HL Deb 22 April 1879 vol 245 cc821-31

Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord President.)

THE EARL OF REDESDALE

said, that the Bill as it stood embodied the extraordinary proposition that the property of one person was to be taxed for the improvement of that of another. The Bill gave compulsory powers for the removal of impediments in the channels of rivers; and full compensation was to be made for injury sustained by any persons by reason of the exercise of such powers by the conservancy board. The proprietors of upper lands were not, however, to be so dealt with. It was assumed that the upland drainage carried on by them had the effect of flooding lowlands, and they were to be taxed under the Bill for having done that which they were legally entitled to do. If their Lordships would refer to the Report of the Committee, they would find that the eminent engineer, Mr. Rawlinson, dissented from the conclusions of the Committee. The proposition was so monstrous tha the thought it could not be persevered with; and he had, acccordingly, given Notice of a Resolution which he would now move—

Amendment moved, to leave out all the words after ("That,") and insert— If A having ten years ago purchased a property in the uplands of a river conservancy district in the valuation of which the liability to a charge for a conservancy rate could not have been included, and B having in the same year purchased a property in the Hood lands of the same district in the valuation of which the damage from floods must have been necessarily estimated, it will be unreasonable and unjust that A's property should be taxed for the improvement of B's property, when his lands cannot receive any benefit from the outlay to which under the Rivers Conservancy Bill he is to be compelled to contribute."—(The Earl of Redesdale.)

THE EARL OF SANDWICH

thought the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees entirely overlooked the fact that the floods from which the lowlands suffered were caused in a great degree by the drainage of the uplands; and he was of opinion, therefore, that the proposition to tax the proprietors of the latter class of lands was a just one.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he felt considerable hesitation in opposing any proposition which came before their Lordships with such high recommendations in favour of the proposition to tax the proprietors of the uplands. He was aware that, with the exception of Mr. Rawlinson, all the engineers who had been examined before the Committee of their Lordships' House were of opinion that the drainage of the uplands was the cause of the flooding of the lowlands. Mr. Rawlinson, however, who was a high authority on such subjects, dissented from that opinion; and for himself he (the Earl of Kimberley), notwithstanding the high authority for that proposition, begged to dissent from it. This Bill went too far in the way of taxation, and he could not but think a moment like the present, when there was such distress in the agricultural districts, was an awkward one for promoting a measure which would impose additional taxation on the occupiers of land. The works which were to be executed under the Bill were of a permanent character, and he thought that if this charge was to be imposed at all the burden should be borne wholly by the owner.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

said, the criticism of the noble Earl went to the principle of the Bill; but that had been accepted when the House assented to the second reading, whereas the objections which had been raised were properly matters for consideration in Committee. He saw no reason whatever for excluding the uplands from the taxation necessary for carrying out the Bill. He hoped the House would not be led into an attempt to solve such an alphabetical conundrum as that contained in the Amendment of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), and he trusted the Government would not give way.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, there could be no doubt that the agricultural depression existing at the present moment was very severe; but, with reference to the argument that this made it a very inopportune moment to propose an additional burden on the owners and occupiers of land, it should be remembered that the Government had brought in this Bill only after they had been pressed over and over again to take action on the Report of the Select Committee. The Government could not allow the inquiry to remain a dead letter, and he had met some of the objections which had been made on the second reading of the Bill by Amendments which he would move in Committee. But he could not consent to the general proposition which his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees wanted to establish. His noble Friend's Resolution was an abstract one, and would in no way change the Bill. His noble Friend's proposition seemed to be that an owner of property should not be subject to any tax to which his property was not subject when he became possessed of it. The evidence taken by the Select Committee showed that the increased drainage of the upper lands brought down an amount of silt and stuff to the channel of the river in its course through the lowlands, and for that reason it was thought but just that the proprietors of the upper lands should be included in the area of taxation.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, the Bill opened up a new area of taxation, and it imposed new taxes; and their expenditure was to be, to a certain extent, controlled by the Local Government Board. He hoped, therefore, when it reached the other House of Parliament, it would be carefully gone into by a Committee. The Bill was, moreover, to be put into operation by the objectionable process of Provisional Orders, also under the discretion of the Local Government Board. It had often been said by those who sat opposite that legislation by Provisional Order ought to be very carefully watched, and he thought that remark was specially applicable to the present case. It was true that these Provisional Orders were to be laid upon the Table of the House; but who would care to take up the questions which would be involved in these Provisional Orders when laid on the Table of the House? And even if anyone was found it would be impossible for the House to inquire into such details; therefore, the Local Government Board would have an absolute uncontrolled power.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

