great reservoirs will know that these trenches, which are dug out for putting in the puddle clay to make the core of the embankment, which must go from the depth of the embankment down to the clay below through any soil than can be perforated with water, and in this case it is the London clay, and it is well known that it has to go down in sections. In this particular case it will only be twenty or thirty yards. During the time that that work is going on naturally there will be operations to keep that trench free from water, because in this particular locality the district is on the top of the underground water that is flowing down the valley of the Thames. That is always a continuous flow of water, and, therefore, that trench will have to be kept clear of water while the puddle is being put in. Directly the engines stop and the puddle has been put in to the required depth, the water will flow on, and, according to the evidence that was offered upon the question by Lord Marchamley, the saturation would be raised rather than lowered. Therefore it will be a very temporary affair indeed, and, instead of it being as the hon. Member for Hornsey said from three to four years, I think it will be much nearer the mark to say from three to four weeks. I think it might be even less.


The construction might be from three to four years.


The construction, I am informed by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) would be less than from three to four weeks. It was because it was such a temporary affair that the whole thing was left in the position it was by the Committee after the most careful consideration. The hon. Member for Hornsey said— What about the market gardens in that particular district being devoid of water for that time? I have been a market gardener myself, and I am always watching matters on behalf of market gardeners and agriculturists, and I went over this district, and I failed to see any market gardens. I think the Members of the Committee who were with me will remember there was no market garden. The hon. Member for Hornsey also quoted the South Staffordshire water works. I happen to be a Staffordshire man myself, and I know the South Staffordshire area. It is rather a peculiar thing he should have pitched on that particular place and Bill. If he will go there, he will find it is a very strong permanent pumping station and not a temporary one. There is a well sunk down to a very low order, there are very strong pumps indeed, and out of that well there are branch adits to collect the water in the surrounding district. It is therefore not analogous to this case, and there should be in all great permanent station Bills clauses to safeguard the surrounding districts.

9.0 P.M.

We have also been asked why Lord Fitz-Hardinge, a rich man, gets compensation and why poor men in the district do not get compensation. Lord Fitz-Hardinge's farm, when the whole scheme is completed, will have five 4-ft. diameter pipes through it, and these pipes, if I remember rightly, cross the stream which supplies the farm and certain of his houses, and will absolutely cut off the stream which is the supply for that district. It will not only do it temporarily but permanently, and the Committee, therefore, thought he ought to have compensation. In other cases they did not give compensation, because, to a very large extent it was only temporary. I also notice there were a good many other Bills quoted. There was the Midland Railway Bill and several more. There is not one of those Bills which can be compared with the present Bill. I would also like to answer the last speaker, who gave us the statement from the engineer's evidence that what referred to reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2 also referred to reservoirs 5, 6, and 7. That cannot be so, and in order to satisfy him I will read out a letter which has been put in my hands from Mr. Bryan himself, who is the gentleman he quoted:— My evidence as to temporary supplies was solely with regard to any interference which might have been caused by the works to the inhabitants of Wraysbury. That evidence was given solely in reference to Nos. 1 and 2 reservoirs, and in reply really to the petitioners against those two reservoirs, and it could not possibly have any reference to anything beyond, as you will see from my cross-examination by Mr. Hutchinson I will not weary the House by reading his whole letter. I will hand it to Members if they like to read it. The evidence I gave re Nos. 1 and 2 re Wraysbury, ought not to be quoted as applying to Nos. 6 and 7. That, I think, completely shows that what we have done was done in a fair and honourable manner for the good of the district as a whole. We were also most careful to safeguard the interests of the smaller people. I should like to answer another point which was made in this House the last time the Bill was before it. A statement made by the Earl of Kin-tore in another place was quoted:— We were not of ourselves prepared on a private Bill to take a new departure—— the departure of putting this Clause into the Bill— involving such a large question of principle, so in the confident expectation that the matter would be raised in one or other of the Houses of Parliament, we decided as a Committee to take no action. Perhaps you can twist that round and make out it is a point in the favour of those who are advocating this Clause, but I can assure the House it was not, because at that time we had in our mind the Committee of which Lord MacDonnell is the Chairman, and which is going into that question. It referred to the question as a whole, and not as a part in this particular Bill, and also to the Committee as a whole. I think those in this House who were sitting with me will acknowledge my statement that the Committee thought they should not make a precedent which would in after years be quoted, but that as this Committee was in existence it should go into the matter and settle it. I hope that I have put clearly the two or three cases that have been mentioned. I can assure the House that the Committee who sat went into every question with the greatest care, and I hope the House will back them up and will carry the Bill through as we recommended it. I can assure the House that every one of the cases brought forward against the Bill will be found not to hold water.


The principal point in favour of this Amendment is the differentiation that is made by the Committee, or, rather, by the promoters in the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge as against that of certain hypothetical cottagers. But the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge is totally different from that of the cottagers. Lord Fitz-Hardinge's farm is entirely detached; it is no less than three and a half miles away from the nearest point to one of the new reservoirs, so that under no circumstances will it be touched. But the water from his farm may be permanently taken away. In the case of the cottagers it is apparently admitted that the inconvenience is of a temporary nature. The great difference between the two cases is that Lord Fitz-Hardinge is to have compensation in water if his supply is interfered with. In that case the Metropolitan Water Board offer to give him an equivalent water supply. But the Noble Lord's Amendment is quite different, and I should like the House to understand the position in which the Metropolitan Water Board will be placed if this Clause should be carried. The Clause says nothing about water compensation, and, therefore, anyone, including a lessee, may make a written request to the Metropolitan Water Board for compensation if the water in his well is diminished. It does not even say, as far as I can make out, that the diminution is to be caused by the construction of the reservoir, and the result will be, as the Metropolitan Water Board have no power under this Bill, or under any Act, of seeing what the water levels are at the present minute, they will not have any opportunity of producing evidence to show what was the depth of water prior to the formation of the reservoir. Therefore I say these cases are quite different. It is interesting to see that in another place the Duke of Northumberland, who took up the cudgels for the Middlesex County Council, said it showed that the promoters were willing to consider the case of the big landlords, while they entirely ignored the position of the small owner. That is an interesting position for the Duke of Northumberland to take up, but it does not apply in the least. We had no evidence before the Committee that any damage would be caused to small owners: Precedents have been quoted. I understand that the South Staffordshire case has been quoted as a precedent for putting in a Clause of this sort. But the South Staffordshire case was essentially one of pumping, and I do not think that anyone in this House will suggest that, if it had not been for the undoubted permanent injury that might be done to the people near the works, compensation would have been given for a period during construction. All the cases that have been quoted are cases of a water company or waterworks sinking wells and pumping. There is not a single case where compensation has been given by Parliament for temporary disturbance during construction. The Select Committee was very largely influenced by Lord MacDonnell's Committee on the Water Supply Bill of a previous Session. This Committee said in their Report:— We wish to repeat the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, contained in their third report of 1903, that a comprehensive inquiry into the whole subject of surface and underground water supply should be held before any legislative action is taken of the kind proposed in the Bill. The Select Committee, having that before them, did not think that they were justified in making a precedent in this case. The President of the Local Government Board told us he had taken steps to be advised on the whole matter of underground water, and the Committee thought that a Private Bill of this sort was not a proper place to insert a provision which would have the effect of practically altering the law of the land. That was the position taken up by the Select Committee. As to the suggestion of Lord Fitz-Hardinge having preference over anybody else, I would remind the House that it was an agreed Clause, and I would like to quote what Lord Haldane said on the point. The Noble Lord said:— If the recommendation of the Committee which had the question fully before them were departed from we should be making a precedent and throwing the administration of this class of public business into a state of uncertainty which would make our later conditions worse than the conditions in which we now stand. The Select Committee came to the conclusion that the Bill as presented to this House was a proper Bill, and we hope, therefore, that the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord creating a precedent and altering the law of the land by a private Bill, which certainly would be a bad precedent, will not be carried.


