SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 March 1879)

§ THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER,
in criticizing some of the provisions of the Bill, said, he was of opinion that greater powers should be given to the Conservators to improve the navigation of the rivers, and thus prevent that accumulation in their beds which was the cause of floods. The new Conservancy Board ought to take all the existing navigation powers; because it was too often the case that when private navigation companies possessed the power of navigating the rivers, their condition depended almost entirely upon whether the navigation paid, because, if it did not, they allowed the rivers to silt up, and thus obstructions were caused. There was one provision in the Bill to which he strongly objected. It proposed to give power to rate the uplands which were not benefited by the alterations or improvements made in the river. The reason for which the proposal was made was that the floods were largely caused by the new underground drainage system; but that was a view in which he did not concur, although the Committee of the 1019 House of Lords did. On the contrary, he thought that underground drainage, by keeping the land dry, and thus in a condition to absorb water as it fell, tended to prevent rather than to increase floods. Most of the witnesses before the Committee asserted that under-draining caused floods, but gave no reasons for their opinion, except Mr. Bailey Denton, who stated that, if an inch of rain fell, half-an-inch went through the drains, in addition to the inch flowing off the land. He could not see where the extra half-an-inch came from. Mr. Rawlinson, on the other hand, contended that the floods were caused by the water falling on water; and he (the Duke of Manchester) was of opinion that the removal of obstructions in the beds of the rivers would materially lessen floods, and much would be done in the way of preventing the water remaining on the low-lying meadow lands. Under this Bill, however, occupiers of land in the Buckinghamshire hills would be taxed for improvements effected on the Ouse, miles away in the Fen district, and that appeared to him to be most unjust. No doubt, in some cases, very heavy works would have to be made in the outfalls; but he thought the Ouse might be easily dealt with, and that the works need not be of the very extensive character that had been proposed. It was most unfair to compel farmers, who were suffering from a succession of bad seasons, to pay a rate of this kind, which had never been demanded from them before, to effect improvements from which they would derive no benefit whatever.

§ EARL COWPER
said, he was very glad that there was to be no serious opposition to the Bill in their Lordships' House, and he hoped that the measure would be as successful in "another place," where it would doubtless be thoroughly sifted. The floods might perhaps in some cases not damage meadow lands, yet they did most serious damage in many cases, and no doubt their Lordships were asked to make some compensation in consequence. With the exception of one gentleman, all the witnesses examined before the Committee of their Lordships' House which sat upon this question in 1877 stated in evidence that the draining caused a great increase in the floods. It made the rise of the water much 1020 quicker than before. There could be no doubt whatever but that the question as to whether the uplands should be rated for the purposes of the Bill would be seriously considered in "another place." As to the manner in which it was proposed that the Conservancy Boards should be elected, he contended that as the Boards were intrusted with rating powers, and as a certain amount of discontent existed from the way in which the rates were distributed, it would be right to allow the ratepayers to elect the Boards, rather than have them consist of life-members appointed by the Local Government Board, with power themselves to fill up any vacancy caused by death. The concession, however, might be guarded with the proviso that the person elected must be a landowner. By granting it, they would maintain the principle that taxation should always be accompanied by representation. Another point to which he objected was the extreme caution that was shown in guarding private property. This caution was carried to such an extreme extent as to interfere, he thought, with the operation of the Bill. For instance, the power to remove obstructions in rivers should be further considered, with the view of the provisions being made to work more efficiently against reluctant owners. Many of the provisions of the Bill would have to be carefully considered in Committee; but there could be no objection to its second reading.

