HC Deb 24 March 1892 vol 2 cc1639-43
(3.10.) SIR E. LECHMERE (Worcestershire, Bewdley)

I beg to move the Instruction of which I have given Notice. I appear on behalf of the inhabitants of Tenbury, a small town on the River Teme, entirely dependent on agricultural industry, and whose interests are affected by the scheme of the Birmingham Corporation. The inhabitants have not the slightest idea of opposing the proposal of the Birmingham Corporation, and desire to act in a conciliatory spirit towards that Corporation. But, in a matter so closely affecting the well-being of their town, they feel they may justly ask Parliament to give them this protection. In the Bill there are provisions for an overflow conduit in Radnorshire and another at Burrington, for the purpose of relieving extra pressure. Now, it has been stated by the Town Clerk of Birmingham, to whom the people of Tenbury have addressed themselves, that the overflow at Burrington will not increase the volume of water at Tenbury; but it should be borne in mind that the overflow will probably occur during flood time, and situated as Tenbury is between two rivers, and on low ground, the people of Tenbury have grave cause for apprehension, seeing how seriously the town has suffered from floods. In 1886 they suffered very severely. At the bridge which unites the counties of Worcester and Shropshire the water rose five or six feet, and reached to five or six inches over the tops of the pews in the parish church. The force of the current was so strong that occupiers opened the doors and lower windows of the houses to prevent the whole fabrics being washed away by the flood. The damage on that occasion was about £15,000. With the recollection of such disasters the inhabitants of Tenbury are naturally anxious that nothing shall be done which may still further increase their danger; and so, I trust there will be no opposition to this Instruction being sent to the Committee to whom this Bill is to be referred. It is a concession such as has been granted to small towns on similar occasions. The people of Tenbury are anxious that the matter shall have due consideration from the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred that provisions be inserted in such Bill for protecting the town of Tenbury and its neighbourhood from the effect by way of flood, of the overflows into the River Teme from the proposed waterworks at Burrington, near Ludlow, or for providing ample compensation for the damage caused by such overflow."—(Sir Edmund Lechmere.)

(3.15.) MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I desire, on behalf of the Corporation of Birmingham, to recognise the temperate way in which the hon. Baronet has introduced this Motion, and the conciliatory spirit which, as he says, animates the authorities and people of Tenbury. At the same time I am a little suprised that the Instruction has been moved at all. I should have thought—and I confess I did think—that an Instruction such as this of a mandatory character to a Hybrid Committee was out of Order. But if it is not out of Order it is quite unnecessary. The fears of the inhabitants of Tenbury are entirely chimerical and imaginary, according to the information furnished to me. The overflow of which the hon. Member speaks is a provision devised to provide against the possibility of an accident to any of the pipes that will convey the water to Birmingham. It will not be used in the ordinary time of flood, but will only be called into operation in case one of the pipes conveying the water were to burst. Even if that accident were to take place at the time of high flood in the neighbourhood of Tenbury, then, under no conceivable circumstances, not even if the whole of the five pipes were to burst simultaneously, would the water in the river be raised by a height of more than an inch or an inch and a half. From its low situation the town of Tenbury is subject to floods; and when the hon. Member mentions that in an exceptional disaster of this kind the water is increased by a depth of five or six feet, then even the addition of an inch and a half is not such a great danger that it is necessary in this way to provide against it. I say this much in order that it may carry some assurance to the minds of the people of Tenbury, who seem to have got it into their heads that really there would be some increase of danger. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the assurance, and will withdraw the Instruction. My objection is that the Motion is an attempt by the House of Commons to do that which a Committee has been appointed to do. To decide such questions evidence must be called. We cannot take merely the statement of the inhabitants, nor can I ask the House to accept my ex parte statement—such statements before acceptance must have confirmatory evidence. The House of Commons has taken the precaution to send this Bill to a Hybrid Committee, and therefore every interest will be fully considered. The people of Tenbury can put their fears before the Committee, and the Committee will have the evidence the Corporation can put forward, and surely it is ridiculous for the House to appoint a Committee, and then to proceed to do the work of that Committee. Surely it is absurd for the House, before the inquiry has commenced, to burden the Committee with a number of mandatory instructions? If this were a matter which the Committee without an Instruction would be unable to consider, it would be a different thing, but the inhabitants can present their case and evidence and the Committee will determine. There is no need of the Instruction, and to pass it would be to prejudice the inquiry, to determine the decision of the Committee before hearing the evidence. That would be quite contrary to precedent, and it is, I think, quite unnecessary.

(3.20.) MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

The right hon. Gentleman recognises that it is out of no opposition to the Bill my hon. Friend has made his Motion. The inhabitants are bound to take such precautions as they can against the dangers to which this thriving town is subjected. But, no doubt, after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend will think well to withdraw his Motion, especially as I learn, which I was not aware of earlier, that a Petition can be now entered by the Worcester County Council giving the Council a locus standi before the Committee. I have a large number of constituents interested in the welfare of Tenbury, and I must say I think my hon. Friend has done no more than his duty in calling attention to this matter. After the statement we have had I think my hon. Friend would be justified in withdrawing his Motion.

(3.22.) MR. GODSON (Kidderminster)

Speaking on behalf of my native place, I earnestly trust that this scheme may be carried to successful completion. I may remark, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat underestimated our difficulties when he says an inch and-a-half of water added to flood height is no great matter. I have seen the floods going down the main street of the town, where for two nights and a day the water was 5 ft. deep, and I am bound to say that an inch or two more would not have been a matter of indifference. An inch or two more would have brought down some of the best-built buildings in the town, while it has been computed that a burst pipe at Burrington Lock would cause an addition of one foot to the flood water. At Dorrington Rock, a short distance above the town and below Burrington Lock, the valley is about one field broad, and we have the greatest difficulty in dealing with these floods two or three times a year. The inhabitants of Tenbury, owing to the agricultural depression, are not in a position to present and support a Petition against a wealthy Corporation; but I hope the great City of Birmingham will be magnanimous and recognise the claims of the inhabitants of Tenbury.

(3.24.) MR. MORE (Shropshire, Ludlow)

I trust that the interests of the town of Tenbury and of the district may be represented before the Committee without that heavy expenditure the hon. Member seems to fear, and that the promoters of the Bill will recognise that the claims of Tenbury are in no way inimical to the proposals of the Corporation.

(3.24.) SIR E. LECHMERE

After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and feeling that the interests of the inhabitants of Tenbury may be left in this matter to be looked after by the County Council of Worcester, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.