578. Never seen it?-No, I have never seen it in a flood.

579. How long have you been investigating the Fens?-In 1925 we had a dry year and unfortunately we had no opportunity of studying it under flood conditions. After the Commission reported I had nothing more to do with it until I got instructions to prepare a Proof for this Bill this year.

580. So you have had to form all the deductions you have been putting before the Committee from information given to you by other people?—Not all the deductions.

581. Quite right. So far as statistics are concerned they have been supplied

to us.

582. Have you seen these railway embankments?-I have been over the line. I could not carry in my mind what the exact levels are.

583. Just a question or two for the Upland County Councils. I am not going to argue questions about rating with you, but one or two facts. When Vermuyden laid out the original scheme, that was the Old Bedford River and the New Bedford River we know, because you have been telling the Committee that the Washes were designed by him as a reservoir for holding water which could not be conveniently evacuated? Yes.

584. In the early engravings and prints of this district it is a fact, is it not—as that old map there shows—that the whole of the Washlands are shown as being either covered by water or liable to be covered by water? I take it to mean that, because you will see the lakes and other things are coloured exactly the same that dark grey.

585. If you look at the engravings at the end of Dugdale's "History of Embankments" you see exactly the same thing? Yes.

586. It is the fact, is it not, that at a later date these Washlands have been diverted from their original purpose in order that certain landowners there should get the benefit of valuable land at somebody else's expense. Is not that right?—I would not put it quite as high as that.

587. It is a little blunt, I know?-But for a good reason.

588. Do you agree with this? This is the evidence given on behalf of the present Promoters. This is the evidence given on behalf of the Government in

[Continued.

the year 1920 by a gentleman who had made a considerable study of this matter, and was representing the Board of Agriculture?—Yes.

589. "Their history was this "-I am reading from the evidence given before your Lordships' House on the Ouse Order (Confirmation) Bill in 1920, page 53. The gentleman in question was Mr. Konstam, K.C., who was then at the Board of Agriculture, and had been making a study of the Ouse question. He said: Their history is this "he was speaking of the Washlands: The Old Bedford River was made first, and then the Hundred Foot River. Each had a great bank on the outside. When the Hundred Foot River was made, the whole of the space between the two banks was intended to be used as a channel or reservoir for the water that came from above. That was in the 17th century, 1640. In the 18th century, there was a good deal of Private Bill legislation, and it was not always done in the interests of the largest section of the community, with the result that people were allowed to enclose for their own purposes these pasture lands in the Washes, because they were found to be valuable, that is to say, not that they were common before, but they enclosed them against the River to a modified extent. A 4-feet wall was allowed to be built up, and, therefore, they, to that extent, lost their character as a reservoir." Now your investigations have shown that since then that 4-feet wall has grown up to 6 feet, I understand?-Yes.

590. Then he was asked this question: "To-day those Washes are used as a reservoir under certain conditions and subject to certain regulations as to the working of the sluices?-Certainly "?Yes.

591. That, I venture to put to you, may be fairly summed up in this way, that in the 18th century, certain landowners with a desire to get those valuable lands in their hands caused banks to be erected which diverted the Washes from their original purpose?—Yes, partially diverted.

592. It is in consequence of that diversion by the landowners, through the negligence of somebody, that the water system designed by Vermuyden broke down? I do not know that I should say that Vermuyden's system broke down.

14° Julii, 1927.]

593. Well, partially. That is to say, it has not been allowed to operate as he intended it? No, it has not been allowed to operate as he intended it. It has the effect of raising the water levels higher up the River.

594. I think there is very little else I want to put to you, Mr. Binnie, except this. Will you just tell me this: In your interesting Report, you have dealt on page 38-at the bottom of page 37 and at the top of page 38-with the results of certain investigations you had been making abroad as to what was happening abroad?—Yes.

595. The third case you gave was that of the reclamation of the Zuyder Zee in Holland, where you said the expense is borne mainly by the State?—Yes.

596. Can you tell me whether the resulting land in that case was going to the State?-I forget.

597. You do not know? I have forgotten.

598. Would you tell me this: Was there any contribution obtained in that case towards the reclamation works from the Uplanders?—I do not think there were Uplanders in the true sense of the word there.

was

599. You mean the reclamation made against the sea?-Against the sea. 600. In the present case, will the result of your training walls out into the sea be to enable the reclamation of land on either side of the training walls to be more easily accomplished?—Yes.