As a Middlesex Member, I have great pleasure in supporting the Clause proposed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey. Although I must admit that, so far as my Constituency is concerned, our withers are unwrung. I have been asked by the Middlesex County Council to support my Noble Friend. I approached the question with an open mind, for I knew nothing about the facts. When the proposed Clause was first put into my hands I thought that surely the Metropolitan Water Board would accept so reasonable a Clause; but as it was opposed I naturally read up the evidence in order to ascertain the grounds for the opposition. What are one or two of the reasons advanced by the Metropolitan Water Board, or its advisers, for the non-acceptance of this Clause? First, they tell us that its terms are general. That is easy enough to say. Apparently they want some specific case of a small well being damaged. Surely that would be easy enough to get. I have motored through the district many times, and, when hon. Members say that small men do not live in that particular part of Middlesex, I dissent from that view. It is a place where small men do live, and I think it would be easy to get hold of a man who would come forward with evidence as to what occurred to his well when the reservoirs were created. It is admitted that their water supply will be temporarily interfered with. That is acknowledged, amongst others, by Mr. Huntley in his evidence. He says, "Reservoir No. 6 would cause depletion." That is all about it. It may be only temporary, but anyhow the damage will be done temporarily, and these men, whether great or small, will have their water supply tampered with at any rate temporarily, on the evidence of Mr. Huntley. The Water Board go on to say that this Clause recognises the right, unknown to general law, of ownership in underground water not flowing in defined channels. It may or it may not be so. It goes on to say that a comprehensive inquiry has been undertaken by a Committee presided over by Lord MacDonnell, and that that Committee has not yet reported. Of course, it will report at some period, probably the Greek kalends, but if you have to wait for this Committee to inquire before you have any water, surely you will have an injustice done you. It may report sooner or later, but meanwhile you are short of water.


The Committee has reported.


I am merely stating what Lord MacDonnell said. They say, again, that the insertion of the Clause would give rise to numerous claims, probably in many cases unjustifiable, which it would be costly to resist. You would imagine from that that the Metropolitan Water Board were people with no money behind them, that they were people who felt compelled to fight for their lives against great and wealthy interests. Is that the case? I, as a matter of fact, pay every year a pretty large cheque to the Metropolitan Water Board, and I know that in the square in which I live there are one hundred other men who write an equally big cheque, and in that square the Metropolitan Water Board take from us a revenue well over £4,000 a year. How many thousand pounds a year is it going to cost them to compensate these few people, for probably only a few years, for the damage done to them by thus tampering with their water supply? Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not tell me it is anything like £4,000 a year. Surely out of their great wealth the Metropolitan Water Board could afford these comparatively few shillings to safeguard these small men from any possible damage which may be done to them by the construction of these reservoirs. It is the case of a wealthy corporation against a few comparatively small people who are appealing to their county council. It has been mentioned that those men did not appear in person. We know what happens on these Committees. We sit in comfortable chairs and go to sleep after lunch. At any rate we know how many days we have to sit. But the witnesses are kept in these stuffy rooms, perhaps for several days together, at great expense and inconvenience to themselves, and at the end of the time they are put in the witnesses' chair and badgered by counsel, and occasionally by ourselves. Is that a fair ordeal to ask small men to be put to? I say no. It is right for the county council to speak for these men and come forward, and through their representatives in this House put their case straight to the Local Government Board.

There has been a question of precedents. I have looked into the question, and one precedent at once struck me. I recollect in the last Parliament I was on the Thames Water Works Bill. I was glad to be on the Bill, because I myself had been a graduate at Cambridge many years ago, and knew the country with which the Bill dealt. I remember being greatly struck at the care which was taken to protect any interest which might suffer diminution of water supply. I was particularly struck with the care we took that a certain village called Little Wilbraham should be protected. We were going to make big works to supply Cambridge town with water. Wilbraham was water-logged nearly all me year, yet here we were very careful that it should not in summer have its supply interfered with. We put in all sorts of Clauses to protect it. If that was done for Little Wilbraham, surely it might be done for the villages of Middlesex, which are not waterlogged, and which will want all the water they can possibly get in the next few years. Of course, if the damages was only going to be temporary, the compensation will be only temporary, and the cost to this great Water Board will be insignificant. I submit that we have made out our case. Really in this small matter the Water Board might meet us. I have heard the case put forward by my hon. Friend, and I heard the hon. Member for Shropshire speak. The only person I have not heard speak is the President of the Local Government Board. I should like to hear his impression of it so that I may make up my mind whether he or my hon. Friends are right.

Colonel GREIG

I intervene with a somewhat impartial attitude, because I am neither a Member for Middlesex nor am I otherwise interested in the matter than as a ratepayer under the Water Board and a consumer of its water. I want to look at the question from a public point of view, and to get behind the principles that lie under this suggested Clause which the House is asked to adopt. It is put forward as being a reasonable Clause which should be inserted in this Bill. I think hon. Members are aware of the general principle of law dealing with this matter, and it can be only a matter where there is underground water percolating through subterraneous strata, because this Clause applies to an area of two miles from the point where the works are to be put. I am not aware of any suggestion having been made from first to last that there was any defined channel through which that water was flowing. So we are dealing here with the case of an undefined channel. The law, which has been in operation for years and years and years, and has been put in force and supported mainly by the landowners of the country, is that the owner of underground water with no certain or defined course or defined limit, has no natural right which would enable him to maintain an action against a great landowner who, in mining on his own land in the usual way, drains away the water from land and dries up his well. It has been stated in another case that no action will lie against a man who, by digging or cutting a drain in his own land, thereby drains his neighbour's land, either by intercepting the flow of water percolating through the pores of the soil and which, but for such digging or draining would have reached his neighbour's land, or by causing the water already collected in fact on his neighbour's soil to percolate away from and out of it. That principle was laid down in the case of Bradford v. Pickles. The Corporation of Bradford had waterworks from which they were pumping water for the City of Bradford. An adjoining landowner happened to have a piece of land alongside the waterworks, and for his own purposes—it is quite true that the corporation said there were malicious motives on his part—sank a pit in his own land, thereby interfering with the water which was flowing through the subterranean strata. They brought an action against this man, and they failed on the ground that the landowner was entitled to do what he liked on his own soil, and that it was absolutely immaterial what his motives were.

If this was a right which that landowner could uphold against the corporation of Bradford, why should a great corporation, seeking to do what it is entitled to do on the land it has bought, pay compensation to a landowner two miles away. It has always been held in this country that there is a difference between water percolating in a defined channel on the surface of the soil and water which is flowing underground. And why? The reason is very evident. Lord Chief Justice Tyndal—and this is trite law—in his judgment, discussing why the law governing springs flowing in a natural course over the surface of the land should be different from the law relating to underground water, points out that there is no limit or space within which the claim of right to an underground stream can be defined, that in the case before the court the nearest coalpit was at a distance of half a mile from the well, and that it was obvious the law must equally apply to an interval of many miles. If you pass this Clause, you will have established that people two miles away from the works will have a right to compensation. This is not a Clause which should be adopted on any ground of public convenience. There is no opportunity under this Bill for the Water Board to examine what is the state of the wells in the district at present. Anyone who has had wells dried up by the drought might say, "You have commenced your works; my stream of water has been affected, and I claim compensation." I say that the principle which I have described is a good and sound one. It has been put in force in favour of landowners, and it is not in the interest of a public body who may more and more require to carry out works of this kind that people should come under the guise of small owners appealing to our sympathies to get compensation for doing the very thing which landowners have been held to be entitled to do, and rightly held to be entitled to do.


The hon. Member (Colonel Greig) told us what is perfectly true, that there is no claim whatever to underground water. His law is perfectly correct, but that is the very reason why Parliament always takes care when large works are being authorised that the right of owners to underground water should be preserved. This Clause is inserted not in one Bill, but in practically every Bill which comes before this House relating to big engineering works, whether railway cuttings or water works. It is almost invariably put in by the House of Commons in order to make those undertakers pay compensation to the people whose rights are taken away.


Can the hon. Gentleman give any case where payment has been made for the temporary taking away of underground water?


