HC Deb 28 May 1863 vol 170 cc2071-5

Order for Third Reading read.

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

MR. PEASE moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed to a Select Committee to be appointed by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as in the case of a private Bill; and said, that although this was a matter of local importance, the Bill involved some great principles which ought to be considered. He had presented two Petitions against the Bill—one from the people of Darlington, and the other from residents in the county of Durham—complaining that if the Bill were passed, they would be deeply aggrieved. The Petitioners had successfully opposed a Bill for a similar purpose, though not of such large dimensions, which was brought before Parliament a few years ago, and they now stood forward on the same grounds, and requested that this should be treated as a private Bill, and that they should be entitled to be heard by counsel. The part of Durham to which the Bill referred was a low and swampy portion of the county, and the effect of the Bill, according to the evidence of Mr. Hawksley, would be to drown the lower portions of the county on the river Skerne. The residents and proprietors of that part of the county said, as in 1857, that they would be glad to join in any scheme for the drainage of the whole county, but they said now to the proprietors of the upper portion of the county, "Do not drown us while you drain yourselves." He maintained that the Bill contained serious propositions which ought to be more particularly examined, and in this case the parties who would be aggrieved had had no notice of this measure, and unless the House interposed they would have no means of redress. He might mention that the Commissioners who went down to take evidence advertised the holding of a meeting, curiously enough, in a newspaper which was published a long distance from that part of the county to which the Bill referred, while there were six newspapers, of all shades of politics, published within a few miles of the place. He would appeal to the House to give the Petitioners a further opportunity of having the provisions of the Bill discussed.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" be re-committed to a Select Committee, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as in the case of a Private Bill,"— (Mr. Pease,) —instead thereof.

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

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

feared that the argument they had just heard was more against the general policy of the Land Drainage Act of 1861 than against this particular Bill, which was the first fruits of it; and it therefore became the House to look very carefully at the Motion which had been made. If the argument of the hon. Gentleman proved anything, it proved that the Act of 1861 was a very bad Act; because, under it, there might be produced consequences which would be very serious to the country at large, and particularly mischievous to owners of property. The hon. Member said that Durham would be damaged by the passing of these Provisional Orders; and, if so, this might possibly happen in the case of other districts to which the general Act might he applied. Parliament was always sensitive in respect to injuring the property of private persons by the execution of public works. All that it was proposed to do in relation to those drainage works was to enable a certain number of persons to do that which one person might do if he were the sole owner of the district in question. It might, no doubt, be the intention of the Act, which embodied the Incorporation Lands Clauses Act, to produce that effect which the hon. Gentleman feared. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) had, however, been informed by persons most competent to give an opinion upon that point that it could not have the effect apprehended. He should like to know the opinion of the Government on the matter, and whether it was not possible that the English Commissioners had given the persons in whose favour those works were carried out some particular rights in the district. If, however, there were any ambiguity in the Act, the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Durham was not the way to remedy it. The proper course for the hon. Member to take under such circumstances would be to introduce a short declaratory Act, showing clearly what were the limits of the powers of the Act. It was utterly fallacious to send the Bill back to a Select Committee to be dealt with as a private Bill. As far as he was able to look into the matter the case appeared very clear, that no third person could possibly be damaged whose property lay outside the land drainage district.

MR. H. A. BRUCE

said, he was afraid that the hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Northcote) misconceived what was in effect the result of this Act. It appeared to him that the Act did not afford protection to individuals whose property lay without the land drainage district. The Act especially gave the elective Board the same powers as were possessed by the Commissioners of Sewers. The Act, no doubt, provided for compensation for any injury that might be done; but it did not provide for the prevention of those Acts which would give rise to claims for compensation. He was therefore afraid that the dangers apprehended by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) were not altogether chimerical. On the part of the Government he should not offer any opposition to the recommittal of the Bill to a Select Committee, but only with a view to that portion of it which related to Morden Carrs being re-considered.

LORD HARRY VANE

was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say he assented to the Motion of his hon. Friend. Such towns as that of Darlington, which lay low, would be placed in danger by the proposed measure. He thought that they were bound to refer the matter to the consideration of a Select Committee before they proceeded any further with the measure.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

thought a proposition to refer a Bill to a Select Committee, with a view simply of considering provisions respecting a particular place, would lead to embarrassment, and doubted whether the suggestion, in point of regularity, could be carried out. They must refer the whole Bill, or none at all. Now, the general Act which had been passed was found by experience to be extremely beneficial. He could not help looking with alarm on the doctrine now suggested, that on the mere statement of au hon. Member that he apprehended danger to some persons outside the drainage district from some of these Provisional Orders, the Bill confirming those Provisional Orders was to be treated as a private Bill, and referred to a Select Committee, with all the inevitable consequences of protracted and expensive investigation. If that doctrine were to be accepted, then farewell to all Provisional Orders, and let them at once return to private legislation, and repeal the Acts of Parliament already passed on the subject. If the Government were of opinion that by those Provisional Orders persons outside the land drainage district would be affected, he thought that the more convenient course would be to recommit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House, and to insert in it upon its re-committal a clause to the effect that the provisions of the Bill were not to affect the property of any persons out of the drainage district. He understood that the parties really interested in the question were willing that that course should be adopted, which could do no possible harm, and would effectually guard against the danger so much apprehended.

MR. AYRTON

said, it seemed to him that the course proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Pease) was quite in accordance with the general usage of the House. When a General Inclosure Bill came before them, they were sometimes in the habit of referring that measure, only so far as it affected a particular inclosure, to a Select Committee upstairs. It was, in his opinion, a mistake to suppose that the benefit of the Act in question would be affected by the adoption of the course proposed. The only effect of it would be that the parties would be saved all the expense and trouble of private Bill legislation.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he possessed experience of the difficulty which might be entailed by the drainage on au extensive scale of upper lands. The channels through which the water was to be carried though the lower levels were not adapted to convey the volumes of water brought from above; and the lower land was sometimes flooded in consequence, and great damage done to the properly. He had known the difficulty met by the construction of weirs, which intercepted the water, and carried it from level to level for milling purposes. The House was now touching on a very large question—that of arterial drainage. The subject must press itself on the attention of the Legislature before many years, because the extension of drainage in the upper land increased the volume of descending water; and if that water were retained by a weir on the level of each successive mill, the mills would remain uninjured; but there must be a weir from mill-head to mill-head.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he did not understand anything about the matter, and he believed the House was in the same predicament; yet the House was called on to legislate on the question. He agreed with the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Pease) that the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

approved of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Belfast that the Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, which he thought would be more satisfactory than sending the Bill upstairs, with all the expense of private legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read, and discharged.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, so far as relates to Morden Carrs, be referred to a Select Committee, to be appointed by the Committee of Selection in the same manner as in the case of a Private Bill."— (Mr. Pease.)

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

proposed, as an Amendment, that the whole Bill should here-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from the word "Bill," in order to add the words "be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House."— (Sir Stafford Northcote.)

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

The House divided: —Ayes 56; Noes 18: Majority 38.

Question put, and agreed to.