601. So that part of the effect of the works you propose here will be to enable a reclamation of land from the sea ?--I should say it would assist it.

602. And towards the cost of that this Bill would make the Uplanders, the people who live in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, contribute?—Yes.

603. I will not ask you if you think it fair. That is a question for my Lords. Will you just tell me this: Where did you get the areas in the watershed of the Ouse which you set out in your Report? Do you remember on page 21 of the Report there is set out the areas, not in round figures, but actually down to ones?-Yes, those were got from the Ministry. Statistics supplied by the Ministry.

604. The Ministry of Agriculture?The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

605. I suppose the areas of the watersheds of the different Rivers in this

[Continued.

country are pretty well known, are they not? No. I wish there was a map which gave them accurately.

606. Never mind. You are not responsible for them.-No.

I

607. You do not know how it is that these areas have expanded since?—No. 608. Just one question about this. put to you just now that these training walls would assist in the reclamation of land from the sea?-That is my view.

609. But I gather the primary object of these training walls is to preventas my learned friend put it-there being a dissipation of the water over the area over which it can flow now?-Yes.

610. You would hardly apply dissipation to the teetotal channel, would you? What I want to get is how far out would reclamation from the sea be facilitated by these training walls?—I should think it would facilitate it right up to the end of the training walls.

611. Right up to the end. So the Committee can see that would include a very large area in course of time. That is obvious, is not it? I think so.

Mr. Riley.

612. May I ask Mr. Binnie a question on the engineering aspect? I should like to ask Mr. Binnie as to what, in the first place, would be the effect of these works upon the Washlands-as to how far the carrying out of these works will render the Washlands more useable as agricultural lands. My point is that in the Report on page 49, it is pointed out that these Washlands are now available for approximately four months in the year for pastures. Formerly, probably about the period of 1870, they were available for much longer periods of the year on an average. I think that is confirmed by your statement. I want to ask you whether the carrying out of these works will render the Washlands for pasturage purposes much more useable than they are now?-I should say on the whole it would benefit the Washlands for pasturage purposes. I think I stated in evidence perhaps they might once in 10 years get an overflow by this system which they would not have got under the existing system on to the Washlands, but, on the other hand, the methods which we propose to dispose of the flood water once it got on to the Washlands would enable that to be discharged very rapidly, instead of being

there for weeks at a time, as they are

now.

613. Therefore, it would render the Washlands available for grazing for longer in each year?-For grazing.

614. Then with regard to the remainder of the land, below the flood tide-the whole of the area included in the low lying lands-?-That is below the 20 feet contour.

615. Yes. That only applies to about 360,000 acres?—Yes.

616. 1 would like to ask as to what would be the general effect on the whole of that area from the agricultural point of view of the carrying out of these works? The general effect of the carrying out of the works will be to lower the low-water level in the river and enable the water to be disposed of from that area more readily than it is to-day.

617. And in that case will tend to improved productivity of that area?-Yes. everything to that end that helps to get the water away after flood tends to help.

Cross-examined by Mr. VAN DEN BERG.

618. Mr. Binnie, as I understand the position, this is your scheme from the standpoint of an engineering scheme, is it not?-No. You cannot call it my scheme. It is the consensus of the engieering evidence which we had brought before us.

619. You had certain engineering witnesses before you, but the body of the scheme must depend upon somebody who was sitting as Commissioner ?-It depends obviously on the conclusions which the Commission came to after hearing the evidence.

620. From an engineering standpoint the effective conclusions are your conclusions?-No.

621. Who else co-operated with you from the standpoint of determining what works were to be done?-They were discussed with all the other members of the Commission.

Chairman.] You cannot get from Mr. Binnie anything further than that he was a member of the Commission. He is present here as representing the Commission, if I understand right. I think you are pressing him unduly to suggest that any particular scheme is his as distinct from his colleagues. You may draw conclusions, perhaps.

[Continued.

Mr. Van Den Berg.

622. I only want to see who was the engineer behind the scheme, so that I might get his qualifications.-What particular portion of the scheme are you referring to?