I could give a scores of cases where this House has put in Clauses protecting the people whose rights are taken away. The speech of the hon. Member opposite (Colonel Greig) did not deal in any sense with temporary water. The hon. Member gave a very correct statement of the law dealing with the whole question of underground water, whether temporary or permanent. His speech applied quite as much to temporary as to permanent water. I think he referred to underground channels being cut. That is exactly what is going to be done under the provisions of the Bill. I do not want to trouble the House by reading a large number of Clauses in Private Bills. I have here the Clauses which have been inserted in several Bills. In the case of the Barry Docks, where a tunnel was being constructed, they were at the trouble of collecting the water and putting it in proper channels in order that those who would otherwise have that water should not be deprived of its use. There are scores of similar cases. The real opposition to this Clause has come from those gentlemen who were on the Committee and who are somewhat biassed in favour of their own decision. It is natural that they should be, and it is a praiseworthy feeling on their part that they have done what they deemed to be right; but, after all, if this House is to exist as a revising authority on its Committee, we have a right to question in all good faith the decisions of these Committees.

I should like to comment upon what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Stanier). He is the Member who, if I am not mistaken, has caused more of these Clauses to be inserted in Bills than any other Member of the House. He is known to the Private Bill agents of London as the defender of the rights of agriculturists to underground water. He knows that agriculturists have no right-to underground water. Whenever he finds a Bill dealing with new engineering work, down goes a blocking Motion to that Bill, "That it be read upon this day six months." The promoters of the Bill go to him and say, "What is the matter? Why block the Bill?" He replies, "You will deprive the people of the underground water." I am told he is the author of 30 or 40 similar Clauses for the purpose of protecting agriculturists as regards underground water to which they have in law no right. I admire him for it, but I think when the people of Middlesex wish to have the right he has given to many other parts of the country he should support them. He referred to a question asked by Lord Marchamley, and he based his speech on a remark which the Noble Lord made that the effect of this would be to permanently raise the height of the water in these villages.

That is not disputed. The whole question between us is as to the temporary abstraction of water during a period of three or four years, while the reservoirs are being constructed. My hon. Friend says three or four weeks. It may be that one portion of a wall may be constructed in three or four weeks, though personally I rather doubt that. The hon. Member has told us that the wall is going to be constructed with a deep trench down through the gravel to the London clay in lengths of thirty or forty yards. Therefore he says that it will not be a very serious matter while the pumping is going on. He read to us the evidence of Mr. Bryan, in which Mr. Bryan said that it was not fair to use evidence with regard to reservoir No. 5 in reference to what might happen in the case of reservoir No. 6. I am going to ask the House to take that evidence as evidence of a general character, applying their own commonsense to the question that if a trench dug down in a certain spot through the London clay, with pumping going on during the whole time of construction of that trench, will drain an area round about that trench, equally a trench dug through another area through similar soil with similar pumping going on, will drain a similar area. My hon. Friend, who is always fair in Debate, was good enough to pass over to me the letter which Mr. Bryan had written to him. I am afraid he cannot have read through the whole letter of which he has read some portions, for he says that Nos. 6 and 7 are in quite a different position, that the puddle trench is on the south side and only one or two properties may be affected.

There is the admission by Mr. Bryan himself that one or two properties may be affected. If one property of the smallest man in the kingdom is affected he has the right to come to this House and ask for a Clause protecting him. He goes on to say that the pumping will be done in sections, a short distance apart, not of thirty or forty yards, but, roughly, 200 yards, and as soon as that length of puddle has been put in pumping will cease, and the process be repeated. I do not think that is quite the same thing as a small pump trench thirty or forty yards long. Their own engineer admits that the trenches will be 200 yards long and the pumping will suck up the water along the whole of this distance. Mr. Hunter, who was one of the engineers called by the promoters of the Bill, was asked a question about this very reservoir No. 6:— When you constructed the Staines reservoir you had a great deal of pumping to do in the trench, had you not?—Yes, a great deal of pumping. And that would drain the surrounding area?—Quite. Yon have heard the depth of the London clay from Mr. Bryan's evidence?—Yes. From your experience at Staines, would not a very large amount of pumping be necessary to keep the puddle trench in that lower corner dry?—No doubt. Would not that affect property within a very large area from there?—Temporarily, yes. If my client's property is within 100 yards of the puddle trench it would affect him seriously?—For the time, yes. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, and have been assured that nearly the whole of that district is covered by market gardens and small holdings. I have made inquiries also from representatives of the Middlesex County Council, and they assure me that the whole of that district within two miles of this trench which will be drained by the pumping is covered by market gardens and small holdings. If that is so, and the trench would be not twenty or thirty but 200 yards long, as many of the wells are only ten or fifteen feet deep in that district they will be absolutely drained by this trench going down thirty or forty feet in order to get puddle into the London clay. The hon. Member who last spoke referred to Lord MacDonnell's Committee. Who would have thought, when Member after Member for Middlesex has spoken and we have been waiting to hear what defence the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Burns) had to make, that he would have glued himself to that bench and made no defence? When he last spoke he told us he had appointed a small Department with a small expert at a small salary in order to investigate this question.


The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I have not appointed a small Department with a small expert at a small salary. On the contrary, I have carried out the recommendations of the Committee of Lord MacDonnell, and I have appointed a geologist and a competent staff to make the inquiry which the Committee suggested I should undertake.


The right hon. Gentleman is as usual correct. I apologise for having said he created a small Department. I will read his own words: We have created a very small sub-department. I do not think he need have contradicted me when I said he created a small Department. He said in the Debate in this House a week ago:— I have created a very small sub-department with a very small, competent staff. I think that my description, leaving out the "verys," was not so very far wrong with regard to the decision of the hon. Member. The Clause on this matter has been very unfairly described by hon. Members opposite. It gives the very least compensation which this House could possibly give to anybody who has been deprived of his rights in this matter. It does not give compensation unless damage has been done. Then damage has to be proved by the applicant for compensation. He has to prove in the first instance that the wording of this Act has caused a diminution in the water supply. It is not sufficient to say, as the hon. Member opposite suggested, "My well has gone down two inches during the hot weather." The hon. Member is imputing frauds to the villagers and small holders. They must prove that the diminution of the water supply has taken place owing to the working of this Act, and then they are not to get compensation unless they can prove that they had to go outside to get water for themselves. They can come and say, "My water supply has been diminished," or "my crops have failed, and I want compensation." They can only get it if they have gone and got outside water to keep their crops going, and it is only the bare cost of obtaining such additional supply that is to be given. The hon. Member concluded by saying that the Water Board would be entirely in the hands of these small owners. But the Clause states:—

The owners shall afford the officers, servants, or other representatives of the Board, at all reasonable times, after the passing of this Act, access to the source of supply in respect of which any claim is made under this Section for the purpose of ascertaining particulars thereof and the level of the water therein."


That is after the claim is made.


I think you would find these people would say, "If you are going to make a claim, we would like to go and measure your well." If a refusal took place, do you think an arbitrator is going to give damages? The last thing is the right of the county council to intervene in this matter. It has been acknowledged that county councils have a right to intervene in such matters, and they have the right to ask their members representing their counties to put the case of the small holders before this House. The small holders cannot afford the whole expense; all they can do is to call upon their representatives in the county councils, as has been done in this case. Do you think members representing county councils are taking the trouble on a hot night like this to get up this case merely for amusement? Do you think members of county councils do this for amusement? They do it because they have been put into operation by their constituents. We say we have a right, on behalf of the smallest man, to appeal to this House and see that justice is done him. I earnestly ask the House to insert this Clause. If there is no damage, no compensation will be paid. If damage is proved to any of these small holders, this House would be doing wrong if they refused to insert this Clause.


There are fortunately a larger number of hon. Members in this House at the present moment than there were at the commencement of the discussion. I avail myself of that advantage to tell those hon. Members, not formerly present, what the simple facts are at issue between the hon. Member, who has just sat down, and myself. First, we had a considerable Debate on subject matter not only of this Clause, but of other Amendments on the Paper. We had hoped it would have been possible for a decision to have been arrived at on this Bill sooner. But I am not complaining of hon. Members discharging their duty. This Bill has been before a Joint Committee of both Houses—a very strong and powerful Committee it was. That Committee sat for over three months; it heard all the objections, it heard all the evidence, and the particular Clause that it is now sought to incorporate in the Bill was rejected by the Committee.