demurred to the noble Duke's description of the Provisional Order system. It had this great advantage—that all action under the Bill was to be initiated by local inquiry, and that nothing could be done by the Board itself, until after local inquiry had been made. Nor was it strictly accurate to say that the Provisional Order was merely laid on the Table of the House. It had to be embodied in a Bill, against which the persons affected might be heard before a Committee in the same way as on an ordinary Private Bill. The Committee recommended proceeding by Provisional Order to save expense to the parties, and to gain the advantage of an inquiry in the locality interested instead of a general inquiry before a Committee of Parliament. As to the extent to which the uplands caused the floods, the weight of evidence, both professional and practical, was entirely against the view of the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees. His noble Friend took the same view as Mr. Rawlinson; but, with all respect to that gentleman, he must point out that he was the only one of the professional wit- nesses who held that view. Eleven out of the 12 witnesses who spoke to this point expressed an opinion that the drainage from the uplands did lead to the dangerous floods which had recently prevailed.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

thought it was quite necessary that the Government should deal with the question; but he should have preferred that a conservancy board should have been made compulsory on every river, with somewhat less extensive powers than were given by this Bill. But he thought it was entirely unjust that the uplands should be rated for the improvement of the lowlands. He protested against the view that the floods were produced by underground drainage; in his opinion, they were due only to the wet seasons which had prevailed of late. He maintained that floods were a benefit to meadows, provided they did not remain upon them too long. The meadows derived benefit from the silt and other dressings brought down from the higher grounds, and therefore should pay for the benefit they derived; and it was hard that the uplands should have to pay for benefits with which they parted. It was quite true that 11 out of the 12 professional witnesses who were called had expressed an opinion that the drainage from the uplands led to the floods; but only one of the 11 (Mr. Bailey Denton) ventured upon giving reasons for that opinion.

THE EARL OF REDESDALE

held that his arguments had not been controverted. At the same time, it was not his intention to press the matter to the extent of opposing the Bill getting into Committee; and he should, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Then the Original Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

Clauses 1 and 2 (Preliminary) agreed to.

Proceedings for Establishing River Conservancy Boards.

Clause 3 (Power to establish conservancy board), agreed to.

Clause 4 (Local inquiry on application for establishment of board), agreed to.

Clause 5 (Provisional Order for establishment of board).

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he wished the system of election to the conservancy boards to be as elastic as possible; and, therefore, he wished to give power to the local authorities to sub-divide the present conservancy districts into sub-districts, if it should be considered that it would be more convenient than the mode of election by sanitary authorities.

Amendment moved, in line 14, after ("board,") insert— ("dividing the district, if they think fit, into sub-districts, establishing, if they think fit, sub-district boards in such sub-districts.")

EARL STANHOPE

supported the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

said, he contended that the lower grounds derived benefit from the silt and manurial deposits brought down from the upper lands, and therefore ought to be rated proportionately; and he, therefore, proposed to insert in that portion of the clause which directed the definition of the lands which were to be deemed flood lands, intermediate lands, and uplands for the purposes of the Order, and in what proportion the intermediate lands and uplands were to contribute to the rates, the words "according to the benefit to be derived." He intended this by way of instruction to Local Government Boards in setting up a conservancy board.

Amendment moved, page 2, line 18, after ("proportion,") insert ("according to the benefit to be derived.")—(The Duke of Manchester.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

asked how "the benefit to be derived" was to be ascertained by the Local Government Board when setting up the conservancy board?

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

said, he did not care to press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was surprised that the noble Duke should be so ready to abandon his Amendment. The principle of the Bill was that some benefit was to be derived by those who were to be taxed, and it was well known that meadow lands usually derived great benefit from floods, if not too long continued. The Lord President asked how the Local Government could know what the benefit was to be in any particular case, and, therefore, in setting up a conservancy board, could not assess it?

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, the Local Government Board were to set up a conservancy board; but it was impossible that the Board could beforehand declare what would be the benefit to be derived by the persons who were to be rated.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Therefore, the Amendment of the noble Duke lays down the only sound principle on which the Local Government Board could act.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the Act of Henry VIII. laid down that only those lands were to be taxed that derived direct benefit—that was to say, the lowlands, and that was the meaning of the Amendment, which raised the whole question whether uplands were to be taxed or not.

LORD SELBORNE

said, that, as he read the Bill, the question involved was to be determined, in the first instance, by the Local Government Board.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, they were to do so by means of a Provisional Order; but the Local Government Board could not determine the character of the benefit to be derived before a conservancy board had been set up.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, the clause appeared to devolve upon the Local Government Board the duty of defining the lands which were to be deemed "flood lands," "intermediate lands," and "uplands," for the purposes of the Order. In what part of the Bill was any principle laid down on which the Local Government Board were to act?

