§ Order for Committee read; House in Committee.
§ Clause 1 agreed to.
§ Clause 2.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask his hon. Friend (Mr. Ker Seymer) whether he intended to adhere to the definition of the term "landowner" given in this clause? He was quite sure that that definition included a great number of persons who could not be properly permitted to deal with the fee of land in the manner contemplated by this Bill. He was sure his hon. Friend could only wish to make this a good Bill, and he would suggest that he should allow this part of the clause to be struck out for the present, and consider a more satisfactory definition before the bringing up of the Report.
§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he believed that the interests dealt with by this Bill were less important generally than those which were dealt with by the Inclosure Act; and he thought that it could not be wrong to retain the definition given by that Act. If, however, there was a general wish on the part of the Committee that this part of the clause should be postponed, he had no objection to it, but he could not himself see the necessity of it.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, if the clause should be adopted in its present form, it would enable the holder of a fourteen years' lease to consent as "landowner," to the land being interfered with for drainage purposes.
508 Ought a person having such an interest to have authority to give such consent, to the exclusion of the owner of the fee?
§ Words struck out; Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 3.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he would propose that it should be struck out. His hon. Friend had incorporated into his Bill not only the Inclosure Acts, but the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act and the Water. works Clauses Act, and he was afraid that some of the definitions in those Acts might be found inapplicable to drainage purposes, and so produce confusion.
§ Clause struck out; Clauses 4 to 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he should propose the omission of this clause, as not being able to see the object with which it had been introduced into the Bill.
§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, it had been introduced as a matter of convenience, to meet cases which might possibly occur, and in which the presence of a Commissioner might be thought desirable. If they placed confidence in the Assistant Commissioner of course they would place confidence in the Commissioners; and if a Commissioner gave a wrong decision, he would be always controlled by his colleagues.
§ MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, he objected to the Commissioners acting without having the report of an Assistant Commissioner before them.
§ Clause struck out; Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
§ Clause 13.
§ MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, he considered that most unusual and extensive powers were given to the Commissioners by this clause. In the event of a landowner being in a foreign country, or not to be found, the Commissioners were actually empowered to constitute themselves landlords for the purpose of this Act.
§ MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, persons interested in the estate might make application to the Commisisoners, who would then be authorised to act.
§ MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he saw no objection to this power being vested in the Commissioners. It was what was done every day in cases of disability.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, that what he complained of was that there was no provisions in the Bill for the expenses incurred under this clause. If a landlord went to Australia, for example, were the parties nominated 509 to act as landlords over his property without any check as to the expense?
§ MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he wished to ask if his right hon. Friend had ever known a landlord who went to Australia without leaving behind him a competent person to manage his estate?
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, there could be no doubt that many persons had acted in that way; but if, as his hon. Friend suggested, competent persons were left behind to manage the property, then the clause was unnecessary.
§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he thought all difficulty would be removed when they came to settle what was the precise meaning of the word "landlord."
§ Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 14 to 18.
§ Clause 19.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to propose the omission of the words "sketch or," his object being that not a sketch only, but a full plan of the proposed works should be prepared, so as to enable people to know what was intended. It was quite possible that a man in improving his own estate might injure that of his neighbour, and therefore it was of importance that from the very first the nature of the works should be known.
§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, this Bill had been carefully framed with a view to remedying the defects of Lord Lincoln's Act, and one of these was the great preliminary expense incurred, by which it was rendered in a great measure inoperative. The proposed sketch would lead to little expense, and he had sufficient confidence in the Commissioners to believe that abuses would not be committed. Besides, in the very next clause, a full plan was provided for.
§ MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he should support the Amendment, on the ground that he could not understand the difference between a "sketch" and a "plan" unless it were that a sketch was something more loose or more vague than the other. If that were so, then he thought the Commissioners ought not to be called on to decide, except on definite and precise information.
§ MR. MILLSopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would defeat the object of the Bill, which was to diminish the preliminary expense.
§ MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, that under the Inclosure Act the assents of a great many persons were required, but under 510 this Act no assents whatever were required, and therefore whatever was proposed to be done ought to be accurately defined. It would be very unfair, to small proprietors especially, to take their land from them without ascertaining what the nature of the property really was.
§ SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would suggest that the "sketched plan" would meet all the difficulties.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not see how, without a proper plan of each field being given, a thorough system of drainage could be effected.
§ MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he thought there ought to be different plans, according to the nature and importance of the property, and that it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
§ Question put "That the word 'sketch' stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 18: Majority 45.
§ Clause agreed to, as were also the Clauses 20 to 31 inclusive.
§ Clause 32.
§ MR. CHRISTOPHER,said, he objected that the clause gave too extensive powers to the Commissioners, who, in many cases, would be able to act without the consent of the proprietors, on account of the latter not choosing to incur the expense to which they would be subjected.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, the expense to the small proprietors would be very great, and he trusted that the clause would be struck out. He also most strongly objected to the proposal to take away the right of appeal in cases where the Commissioners might think proper to declare, upon any question of compensation submitted to them, that the whole amount of injury sustained was less than 100l. He hoped his hon. Friend would consent to leave out this and the subsequent clauses of the Bill relating to this part of the subject, and to place the whole matter on the footing of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
§ MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, it would be impossible for small proprietors to incur the expense of employing professional assistance, and of fighting out the amount of compensation to be given before the Commissioners in London.
§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, it must be remembered that the Commissioners would have to do a solemn act, and to make a formal declaration of the amount of injury sustained, under their hands and seals. 511 It must be assumed that they would not do this without due deliberation. He had no objection to reduce the amount from 100l. to 50l.; but this clause related to the cases in which the Commissioners should send down an Assistant Commissioner, and not to the right of appeal.
§ After some conversation, 50l. was substituted for 100l., and the clause was agreed to; Clauses 33 to 38 inclusive were also agreed to.
§ Clause, 39.
§ MR. HENLEYmoved, that it should be struck out. It was one of the series which related to the settlement of differences between parties with respect to the value of their land; and he hoped his hon. Friend would consent to strike it out, and leave the parties to the remedies provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
§ Clause struck out. as were also Clauses 40 to 43; Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
§ Clause 17.
§ MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, he would suggest that some words ought to be introduced to limit the power of constructing open drains within a certain distance of dwelling-houses without the consent of the occupiers.
§ MR. KER SEYMER,said, he had no objection to any arrangement which should secure the domestic comfort of individuals, but he doubted whether this was the proper place to introduce any provision on the subject. The clause was copied from Lord Lincoln's Act, and related to the power to hold lands.
§ MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the powers given by the clause were too extensive, and would require consideration before the Bill was finally disposed of.
§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he would consider the question before the bringing up of the Report.
§ Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
§ House resumed. Bill reported as amended.