The Noble Lord, who was Chairman of that Committee, when the substance of the Clause was debated in the House of Lords, spoke against the incorporation of the Clause in the Bill, and by a two-to-one majority the Clause now moved, with other conditions, was rejected. Lord Kintore, the Noble Chairman of the Joint Committee, refused to sanction it, and spoke and voted against it. Lord MacDonnell, Chairman of the Select Committee that the Government set up to go into the matter of subterranean water supplies, not only spoke against the Clause, but voted with Lord Kintore against it. And it is more remarkable still that the three hon. Members of the Select Committee who sit in this House—two on one side and one on the other—have spoken strongly against the Clause which it is sought to embody in the Bill. What is more, is that Mr. Bryan, the engineer whose evidence has been twisted out of its application, has written a letter read by the hon. Member, who spoke with great authority and was a Member of the Committee. Mr. Bryan objected to general evidence being applied to this particular case, to which it does not apply. Mr. Hunter's evidence has no special application to the subject matter under present consideration. I was surprised the hon. Member below the Gangway should have said what he did to influence argument when he stated that this was "a number of small holders against a wealthy corporation." Wealthy corporations have a right to be protected when they are discharging a public duty. But this is not a wealthy corporation in the sense the hon. Member implies. It is true it paid £50,000,000 of money for the water companies, but last year it had a loss of £57,000, and it is not in a position to squander money. The hon. Member complained it was his duty to make out a big cheque for water. If the Board are not-protected against extravagances of this kind, his cheque will be larger and his duty more disagreeable.

What is the simple fact? It is that hypothetical cottagers, who are reported to be losing hypothetical water, in market gardens or elsewhere, and who are not within the limits of the deviation of this particular reservoir which we are laying down, may, as a general rule, by securing this Amendment, claim that subterranean water, in regard to which they brought no evidence before the Committee, shall be treated by the Bill as subject for compensation in case of interference. If this Amendment were accepted it would provoke or lead to claims with which a body like the Metropolitan Water Board have no right to be hampered. For this and for other reasons this Clause ought not to be accepted. We are told to-night, as we have been told previously, that we are giving to Lord Fitz-Hardinge compensation which we are denying to the small holders. I believe that even lords are entitled to their pound of flesh, that if they prove damage, if they bring evidence of it, there ought to be no difference as to compensation between either a peer or a commoner. But they have no right to bring Lord Fitz-Hardinge into this matter. He receives compensation, but he does not exact cash compensation; he asks for compensation in water in respect of the damage which his property sustains by the interference with the water supply on his estate, in order that the small holders may not suffer injury. What are the facts? A tremendous conduit, at least twenty-five feet wide and containing five iron pipes of four feet diameter, cuts through Lord Fitz-Hardinge's estate, and the water supply is diverted, while a well is destroyed.

10.0 P.M.

Lord Fitz-Hardinge very promptly asks for protection, and he went to the Water Board and pointed out to them that this conduit cuts right through his property, and runs close to it, and that they had no right to divert from the tenants on the estate the water supply which they had, nor had they a right to destroy the well. Lord Fitz-Hardinge proved the injury done to the water supply on his property, and it is thought right to give him an equivalent water supply. To say that this case is comparable to the hypothetical claim set up by the hon. Member for Middlesex on behalf of small owners is to compare the unlike with the like. I say that the evidence in favour of this Bill being passed to-night is overwhelming. The evidence against this Clause which it is sought to insert in the Bill is equally overpowering, and no case for compensation has been proved. No damage has been proved; yet the Water Board is asked to insert a Clause which will enable men who may not sustain damage to say to the Water Board "We want compensation." Such claims would involve needless expense to which no public body ought to be subjected. The supporters of this proposal were not able before the Select Committee, either in the House of Lords or in the House of Commons, to put forward a case which they could in any sense maintain. The London Water Board has imposed upon it by Parliament a very important duty, and they ought to be allowed to carry out that statutory duty of supplying water without being handicapped by irritating and obstructive Clauses of this character. They should be allowed to enter on their work. As President of the Local Government Board, taking an almost paternal interest in London and the surrounding districts, I now say that, as far as I can bring influence to bear upon this particular body, who have a task of great difficulty to perform, these works shall be carried out on the lines of least resistance, and that everything shall be done in order that conjectural sufferers may be able to continue their work with the least possible interference. Considering that I have the Royal Commission's report on underground water supply in my support, that I have the Select Committee on this Bill, and that I have Lord Kintore in the House of Lords, and three Members on both sides of the House on this Bill, I ask the House, in view of such overwhelming testimony, not to accept this Clause.


When this matter was before the House previously, I stated then there was a Clause in it for the protection of Lord Fitz-Hardinge, that the Clause ought not to stop there, but that the Clause which is now submitted should be inserted. That is exactly the position which I now hold. I have an Amendment on the Paper to delete that part of the Clause which gives to Lord Fitz-Hardinge compensation for possible loss of water which might be due to these works. As that is not doing the Noble Lord any injustice, I speak now before the House has decided whether it will give to the Middlesex County Council the same protection that it is giving Lord Fitz-Hardinge. The right hon. Gentleman said that this had been before the Select Committee who have considered this matter for three months, and have decided upon it. I have no doubt that the Bill was before the Select Committee a long time, but this is just one of the matters which the Committee did not decide, and their Chairman distinctly said so. He said:— We were not ourselves permitted in a private Bill to take this new departure involving so large a question of principle, and so in the confident expectation that the matter would be raised in one or other of the Houses of Parliament, we decided as a Committee to take no action. When the Chairman of the Committee states that he would not put this Clause in the Bill because they thought it was a matter to be decided by the House of Commons or the House of Lords, how the right hon. Gentleman can ask us to consider the matter closed I really do not understand. But the point I am particularly interested in is seeing that we deal fairly as between the people affected by these works. I am afraid a little prejudice has been imported into this matter, because of the jealousy between various public authorities. It may be that the Middlesex County Council are jealous of the Metropolitan Water Board, and I admit that there may be other grounds of opposition put forward by the Middlesex County Council to this Bill. One, for instance, is as to the two reservoirs, 6 and 7, and as to the particular location of those reservoirs. Possibly this Clause which we now ask to put into the Bill may be prejudiced by the fact that there were other matters which were urged by the Middlesex County Council against this Bill. The point I am anxious that the House should consider first of all is, has this Committee afforded Lord Fitz-Hardinge any protection which they are denying to the Middlesex County Council? Whether the people on whose behalf the county council are taking action are small holders if they are affected in the same way as Lord Fitz-Hardinge protection is claimed for them. The right hon. Gentleman twits us on the fact, but he told us himself that it was Lord Fitz-Hardinge's tenants who are being given protection, so that it is not a question of a Noble Lord versus the small holder, but Lord Fitz-Hardinge's tenants versus the people the Middlesex County Council are seeking to protect. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is quite clear in the case of Lord Fitz-Hardinge that the damage has been caused or will be caused. I think that what the House has got to consider is on what evidence that is stated. No evidence was called on behalf of Lord Fitz-Hardinge for the same reason that no evidence was called on behalf of the Middlesex County Council because the experts of the Local Government Board admitted the mischief. We have been twitted with the fact that these people did not call witnesses, but no more did Lord Fitz-Hardinge. The engineer (Mr. Bryan) in the course of cross-examination was asked as to a well on Lord Fitz-Hardinge's property, and the cross-examination proceeded:— You see that the aqueduct is going along that well?—Yes. If the aqueduct, should in any way cause that well to dry up, would you be prepared to find some other means of supplying the farm?—Yes. So far as water is concerned there is an admission from the engineer of the Water Board that the carrying of an aqueduct within three or four hundred feet of this well might cause a loss of water. That is the only evidence on which they justify giving Lord Fitz-Hardinge compensation for loss of water. "Oh," but says the right hon. Gentleman, "this great aqueduct is being run through, and it is obvious loss of water will take place," and he adds that the owner is content to be compensated by water, and not by money compensation. The promoters of the Bill very cleverly try now to whittle away the damage which those admissions from their point of view give rise to. The engineer says, admittedly in these particular reservoirs and the other reservoirs the scheme for pumping would go on and that it would deprive the neighbourhood of water. He also said that, left to himself, he would think it was right to make good the loss of water which might arise from those pumping operations in regard to reservoirs 1, 2, 3, or 4. We are told then that he did not say that there was loss of water in regard to the operations as to reservoirs Nos. 5 and 6 that ought to be made good, but what is the difference in principle? The consulting engineer (Mr. Hunter) was also examined. [The hon. Member quoted from the evidence.] Upon that evidence the Middlesex County Council did not call any witnesses. There was an admission from the experts of the promoters of the Bill that loss of water was possible, and in fact probable, exactly the same admission which was made by the engineer in regard to Lord Fitz-Hardinge. That admission as to Lord Fitz-Hardinge was that dragging this trench along might deplete the well on the farm. [An HON. MEMBER: "Permanently."] Yes, but the Clause says that he is to get compensation owing to construction as well as maintenance. I fail for the life of me to see what is the difference in principle, and why if you injure a man for four months owing to pumping operations he ought not to be compensated, but if you injure him for ten months or permanently then he has a right to compensation. The right hon. Gentleman said also that what is asked by the Middlesex County Council is cash compensation. Not at all. There is nothing in the Clause which demands money compensation. The Clause provides that the people have got to be compensated for loss of water. Anybody knowing anything about the Metropolitan Water Board knows that the moment this Clause goes in that it there is anybody likely to be deprived of water by reason of their works that they will take care to survey and examine it now, and if they are prepared to offer to those people a supply of water during the period when they are pumping then there is no loss and no compensation. I do think that if that is the only ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to agree to compensation being given to the Noble Lord and not to these other men who happen for the moment to have the protection of the county council that it is not a sufficient ground. And, by the way, is there anybody more fitted to watch the interests not only of the owners, but in the interests of the health of the community and the water supply of that part of the county than the Middlesex County Council.

