Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Cremer, William Randal Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Duncan, J. Hastings Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John Griffith, Ellis J. Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Anson, Sir William Reynell Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. Arrol, Sir William Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds Blundell, Colonel Henry Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Holland, Sir William Henry Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.) Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham) NOES. Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Pirie, Duncan V. Reckitt, Harold James Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Runciman, Walter Shackleton, David James Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr. Charles Hobhouse and Mr.. Warner. Forster, Henry William Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Gordon, Hn.J.E. (Elgin&Nairn) Coghill, Doulgas Harry Dickson, Charles Scott Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets) Hall, Edward Marshall Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton, Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Martin, Richard Biddulph Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute) Reid, James (Greenock) Original Question again proposed. And, it being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House. Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow. EVENING SITTING. RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL (BY ORDER). Order for Second Reading read. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time." *MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham) said he rose on behalf of the Buckingham County Council to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. It was a matter of great concern to them that an attempt should be again made to seize part of the water area of Buckingham for Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside Tuke, Sir John Batty TELLERS FOR THE NOES-Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes. only were the Buckingham County Council opposed to the Bill, but almost every local authority interested in the matter. The Buckingham County Council, the Eton District Council, the Gerards Cross Parish Council, the Hertfordshire County Council, the Rickmansworth District Council, the Thames Conservancy, and the Grand Junction Canal Company had all petitioned the House against this Bill, which they contended would have a very injurious effect if it were allowed to become law. This Bill was practically the same as that promoted in 1901 by the same company, which measure having been discussed on its merits was thrown out without a division. This Bill was objected to by the local authorities, especially by the Bucks County Council, on the ground that no water company should be allowed to take water out of the county unless it was prepared to give water back again, and this undertaking had not been given to the county council. They had little water to spare in Buckinghamshire, and much damage would be done to the wells of some of the poorest if unlimited pumping allowed. was water out of Buckingham into Middlesex | who spoke last, spoke from instructions, and Herts, and as the Amersham Water and had therefore only contributed Company were prepared to supplyGerard's second-hand opinions to the debate. He Cross, which was the only district that (Mr. Walton) lived in Buckinghamshire, wanted water, and were also prepared to and could fully endorse what had been give back to Buckingham whatever water said by the hon. Member for Mid-Buckthey took from it, the Buckingham inghamshire as to the Chiltern Hills County Council was prepared to districts, the well supply of which was support that company and not this. He very seriously affected by the rainfall, begged to move that this Bill be read a and any tampering with or draining of the second time this day six months. underground reservoirs would have a serious effect on the district. He contended that local opinion as to local needs ought to have a deciding influence in a matter of this kind, and this Bill was opposed by all the local authorities concerned. MR. ROTHSCHILD (Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury), in seconding the rejection of the Bill, supported the protest that had been made by the local county council. The underground wells and lakes near the Chiltern Hills would suffer great injury if allowed to be depleted of their stores of water in the manner proposed. It had been noticed that when pumping operations had been resorted to, the level of these lakes and wells fell very rapidly. In his opinion the Rickmansworth Company had no right to come into an area and to deplete that area of its water supply, and dispose of all the water in other places, without giving a satisfactory undertaking to the county council concerned. Amendment proposed "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.""-(Mr. Disraeli.