623. I refer in particular to what I conceive to be the main points so far as Huntingdon is concerned, at any rate. I am referring to the Hundred Foot River, the Seven Holes Sluice, the Welmore Lake Sluice, and Denver Sluice, and the Weir. I venture to ask you, whose idea was it in putting that forward? I think the Commission came unanimously to the conclusion that it was a common-sense way of doing it.

624. The whole scheme is essentially a land drainage scheme, is it not? That would be the most convenient way of describing it? Yes.

625. You require people of great experience in connection with the drainage of land?-No.

626. Surely that is so?-What do you mean by "land drainage "? Do you mean the farmer cuts a drain?

627. I thought it was a quite well understood phrase in connection with engineering. You have engineers who are peculiarly familiar with land drainage? -If you give it a wider significance, and you are talking about these drainage areas like the Middle Level, the South Level, and so on, you would have engineers, yes.

628. I am not attacking your qualifications in any way, but you know that we are bitterly opposed to the works, and we want a little information. Have you yourself, for instance, had any experience at all in connection with land drainage questions? Yes.

629. Other than on the Ouse in this inquiry? Yes.

630. Where, may I ask?-Out in Burma and India.

631. In conditions which are at all comparable with those prevailing on the Ouse?! should not say that they were comparable.

632. May I take it that you really had no knowledge at all of land drainage questions in connection with anything which is comparable with this river until you were appointed by the Minister to inquire into this case?-No, I should disagree with that entirely. I was appointed by the President of the Institution as a person who was capable of acting as the engineering member of this

14° Julii, 1927.]

Commission. The problems are no different in dealing with land drainage than with waterworks with which I am accustomed to deal. I have to deal with channels for conveying water into Jeservoirs just the same as conveying water into the river here.

633. Your experience has been confined almost entirely, has it not, to works and reservoirs, and matters of that kind?No, it has not. The practice of my firm is now largely concerned with waterworks, reservoirs, drainage, and all problems connected with water. You limit the thing to land drainage.

634. I do not know whether you were correctly reported, but I see in the Journal of the Surveyors' Institution you are reported as saying this: "Mr. W. J. E. Binnie, Visitor "-that would be you? Yes.

635. Mr. W. J. E. Binnie, Visitor, said: The Paper was an excellent one -referring to the Paper that had been read-" and he had read it with the greatest interest. His own knowledge of land drainage questions was practically confined to the work which he had done in connection with the Ouse Drainage Commission Report, but he thought he might perhaps be forgiven if he added a few remarks, more particularly in relation to that Report, to those which had fallen from the lips of Sir John Oakley." You were there rather excusing your lack of knowledge on this particular question? Well, you could not call Sir John Oakley a land drainage engineer cither.

636. do not want to discuss Sir John Oakley because he is not in the box at the moment. Let me just see how the matter stands. The question that we are considering is one of stupendous difficulty, is it not?-Yes.

637. The greatest minds have differed, I might say, almost throughout the centuries on this question of how the Ouse could best be drained. That is so, is it not?- do not think I can say that. I have read an enormous number of Reports, and generally speaking they are on the lines of this scheme. There have been other suggestions put forward.

638. Other suggestions have been put forward of a radically different kind?Yes.

639. This scheme which is put forward as a Heaven-sent scheme is blessed, I think, only by the Fenmen, is it not?

I do not think a scheme would ever be

[Continued.

blessed by all the Fenmen. It would be a remarkable coincidence of opinion if that were so.

640. Is it not rather remarkable, if the scheme is so liberal and fair, that all the Uplanders, speaking substantially, should be opposed to it? Our experience was, after sitting 23 days, that everybody differed from everybody else except on one point, namely: Something ought to be done, the Government ought to pay for it, but certainly they had no interest in it whatever.

641. When you speak of 23 days, that is a remarkably short period of time in the consideration of this complicated question, is it not?-I do not think so. I think we went into it very fully.

642. Do you really think 23 days a long time? Yes, if you had sat there and listened to the sort of evidence that we got you would think it far too long.

643. I think I have had more than 23

days on it, if it were totalled up. Having regard to the difficulty, is this scheme that you propose in every sense experimental-an experiment which you think will work?-It is not an experiment at all.

644. Are you confident that it is going to achieve the result?-What particular portion of the scheme are you now referring to?