In fact, it strengthens the position that it is a public body that comes forward, not in its own interest, with nothing to make out of it, and asks for this protection on behalf of these people. By means of this trench which is being cut through Lord Fitz-Hardinge's farm permanent loss of water may result. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to say that it will result. One of the features of these operations is that no one is able to say beforehand what will result when you drive trenches of this sort at a great depth below the surface. It may be that Lord Fitz-Hardinge's loss will be only temporary. In any case I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has made a case for differentiating between Lord Fitz-Hardinge and his tenants and the Middlesex County Council and the people in whom they are interested. It seems that Lord Fitz-Hardinge has been sufficiently powerful to go to the promoters of the Bill and get an agreed Clause, because when the Duke of Northumberland in the House of Lords pleaded for the small holders as against Lord Fitz-Hardinge, and said, "Why is it that a Noble Lord gets this protection whereas the small occupiers do not get it? I will not be behind my fellow aldermen in pleading for equal treatment as between noble lords and small holders," the Chairman of the Committee admitted it was an agreed Clause, which meant that the Committee took no responsibility in regard to it. That is what this House is being asked to do. Personally, I think that Parliament is responsible for every Clause in the Bill, whether it is there by agreement or not; and if this Clause for protecting the people within the area of the Middlesex County Council is not put in, I am bound to press for the protection which the Committee have given to Lord Fitz-Hardinge being withdrawn from the Bill.


I think the hon. Members for Middlesex may be congratulated on having put up a very good fight for what I think is a very bad cause. I hoped, after the speech of the President of the Local Government Board they might have seen the wisdom of not proceeding with the matter. I should not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones). I have read the papers connected with this matter, and when the hon. Member by a side issue tried to throw some discredit upon Lord Fitz-Hardinge for the Clause which he succeeded in getting inserted in the Bill——


I hope the hon. Member does not suggest that I cast any reflection on Lord Fitz-Hardinge. He has only done what the Middlesex County Council are trying to do.


I am glad the hon. Member thinks that Lord Fitz-Hardinge only did what he is entitled to do, that is, to look after his tenants. Ho has a tenant of a particular farm, and I find the following in Mr. Bryan's evidence:— Do you know that the only source of supply for that farm is one well?—Yes. I am told so. Of a depth of from nine to ten feet?—Yes. And you say an aqueduct is going along within some three or four hundred feet of that well?—That is so. If the aqueduct should in any place cause the well to dry up, would yon be prepared to find some other supply for the farm?—Yes. This farm, with a well nine or ten feet deep, is quite a different case from that of the other reservoirs, and any temporary trouble there may be in the district. Surely, as Lord Fitz-Hardinge only did what was right in the interests of his tenants and in the interests of a trust—because he is only a tenant for life—I really think that no reflection should be cast upon Lord Fitz-Hardinge, or that the Duke of Northumberland should be set up against Lord Fitz-Hardinge. However, Lords need not be introduced at all into this question. It seems to me that the Committee have thoroughly thrashed out the matter with a view to doing justice all round, and Members having expressed an overwhelming weight of opinion against the Amendment, those responsible might discreetly withdraw it.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott)

I do not rise to take part in the discussion on the merits of this Clause, but really to appeal to the House to come to a decision on the matter. We have been for practically two hours discussing it. If anyone expects to learn anything more from any further speeches I do not. My own opinion is that we ought to support the Committee, and I beg the House to come to a decision.


The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees has appealed to the House to come to a decision on the matter, and he doubted whether we had anything to learn from a discussion. As an Irish Member I have a great deal to learn from this discussion. What I chiefly learn from it is this: The Budget has been postponed until practically the middle of August. On the day when the Budget—the only opportunity that we have for raising important questions of over-taxation—is taken, the Government, by arrangements of their own, have put down a Bill of enormous magnitude. Do not let hon. Members for a moment imagine that I am minimising the importance of this great question which has been under discussion. On the contrary, I say it is a question from the point of view of Middlesex and of London which well deserves a long Debate; but it is upon this Budget day, and in order to close the mouths of hon. Members interested in finance——


I think I must explain that the Government are not responsible for putting this Bill down. I am responsible. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the other business of this week I do not think he will be able to suggest a better day to take it on.


I quite accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he is responsible, but why do the Government acknowledge that this Bill may be put down on the day that the Budget is put down for discussion? That is the point. I will not argue on the appeal that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, but I venture to make a suggestion by way of compromise. Nobody has a greater admiration for the way the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has shepherded London than I have. London is his parish. Nothing that concerns London is indifferent to him. Nor do I share the views put forward that Lord Fitz-Hardinge has got more than he deserves. But hon. Members in this House will remember what happened when the Bill concerning the St. Winifred's Well was under discussion. But I rose only for the purpose of suggesting this: It is said that these claims may be bogus. It is said that to some extent they are conjectural. In that I fully agree. But there is this further thing to be said. We are dealing with the unknown. When you are dealing with underground water no man can say what will be the result. If the water was going to be pumped in order to make the sections water-tight; if it was intended in any sense for drink of the community, I would not mind. It is not potable water; it is intended as structural work just as much as if it was intended to be put up in concrete or cement. Therefore you have got a case quite unlike any other case which has arisen, namely, the drying up of a large area of supply. Will the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board forgive me. He cannot have the interest in agriculture that some Members have; he cannot have the interest in the market gardens that he takes in streets, or if I may say so, slums. To attack the farmer's water is to attack his life and that is especially so in the case of market gardeners. Perhaps I might make a suggestion. It is said this Clause is too wide. I agree. The gentleman at the head of the Water Board was himself an hon. Member of this House, and he is a friend of mine. It was only because he wrote to me to support the Bill that I looked into the merits of the case and ascertained the facts. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would agree after the word "if" to insert the words, "in the opinion of the Local Government Board," or suppose he accepted another suggestion that no claim should be made which would harass the Water Board unless it had received, so to speak, the imprimatur or at all events the sanction of the Local Government Board. I do not think that is too much to ask. It is no use when dealing with a number of small farmers in the country to say they should come forward singly. There is the greatest county council in England which says these small men have some small title or claim for protection. I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to have some consideration for the small men whose only means of irrigation for their farms may be sapped by the pumping for these trenches. They are going to go down forty, fifty, or it may be a hundred feet deep. Who can say that the supply of these small market gardeners is not going to be sapped and undermined. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this Clause. I was first inclined to move the Adjournment of the Debate, ns it was brought on on Budget night. I will not do that, having regard to the appeal of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I think the subject is entitled to some further consideration from the right hon. Gentleman than he has given us up to now.


It is only by leave of the House that I rise to respond to the appeal made to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He spoke as if the pumping to which he referred was to be pumping permanently conducted in this particular place.