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question. COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping) said that this matter was an extremely simple one. When the original Bill of 1901 was upstairs before the Committee, it was found that Gerard's Cross, the district in dispute, had been omitted by accident. As a result, the Rickmansworth Company had promised the Board of Trade to remedy that mistake as soon as possible, and this Bill had been brought in in consequence. He hoped the usual course would be adopted of reading the Bill the second time and sending it to a Committee, which was the proper tribunal to decide the points at issue between the two competing water companies. MR. LAWSON WALTON (Leeds, S.) said the right hon. Gentleman VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham) supported the Second Reading. He thought the House ought not to reject a Private Bill on its Second Reading unless there were very strong objections to it, and he failed to see such objections in the case of this Bill. In his opinion it should go to a Committee upstairs, where evidence could be taken on both sides, and where arguments could be adduced which could not be heard in this House. Before he voted for the rejection of this Bill, he should like to be assured that no damage would be done to the people who wanted the water which was to be suppl'ed under this Bill. 17 MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar) said he thought the hon. Member for Epping was under a misconception with regard to this question. He pointed out that though the Bill of the Rickmansworth Water Company introduced two or three years ago was rejected without a division, the company now came to Parliament with their old weak case, but with a more extended scheme. There was one other point he would like to draw attention to. He thought the time had come when the House ought to appoint a Commission or Committee to inquire into the whole question of water supply. It was monstrous that all the suburban counties should be depleted of their water for the purposes of London and other large places, without some complete scheme showing how much should be 2 D taken away and how much should be therefore, especially in view of the left in the locality. SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE (London) said it had been suggested that there was some ulterior motive in bringing forward this Bill. Well, it was brought forward to remedy an error in a previous Bill and asked for no further powers than the company at present possessed. The Rickmansworth Water Company was opposing the Amersham Company, and the Buckingham County Council was acting the part of the dog-in-the-manger. It was clearly a Bill which ought to be sent upstairs where all the points in dispute could be thoroughly threshed out. *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Cumberland, Penrith) said it was very undesirable that these matters, which were purely local, should be discussed in the House; they ought to be referred, almost without question, to a Committee upstairs unless they involved some question of a new principle. The House was asked to found its judgment on purely ex parte statements which could not be subjected to the test of cross examination. What were the merits of the Bill? There seemed to be a quarrel between two water companies as to who should possess a certain district known as Gerard's Cross. The Bill involved no new principle, and that being so he held that that ought to go in the ordinary course before a Committee upstairs. SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston) submitted that it was the right of the House to express its opinion on all Bills, and he was therefore surprised at the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. In this case an invasion was proposed of the rights of the County of Buckinghamshire over its own area, and it was the privilege of the House to discuss such a question, and to say whether a private company should, in opposition to the wishes of the county council, take water from a given area without any obligation to supply that area with water. MR. CRIPPS (Lancashire, Stretford) said that all the local authorities were opposed to the proposal, and he hoped, distressed condition of agriculture in Buckinghamshire, they would not be put to the expense which proceedings before a Committee involved," MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford) appealed to the House to come to a decision on this Bill, inasmuch as the sitting had been especially set apart for the discussion of a question of vital importance to Ireland-viz., transit facilities more important, indeed, than the fiscal problems raised by for West Birmingham. One of the blessthe right hon. Gentleman the Member ings of the present system of Parliamentary Government was that Irish Members were forced, against their will, to come there and decide on the merits of a purely local English question, and he local bodies were unanimously on one could only say that as they found the side in this dispute, it would be their duty to support them. SIRE. DURNING-LAWRENCE (Cornwall, Truro) hoped the Bill would be sent upstairs on the ground that the House was not in a position to decide upon the facts in dispute. MR. HAROLD RECKITT (Lincolnshire, Brigg) said he thought the districts around London had been most unfairly treated by the demands made upon their water areas for the supply of London, and he felt the House ought to exercise its right, therefore, of expressing its Bills. He hoped the day was not far opinion on the general principle of Water distant when county councils would be made the water authorities in their own Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.) Ainsworth, John Stirling Dickson, Charles Scott NOES. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Haslett, Sir James Horner Allen, Charles P. Ambrose, Robert Arrol, Sir William Barry, E. (Cork. S.) Bell, Richard Bignold, Arthur Blake, Edward Boland, John Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Broadhurst, Henry Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Buxton, Sydney Charles Carlile, William Walter Cremer, William Randal Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E. Flynn, James Christopher Hay, Hon. Claude George Hudson, George Bickersteth Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Sir Frederick Banbury Colonel Lockwood. and Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. Reckitt, Harold James Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Roe, Sir Thomas Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Shackleton, David James MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel Slack, John Bamford Smith, H C(North'mb. Tyneside |