§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPON
considered that his noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had very fairly fulfilled the pledge that he gave last year by bringing this Bill forward, which appeared to be founded altogether on the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House in 1877. Having been a Member of that Committee, and having had his share in the responsibility for that Report, he naturally viewed the main provisions of the measure with approval; but there were one or two points connected with it on which he desired to make a few observations, and with regard to which he would be glad of some explanation from his noble Friend the Lord President. In the first place, he would not follow the noble Duke opposite into the question of the rating-powers, as regarded uplands, given under the Bill after the judicious ob- 1021 servations which his noble Friend behind him (Earl Cowper) had made upon the point; but the whole question was a most difficult one, and it must be remembered that it had been fully considered in Committee; and he must say that he shared in the opinion at which they arrived—that uplands should bear, at least, some share of the cost. He did not altogether understand how his noble Friend proposed to deal with the different existing Conservancy Boards. One of the great evils that existed at present in regard to this matter was the great number of different Conservancy authorities that had to deal with the same rivers. These different authorities often came into conflict with each other. The Committee had recommended that this state of things should, as far as possible, be brought to an end, and that a single Board should be established for each river. His noble Friend probably intended to get rid of the numerous existing authorities by the latter part of the 38th clause; but he (the Marquess of Ripon) felt by no means sure that the words proposed in the Bill would have that effect, especially where they were not consenting parties, and he hoped that point would be considered before going into Committee. Then, with respect to the election of the new Conservancy Boards, as governed by Sub-section 5 of Clause 6. He confessed that in principle he did not like the system of secondary election; but, waiving that question in the present case, what he wished to point out was, that whereas under this Bill the occupiers of land were to pay half the rates, the arrangements made for representing them upon the Conservancy Boards were altogether inadequate. Not less than one-third of the Board was to be composed of landowners owning land to the amount of £300 a-year, and the other two-thirds were to be elected by the sanitary or Conservancy authorities; even of that two-thirds, one-half must always be landowners, in many cases the whole, or nearly the whole, would be so; the result would be that the tenant-farmers might be almost wholly excluded. Under no circumstances could they form more than one-third of the Board. The question was one in which tenant-farmers took a considerable interest, and he thought the proportion of the representation allotted to them would not 1022 prove satisfactory. He belonged to a Conservancy Board on which farmers sat, and had found them always intelligent and useful members; and he thought that when they had to pay half the rates they should have a much larger share in the representation of the Board than was proposed in the Bill. He did not make these observations in hostility; but thought some improvement of this sort would facilitate its passing, and, at the same time, greatly increase its utility.

THE EARL OF REDESD0ALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES)
said, that some of the provisions of the Bill would require careful consideration, especially the rating clauses. To place upon the proprietors of uplands a tax which had never been suggested before, and for which they obtained no advantage, was unjust. The artificial obstructions in rivers in the floodlands' districts by dams and weirs made therein by the proprietors for their own advantage were the chief causes of the floods complained of.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON
said, that it would be his duty to consider carefully, before the Bill went into Committee, all the points that had been raised in the discussion, and, if possible, to give effect to them. The noble Duke who had spoken first (the Duke of Manchester) and the noble Earl (the Chairman of Committees) had complained, that the uplands were to be taxed under the Bill; but all he could say was that a noble Friend told him the other night that the Bill was a good one, but he could not see why lowlands only should have to pay. In dealing with a difficult subject, his difficulties had been much enhanced by so complete a divergence of opinion as existed between his noble Friends. On one occasion complaints were made that it was proposed to tax the uplands; on another that the lowlands would be taxed and the uplands let alone. If these conflicting views were attended to, the result would be that no areas at all would be taxed under the Bill. His task, then, had been arduous; but he believed that the Bill, in all essential particulars, would be found satisfactory. It was in all essentials in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee; and with regard to the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Ripon) as to the 38th clause, he 1023 thought it gave sufficient power to carry out the objects for which the Bill was undertaken. He would, however, consider that point before the Committee was reached, and if he saw his way to improving it he would certainly do so. He must make the same remark in regard to the 6th clause, and he thought the noble Marquess would give him credit for not doing anything which was opposed to the interests of the British farmer. He proposed to take the Committee on the Bill on that day fortnight.