For two years!


And that it would interfere with the water supply. It is only to be temporary, and it is to be confined to trench work. It is very doubtful whether any loss will be sustained by the people to whom he so sympathetically referred. I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I can do no more than say that any influence I can bring to bear to ensure that this possible risk of dreadful loss is not sustained by those people will be exercised by me.


I think the Chairman of Ways and Means knows I shall not lightly go against his appeal after what he has said. I shall not say any- thing upon the details of the various questions involved. There is one point of principle which was used as a strong argument by the right hon. Gentleman against which I must make a vigorous protest. The right hon. Gentleman said, as one of his reasons for resisting this Clause, that the small people on whose behalf the Middlesex County Council spoke, did not appear or prove their case before the Committee. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should be so retrograde when the House of Commons has, during the last five years, been taking strong steps to protect small people in these matters affecting water supply. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that reason. I do not say that he has not made good his case, but this House has shown repeatedly that it attaches great importance to the right to intervene in the interests of small people who cannot afford to be represented in order to prove their case before the Committees on Private Bills. It is essential that the interests of these people, and especially the interests of agricultural communities, should be protected in regard lo their water supply. In spite of the appeal made by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I felt bound to enter this protest, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the fact that he has used this argument against a particular class to influence him or the House of Commons in any future debate which may arise on the question of the supply of underground water.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 103; Noes, 222.

Division No. 315.] AYES. [10.35 p.m.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Bridgaman, W. Clive Crean, Eugene
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Burn, Col. C. R. Dalrymple, Viscount
Arkwright, John Stanhope Butcher, J. G. Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott
Ashley, Wilfrid W. Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Duke, Henry Edward
Balcarres Lord Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.
Baldwin, Stanley Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cassel, Felix Fell, Arthur
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Cave, George Fleming, Valentine
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)
Barnston, H. Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Gibbs, George Abraham
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Gilhooly, James
Bigland, Alfred Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Gilmour, Captain John
Bird, Alfred Clive, Captain Percy Archer Goldman, C. S
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) Clyde, James Avon Goldsmith, Frank
Brassey, H Leonard Campbell Courthope, G. Loyd Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)
Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Morrison-Boll, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) Talbot, Lord Edmund
Greene, Walter Raymond Mount, William Arthur Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Guiney, P. Newman, John R. P. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Gwynne, R. S (Sussex, Eastbourne) O'Brien, William (Cork) Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, N.)
Healy, Maurice (Cork) Paget, Almeric Hugh Thynne, Lord Alexander
Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) Perkins, Walter F. Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Henderson, Major H.(Berks, Abingdon) Peto, Basil Edward Touche, George Alexander
Hoare, S. J. G. Pollock, Ernest Murray Tullibardine, Marquess of
Hohler, G. F. Pryce-Jones, Col. E. Valentia, Viscount
Horner, Andrew Long Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Hume-Williams, William Ellis Rawson, Col. R. H. Wheler, Granville C. H.
Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney) Salter, Arthur Clavell White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Joynson-Hicks, William Sanders, Robert A. Wolmor, Viscount
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sanderson, Lancelot Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Lloyd, George Ambrose Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Worthington-Evans, L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'i, Walton) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) Yate, Col. C. E.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Magnus, Sir Philip Stewart, Gershem TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Earl
Martin, J. Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) of Ronaldshay and Mr. Mills
Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Essex, Richard Walter Lamb, Ernest Henry
Acland, Francis Dyke Esslemont, George Birnie Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Adamson, William Falconer, J. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Farrell, James Patrick Lawson, Sir W. (Cunib'rl'nd, Cockerm'th)
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Levy, Sir Maurice
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Ferens, Thomas Robinson Lewis, John Herbert
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Ffrench, Peter Logan, John William
Armitage, R. Field, William Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Lundon, T.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Flavin, Michael Joseph Lynch, A. A.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Furness, Stephen Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Barnes, George N. Gelder, Sir W. A. Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)
Barran, Sir J (Hawick) George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd McGhee, Richard
Barton, A. W. Gibson, Sir James P. Maclean, Donald
Beck, Arthur Cecil Glanville, Harold James Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) Goldstone, Frank MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Bentham, George J. Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Macpherson, James Ian
Birred, Rt. Hon. Augustine Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Booth, Frederick Handel Greig, Colonel J. W. M'Callum, John M.
Bowerman, Charles W. Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) M'Laren, H. D. (Leicester)
Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Boyton, James Guiland, John W. M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Brace, William Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Marks, Sir George Croydon
Brigg, Sir John Hackett, J. Marshall, Arthur Harold
Brocklehurst, William B. Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Bryce, John Annan Hancock, John George Meagher, Michael
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Menzies, Sir Walter
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Byles, Sir William Pollard Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Carr Gomm, H. W. Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Muldoon, John
Chancellor, H. G. Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Munro, Robert
Chapple, Dr. William Allen Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Clancy, John Joseph Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Clough, William Haworth, Sir Arthur A. Neilson, Francis
Clynes, J. R. Hayden, John Patrick Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) Hayward, Evan Nolan, Joseph
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Helme, Norval Watson Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Condon, Thomas Joseph Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Nuttall, Harry
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Henry, Sir Charles S. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Higham, John Sharp O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Cotton, William Francis Hill, Sir Clement O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Doherty, Philip
Crooks, William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey O'Dowd, John
Crumley, Patrick Hughes, S. L. O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Illingworth, Percy H. O'Sullivan, Timothy
Davies, E. William (Eifion) Ingleby, Holcombe Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Parker, James (Halifax)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Johnson, W. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)
Delany, William Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Phillips, John (Longford, S.)
Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pirie, Duncan V.
Devlin, Joseph Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Dillon, John Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Power, Patrick Joseph
Doris, William Jowett, Frederick William Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Duncan. C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Joyce, Michael Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Keating, M. Pringle, William M. R.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Kellaway, Frederick George Radford, G. H.
Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Kelly, Edward Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Elverston, Sir Harold Kennedy, Vincent Paul Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred Kilbride, Denis Reddy, M.
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) King, J. (Somerset, N.) Rendall, Atheistan
Richardson, Albion (Peckham) Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Wadsworth, J.
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Sheehy, David Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Webb, H.
Robertson, John H. (Tyneside) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) White, Patrick (Heath, North)
Robinson, Sidney Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Wilkie, Alexander
Roche, John (Galway, E.) Sutton, John E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Roe, Sir Thomas Taylor, John W. (Durham) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Rose, Sir Charles Day Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Young, William (Perth, East)
Rowntree, Arnold Tennant, Harold John Younger, Sir George
Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Toulmin, Sir George
Samuel, J. (Stockton) Trevelyan, Charles Philips TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Stanier and Mr. Dawes.
Scanian, Thomas Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

I beg to move, in Clause 5 [Power to make Waterworks] to leave out the following paragraphs:—

A storage reservoir (Reservoir No. 6) partly in the Parish of Laleham and partly in the Parish of Littleton situate between the existing aqueduct of the Board on the north and the road leading from Ashford to Laleham on the west and adjoining on the eastern side the Reservoir No. 7 by this Act authorised and hereinafter described;

A storage reservoir (Reservoir No. 7), partly in the said Parish of Littleton partly in the Parish of Shepperton and partly in the Parish of Sunbury situate between the existing aqueduct of the Board on the north Charlton road on the east and the road leading to Ashford from the road between Littleton and Ashford Common on the north-east and adjoining on the western side the Reservoir No. 6 by this Act authorised;

In moving the omission of these two reservoirs, we do not desire that London should be deprived of its water, but we submit that the site of these reservoirs has been chosen in a most unfortunate position, and we argue that if it can be proved that it is not absolutely necessary that these reservoirs should be built at once there is a very good case for asking the House to delete them and make the Water Board construct them at a more suitable place. It is estimated by the Water Board that by the year 1921 they will want 9,886,000,000 gallons of water, while with the reservoirs now in course of construction by the year 1917 they will have 8,800,000,000 gallons of water; therefore, even on the estimate of the Water Board, there is no reason why the construction of these particular reservoirs should be started at once. It is quite easy to show that the site of these proposed reservoirs is a most unfortunate one. From a party point of view, I should rather desire that the reservoirs be made, as the outside wall of one comes within about 250 yards of the gate of my opponent's residence. Therefore, I have this satisfaction of knowing that if the reservoirs are constructed the amenities of my opponent's house will be completely destroyed and he will no doubt feel compelled to leave the district. But in spite of that I have come to the conclusion that the damage that these reservoirs will inflict on the community is so large that I ask the House to cause the Water Board to have them deleted. I confidently appeal to Members of the Committee who made a personal survey of the locality whether the 600 acres on which they propose to construct these two reservoir are not quite the prettiest part within a radius of some five miles. The Water Beard could not by any conceivable means have chosen a worse place in which to construct these two reservoirs, especially as there is land near by which has not got the same amenities and does not offer the same attractions for the development of building. We do not wish to defraud London of water. We are quite willing, if necessary, that West Middlesex should be the dumping ground for these reservoirs, but we ask that they should be put in places where they will not entirely destroy a very valuable piece of ground and also entirely destroy the amenities of that part of the country. In addition to what the right hon. Gentleman calls the æsthetic objections to the Bill there is also the more material objection that several main roads, in fact the principal thoroughfares leading from Hounslow to the Chertsey district, are deflected by these two reservoirs, and their construction in this position will cause a great deal of inconvenience to the inhabitants of the locality.