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

said, the Board would have to apportion the area to the three different classes of land, and he desired to suggest the principle on which the proportions should be determined.

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 42: Majority 22.

CONTENTS.
Manchester, D. [Teller.] Canterbury, V.
Somerset, D. Ellenborough, L.
Foley, L.
Bathurst, E. Forester, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Monson, L.
Northwick, L.
Ducie, E. Poltimore, L.
Kimberley, E. Selborne, L.
Lucan, E. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Northbrook, E.
Redesdale, E. Truro, L.
Selkirk, E.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.) Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Colchester, L.
Bedford, D. Colville of Culross, L.
Northumberland, D. Delamere, L.
Richmond, D. Denman, L.
de Ros, L. [Teller.]
Ailesbury, M. Gordon of Drumearn, L.
Lansdowne, M.
Ripon, M. Granard, L. (E. Granard.)
Salisbury, M.
Hampton, L.
Beaconsfield, E. Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Beauchamp, E.
Caledon, E. Norton, L.
Cowper, E. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Sandwich, E.
Stanhope, E. Rodney, L.
Saltoun, L.
Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Cranbrook, V.
Hawarden, V. [Teller.] Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Melville, V.
Strathallan, V. Sudeley, L.
Templetown, V. Thurlow, L.
Ventry, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Windsor, L.
Auckland, L. Winmarleigh, L.

Resolved in the Negative.

THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER

then moved, in line 18, after ("the,") to insert ("floodlands and,") and leave out ("and uplands").

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 19: Majority 22.

CONTENTS.
Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.) Beaconsfield, E.
Beauchamp, E.
Caledon, E.
Bedford, D. Cowper, E.
Northumberland, D. Sandwich, E.
Richmond, D. Stanhope, E.
Cranbrook, V.
Ailesbury, M. Hardinge, V. [Teller.]
Lansdowne, M. Melville, V.
Ripon, M. Strathallan, V.
Salisbury, M. Templetown, V.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.) Norton, L.
Auckland, L. Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Rodney, L.
Colville of Culross, L. Saltoun, L.
Delamere, L. Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)
Denman, L.
de Ros, L. [Teller.] Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Gordon of Drumearn, L.
Sudeley, L.
Granard, L. (E. Granard.) Thurlow, L.
Ventry, L.
Hampton, L. Windsor, L.
Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) Winmarleigh, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Manchester, D. [Teller.] Canterbury, V.
Somerset, D. Colchester, L.
Foley, L.
Bathurst, E. Forester, L.
Camperdown, E. [Teller.] Monson, L.
Northwick, L.
Kimberley, E. Poltimore, L.
Lucan, E. Selborne, L.
Northbrook, E. Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Redesdale, E.
Selkirk, E. Truro, L.

Resolved in the Negative.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following Proviso:— ("Provision may be made in any such order for contribution by any urban sanitary authority within the limits of a conservancy district of a gross sum to be applied towards the expenses of the works of the conservancy board of such district in exoneration of the district of such urban sanitary authority, or any part thereof, from all further liability to be rated for the purposes of such works, and for regulating the time and manner in which such gross sum shall be raised and paid.")

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

could not accept the Amendment. It would be impossible to say what the gross sum would be of the works undertaken by the conservancy board.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee), withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Constitution of Conservancy Board.

Clause 6 (Constitution of conservancy board.)

EARL COWPER

said, the proposition of the clause was that a conservancy board should consist of life members and elective members, the life members to be not less than one-third of the whole. Under these words, the board might consist entirely of life members, which would be very objectionable. His opinion was that all the members of the board should be elective. He would propose Amendments which would have the effect of enacting that the board should consist of elective members only. The noble Earl accordingly moved, in line 38, to leave out ("life members and").

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, it would be a great advantage to have life members, as the boards would have to consider questions of engineering and draining, and therefore they should have a permanency of character; they should not be shifting bodies, without any experience of the work to be done. This was the constitution of the Commissioners of Sewage.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

had no objection to the boards being, to a certain extent permanent; and he hoped that his noble Friend (Earl Cowper) would not press his Amendment. He would suggest the insertion of words to the effect that the life members should not be more than one-third of the total number.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee), withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Board to be a body corporate), agreed to.

Duties and Powers of Conservancy Board.

Clauses 8 to 21, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Rates.

Clauses 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Borrowing.

Clause 25 (Power to conservancy board to borrow on rates, 38 and 39 Vict., 83), agreed to.

Clause 26 (Power to discharge loan by sinking fund).

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

proposed to insert a new clause, giving to the owners of three-fourths, at least, of the lands charged, the power of appeal to the Local Government Board.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

objected to the clause, pointing out that sufficient provision for appeal was already contained in the Bill.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Then the remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday the 1st of May; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 59.)