645. I am referring to the scheme as a whole. Take the works that you propose to do round about Earith. You propose to silt up the Hundred Foot River? -I do not propose to do anything of the sort.

646. You propose to take away the Seven Holes Sluice?-We do propose to silt up the Hundred Foot River.

647. We will come to that in a moment? I see the statement is made in your Petition, which I presume you are quoting from, that the Hundred Foot River was silting up, or will silt up. Therefore, I put the evidence in to-day to show that instead of that being the fact it had lowered very considerably between 1922 and 1925.

648. I will come to that in a moment. May I ask you this? Are you putting forward these proposals to the Committee confidently, or do you agree with me that at the least it is very highly experimental? I do not agree with you at all. I am putting them forward with the greatest confidence.

649. Let me see how far we can agree, because I want to come down to these

works to which we are bitterly opposed? -As you suggest that I do not know anything about it, it is not much good your putting questions to me, because my replies to your questions will be of no use if I know nothing about it.

650. I am only looking at what you yourself said about land drainage questions? It was an unfortunate remark.

651. You have, no doubt, in the course of this careful investigation, studied the history of the river, have you not?Well, I was given about three-quarters of a ton of Reports. I cannot say that I have studied the history, because I might have spent four or five years reading it up, but I have read a certain number of Reports on it.

652. Is this correct? I want to get the matter quite accurately on what I understand to be the main point. First of all, this river from the point at which it rises in Buckingham right down to Earith is a natural river. That is clear, is it not? No, it is not a natural river. 653. Do you say it is not a natural river? No, it is not a natural river.

654. Speaking broadly, it would be natural in contradistinction to that part of the river which runs between Earith and Denver? This river is canalised. You do not call that a natural river.

655. Very well, you do not agree that it is a natural river?-I do not agree that it is a natural river.

656. I should have thought that was apt description. Where is it canalised?-Up the Ouse.

an

657. A little bit somewhere up there?There is an ancient navigation up there now which is all going to rot.

658. I think you understood perfectly well when I described it as a natural river. That description is just, is it not? -It is not just. It is not a natural river.

659. At any rate, the works below Earith are artificial, are they not?—Yes, largely artificial.

660. Let us get the matter into chronological order and absolutely crystal clear once and for all. If Huntingdon had been left to her own resources without these artificial works she could have got rid of her water without any aid at all? --Yes.

661. The works below Earith were constructed entirely for the benefit of the Fens?--Yes.

662. We know, as a matter of history, that the gentlemen adventurers got

[Continued.

95,000 of the richest acres in the country for reclaiming this land?—I do not know about it being the richest land in the country. That is your qualification. They got 95,000 acres.

663. The Fens are worth from £2 to £3 an acre, are they not? They are worth £2 to £3 an acre, do you say? 664. Yes, that is my suggestion?—That is quite wrong.

665. What figure would you put ?-They are very much more valuable than that to-day. They run up to about £100 an

acre.

666. I meant letting value?—Oh, 1 thought you mean capital.

667. I beg your pardon. We have agreed up to this point about the history of the river. Let us just follow it out. These artificial works, you agree with me, have prevented Huntingdon from getting rid of her water?-No, the artificial works did not prevent Huntingdon from getting rid of her water.

668. It must be so, because you told me just now that but for the artificial works Huntingdon could have got rid of her water without difficulty? If I said yes to that I misunderstood the question. These works do not interfere with Huntingdon getting rid of her water. They are going to take the water which Huntingdon discharges through that district -Huntingdon being amongst others.

669. It was in order to save the Fens, and for no other purpose, that the old Bedford River was constructed?-Yes.

670. And later the new Bedford River, or the Hundred Foot River?-I do not know what you mean by saving the Fens. It was to bring the Fens into cultivation.

671. And later again for the benefit of the Fens the Seven Holes Sluice was erected. That was in order to protect the Washes. Is not that correct?—No, I should not say so. I should say it was not a benefit; it was very much the re

verse.

672. The Seven Holes Sluice ?-You said the Seven Holes Sluice was erected for the benefit of the Fens

673. No, for the Washes?-Oh yes, for the benefit of the Washes.

674. So that all these works were erected for the benefit, at any rate, of somebody other than the Uplanders?— Yes.

675. They were erected even without consultation with the Uplanders?—That I do not know.