I beg to second the Amendment. It is not in the least necessary in the interest of the water supply of London that these two (particular reservoirs shall be constructed or that any other reservoir except No. 5 should be constructed at the present time. The Water Board came and asked Parliament for powers to construct an enormous number of reservoirs which they do not in the least require. One of these they gave up themselves, and three others were cut out by the Committee, and they now have only three of their originally desired reservoirs left, and if they can afford to drop Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 they can drop Nos. 5 and 6 as well. The construction of these two reservoirs will necessitate the diversion of certain roads and footpaths and the River Ash and other streams. That is a matter of considerable inconvenience to inhabitants of the locality. There is a very important piece of evidence given by Mr. Bryan, the engineer of the Board with regard to these two reservoirs after the other reservoirs had been cut out by the Committee. He stated, in answer to a question put to him by Lord Kintore, the Chairman of the Committee, that if reservoirs Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were disallowed by the Board he would have to see earlier to the construction of reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7, but he added:— I. think I should advise the Board to go to Parliament again to get more reservoirs in the neighbourhood of 4 and 5. He also stated that the making of Nos. 6 and 7 reservoirs would alter the whole scheme of getting sufficient wafer from the Thames. In that evidence the engineer clearly showed that if reservoirs Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were disallowed by the Committee, it would be desirable, in his opinion, that the Board should not proceed with the construction of Nos. 6 and 7, but should come to Parliament again suggesting the construction of reservoirs in the vicinity of the existing reservoirs Nos. 4 and 5. We have no objection whatever to that. We consider that it would be far more suitable that the reservoirs should be constructed in the vicinity of the existing Nos. 4 and 5 rather than that they should embark on their construction at the places proposed. I wish to refer to another piece of evidence. The Chairman, addressing the engineer of the board, said, "But surely there will be separate filter beds for 6 and 7—will there not?" Mr. Bryan's answer was, "No." Under these circumstances and in view of the immense inconvenience which will be caused to the residents in that particular part of Middlesex in which it is proposed to construct reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7, and in view of the fact that, on the evidence of the engineer of the board himself that it would be more desirable that they should apply to Parliament again for powers to construct the reservoirs in the vicinity of the existing reservoirs, I think it is desirable that we should omit this particular Clause from the Bill. I have very great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.


The Bill originally contained proposals for eight reservoirs. The Committee struck out Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the Water Board withdrew No. 8. If this Amendment were carried there would be only one reservoir. I appeal to the House not to kill the Bill and waste the enormous sum of money which has been expended by the Water Board in fulfilment of a public duty.


The right hon. Gentleman now supports the Water Board who have brought before Parliament a totally improper scheme. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech half-an-hour ago was a glorification of the Select Committee that sat on the Bill. The whole of his argument against the last Amendment was that the Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons had gone thoroughly into the Bill and that the decision of the Committee was right. It was the Committee that knocked out reservoirs Nos. 1. 2, 3, and 4.


I said so.


They were knocked out by the Committee whose decision he applauded. Therefore we must assume that Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were improperly put in by the promoters of the Bill. No. 8 was withdrawn by the promoters, so that it also should never have been in the Bill. Therefore we have got five-eighths of the Bill on a bad foundation. As regards Nos. 6 and 7, there is a very simple reason for this opposition by people who are going to be detrimentally affected. The county counil of Middlesex and the guardians of Middlesex ask us to come here to ask the House to omit these reservoirs. The right hon. Gentleman did not say a word as to the statement by Mr. Bryan, referred to by my Noble Friend the Member for Hornsey, that if Nos. 1, 2. and 3 were disallowed he would advise the Board to omit 6 and 7 and go to Parliament next year for a better scheme. What is that better scheme? The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) told us that the last ocasion that he has worked in the Thames Valley, and knows the whole system of the Metropolitan Water Works. It is known that there has been, so to speak, a concentration of reservoirs in the Staines district. It is one which is admirably suited for reservoirs. The inhabitants do not object to the reservoirs being dumped down there. There is a complete arrangement of filter beds at Staines and there is available ground for working these additional reservoirs. If this House agrees to the excision of reservoirs Nos. 6 and 7 it would be perfectly open to the Water Board next year, according to the advice of their own engineer, to come here and ask for a scheme

to put the new reservoirs at Staines, where they will have the filter beds close at hand.

Mr. BURNS rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."


I assent to this Motion, bearing in mind that the matter was very fully discussed about a week ago on the Motion of the Chairman of Committees.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 218; Noes, 101.

Division No. 316.] AYES. [11.0 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) King, J. (Somerset, N.)
Acland, Francis Dyke Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) Lamb, Ernest Henry
Adamson, William Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)
Addison, Dr. Christopher Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)
Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) Elverston, Sir Harold Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred Levy, Sir Maurice
Armitage, Robert Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lewis, John Herbert
Baker, H. T. (Accrington) Essex, Richard Walter Logan, John William
Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) Esslemont, George Birnie Lundon, T.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Falconer, J. Lynch, Arthur Alfred
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Farrell, James Patrick McGhee, Richard
Barnes, George N. Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Maclean, Donald
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) Ferens, T. R. Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) Ffrench, Peter MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)
Barton, William Field, William Macpherson, James Ian
Beck, Arthur Cecil Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) Flavin, Michael Joseph M'Callum, John M.
Bentham, George Jackson Furness, Stephen M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.)
Birreil, Rt. Hon. Augustine Geider, Sir William Alfred M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)
Booth, Frederick Handel Gibson, Sir James Puckering M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Bowerman, C. W. Glanville, Harold James Marks, Sir George Croydon
Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) Goldstone, Frank Marshall, Arthur Harold
Bruce, William Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) Martin, J.
Brigg, Sir John Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) Mason, David M. (Coventry)
Brocklehurst, W. B. Greig, Colonel J. W. Meagher, Michael
Bryce, John Annan Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Menzies, Sir Walter
Burns, Rt. Hon. John Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Guiland, John William Muldoon, John
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Munro, R.
Byles, Sir William Pollard Hackett, John Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C.
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hall, Frederick (Normanton) Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Hancock, John George Neilson, Francis
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Chancellor, H. G. Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Nolan, Joseph
Chapple, Dr. W. A. Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Norton, Captain Cecil W.
Clancy, John Joseph Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) Nuttall, Harry
Clough, William Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Clynes, J. R. Haslam, James (Derbyshire) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry O'Doherty, Philip
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Haworth, Sir Arthur A. O'Dowd, John
Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Hayden, John Fatrick O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Hayward, Evan O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Helme, Norval Watson O'Sullivan, Timothy
Cotton, William Francis Henderson, Arthur (Durham) Palmer, Godfrey Mark
Crawshay-Williams, Eliot Henry, Sir Charles S. Parker, James (Halifax)
Crooks, William Higham, John Sharp Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)
Crumley, Patrick Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)
Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) Hughes, S. L. Pirie, Duncan V.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Illingworth, Percy H. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Power, Patrick Joseph
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) Johnson, W. Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)
Dawes, J. A. Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)
Delany, William Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Radford, G. H
Denman, Hon. R. D. Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Raffan, Peter Wilson
Devlin, Joseph Jowett, Frederick William Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Dillon, John Joyce, Michael Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Doris, W. Keating, Matthew Reddy, M.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) Kelly, Edward Rendall, Atheistan
Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) Kennedy, Vincent Paul Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. Verney, Sir Harry
Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Sheehy, David Wadsworth, John
Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) Simon, Sir John Allsebrook Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Robinson, Sidney Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) Webb, H.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N. W.) White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Roche, John (Galway, E.) Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.
Roe, Sir Thomas Sutton, John E. Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Rose, Sir Charles Day Taylor, John w. (Durham) Wilkie, Alexander
Rowntree, Arnold Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) Tennant, Harold John Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) Young, William (Perth, East)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Toulmin, Sir George
Scanlan, Thomas Trevelyan, Charles Phlips TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. W. Jones, and Mr. G. Howard.
Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes Peto, Basil Edward
Arkwright, John Stanhope Fleming, Valentine Pollock, Ernest Murray
Ashley, W. W. Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Gibbs, George Abraham Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balcarres, Lord Gilmour, Captain John Rawson, Col. R. H.
Baldwin, Stanley Goldman, C. S. Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Salter, Arthur Clavell
Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Sanders, Robert Arthur
Barnston, Harry Greene, W. R. Sanderson, Lancelot
Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Spear, Sir John Ward
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Healy, Maurico (Cork) Stanier, Beville
Bigland, Alfred Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Bird, A. Henderson, Major H. (Berks) Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) Hill, Sir Clement L. Stewart, Gershom
Bridgeman, W. Clive Hoare, S. J. G. Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Burn, Colonel C. R. Hohler, G. F. Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)
Butcher, J. G. Horner, A. L. Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)
Cassel, Felix Hunt, Rowland Thynne, Lord Alexander
Cave, George Ingleby, Holcombe Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) Joynson-Hicks, William Touche, George Alexander
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Kerry, Earl of Valentia, Viscount
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Lloyd, George Ambrose Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Clive, Captain Percy Archer MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh Wolmer, Viscount
Clyde, J. Avon McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Cooper, Richard Ashmole Magnus, Sir Philip Worthington-Evans, L.
Courthope, George Loyd Meysey-Thompson, E. C. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Dalrymple, Viscount Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton) Yate, Col. C. E.
Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. Mount, William Arthur Younger, Sir George
Duke, Henry Edward Neville Reginald J. N.
Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. Newman, John R. P.
Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Paget, Almeric Hugh TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.
Fell, Arthur Perkins, Walter F. Mills and Earl of Ronaldshay.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 236; Noes, 88.

Division No. 317.] AYES. [11.10 p.m.
Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) Cooper, Richard Ashmole
Acland, Francis Dyke Boyton, J. Cotton, William Francis
Adamson, William Brace, William Crawshay-Williams, Eliot
Addison, Dr. C. Brigg, Sir John Crooks, William
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. Brocklehurst, W. B. Crumley, Patrick
Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) Burns, Rt. Hon. John Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)
Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas Davies, E. William (Eifion)
Armitage, Robert Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)
Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) Byies, Sir William Pollard Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) Carr-Gomm, H. W. Dawes, J. A.
Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) Cassel, Felix Delany, William
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas
Barnes, G. N. Chancellor, H. G. Devlin, Joseph
Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick) Chapple, Dr. William Allen Dillon, John
Barry, Redmond John Clancy, John Joseph Doris, William
Barton, W. Clay, Captain H. H. Spender Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)
Beck, Arthur Cecil Clough, William Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)
Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.) Clynes, J. R. Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)
Bentham, G. J. Collins, G. P. (Greenock) Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)
Booth, Frederick Handel Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of
Bowerman, C. W. Condon, Thomas Joseph Elverston, Sir Harold
Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred King, Joseph (Somerset, North) Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)
Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) Lamb, Ernest Henry Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)
Essex, Richard Walter Lambert, George (Devon, Molton) Reddy, M.
Esslemont, George Birnie Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) Rendail, Athelstan
Falconer, J. Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Richardson, Albion (Peckham)
Farrell, James Patrick Lawson, Sir. W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles Levy, Sir Maurice Roberts, George H. (Norwich)
Ferens, T. R. Lewis, John Herbert Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)
Ffrench, Peter Logan, John William Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)
Field, William Lundon, Thomas Robinson, Sidney
Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward Lynch, Arthur Alfred Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes McGhee, Richard Roche, John
Flavin, Michael Joseph Maclean, Donald Roe, Sir Thomas
Furness, Stephen Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. Rose, Sir Charles Day
Gelder, Sir W. A. MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) Rowntree, Arnold
Gibson, Sir James Puckering Macpherson, James Ian Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)
Glanville, H. J. MacVeagh, Jeremiah Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)
Goldstone, Frank M'Callum, John M. Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Greene, Walter Raymond M'Laren, Henry Duncan (Leics.) Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) Scanlan, Thomas
Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) M'Micking, Major Gilbert Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)
Greig, Colonel J. W. Marks, Sir George Croydon Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.
Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) Marshall, Arthur Harold Sheehy, David
Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) Martin, Hon. J. Simon, Sir John Allsebrook
Guinness, Hon. W. E. Mason, David M. (Coventry) Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)
Gulland, John W. Meagher, Michael Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) Menzies, Sir Walter Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)
Hackett, J. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) Muldoon, John Sutton, John E.
Hancock, John George Munro, R. Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.) Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) Neilson, Francis Tennant, Harold John
Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)
Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) Nolan, Joseph Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)
Haslam, James (Derbyshire) Norton, Capt. Cecil W. Thynne, Lord A.
Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry Nuttall, Harry Toulmin, Sir George
Haworth, Sir Arthur A. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Hayward, Evan O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Verney, Sir Harry
Helme, Norval Watson O'Doherty, Philip Wadsworth, J.
Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Dowd, John Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)
Henry, Sir Charles S. O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Higham, John Sharp O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay
Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. O'Sullivan, Timothy Webb, H.
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Palmer, Godfrey Mark White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hughes, Spencer Leigh Parker, James (Halifax) Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.
Illingworth, Percy H. Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) Whyte, A. F. (Perth)
Ingleby, Holcombe Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) Wilkie, Alexander
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus Pirie, Duncan V. Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)
Johnson, W. Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) Power, Patrick Joseph Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) Young, William (Perth, East)
Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) Younger, Sir George
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) Pringle, William M. R.
Jowett, Frederick William Radford, G. H.
Joyce, Michael Raffan, Peter Wilson TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir
Keating, M. Rainy, A. Rolland E. Cornwall and Mr. Stanier.
Amery, L. C. M. S. Clive, Captain Percy Archer Hill, Sir Clement
Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. Clyde, James Avon Hoare, S. J. G.
Arkwright, John Stanhope Courthope, G. Loyd Hohler, G. F.
Ashley, W. W. Crean, Eugene Horner, A. L.
Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) Dalrymple, Viscount Hume-Williams, W. E.
Balcarres, Lord Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. Joynson-Hicks, William
Baldwin, Stanley Duke, Henry Edward Kerry, Earl of
Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) Eyres-Monsell, B. M. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.) Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) Lloyd, George Ambrose
Barnston, Harry Fell, Arthur MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton) Fleming, Valentine McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) Magnus, Sir Philip
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Gibbs, G. A. Meysey-Thompson, E. C.
Bigland, Alfred Gilhooly, James Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)
Bird, A. Gilmour, Captain J. Mount, William Arthur
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) Goldman, C. S. Neville, Reginald J. N.
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) Newman, John R. P.
Bryce, J. Annan Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) Paget, Almeric Hugh
Burn, Col. C. R. Guiney, P. Perkins, Walter F.
Butcher, J. G. Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) Peto, Basil Edward
Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred Healy, Maurice (Cork) Pollock, E. M.
Cave, George Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East) Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)
Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Rawson, Colonel R. H. Stewart, Gershom Wolmer, Viscount
Salter, Arthur Clavell Talbot, Lord E. Worthington-Evans, L.
Sanders, Robert A. Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) Yate, Col. C. E.
Sanderson, Lancelot Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Spear, Sir John Ward Touche, George Alexander TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mills and Earl of Ronaldshay.
Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire) Valentia, Viscount
Steel-Maitland, A. D. White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

And it being Eleven of the clock, further consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered to-morrow (Thursday).

Forward to