13° Julii, 1927.]

disregarded that article because it is a misfire. There is no 3 (2) (b), therefore my learned friend's indignation is lavished upon something which does not appear in the Bill. Therefore he must mean something else. There is no 3 (2) (b) in the Bill. Which one do you mean, Mr. Charteris? I am sure it is not some non-existent provision which you are tilting at.

Mr. Charteris.] 3 (4) (b).

Mr. Macmillan.] 3 (4) (b), very good. It is the principle of benefit and liabilities. "Amongst other details of the Bill to which your Petitioners object, in addition to their strong objections to the main proposals of the Bill, your Petitioners desire to call attention to the following." Do you wish me to deal with the detailed matter, Mr. Charteris? Mr. Charteris.] You have already read the clause.

Mr. Macmillan.] You quite properly treat these as subordinate to the main question.

Mr. Charteris.] Perhaps you might read the effect which we allege will follow from the operation of that clause, half way down.

Mr. Macmillan.] After the reference to 3 (2) (g), a non-existent clause?

Mr. Charteris.] That is the one you have already complained of.

Mr. Macmillan.] No, it was 3 (2) (b) last time. Do not let me tease you unnecessarily.

Mr. Charteris.] This is the numbering of the Bill that was sent to us in the first instance by the promoters, and I am sorry to say it has now been altered and therefore it puts the petition apparently in the wrong, but it is not really in the wrong.

Mr. Macmillan.] I make no point on that.

Mr. Charteris.] You seem to me to have been rather labouring it.

Mr. Macmillan.] One sometimes has to. "The proposals of this paragraph would affect three rural districts in your Petitioners' county and your Petitioners on behalf of the rural district councils of these districts strongly object to the proposals of the clause. The collection of rates by the Ouse Drainage Board has been a matter of very great difficulty and trouble, and those whom your Petitioners represent strongly object to being forced to take over the difficult task of collecting rates on behalf of another body, particularly when strong resent

63205

[Continued.

ment is likely to be felt by the persons being called upon to pay those rates." Then I think I may pass to the next petition.

Mr. Charteris.] "In connection with this matter ".

Mr. Macmillan.] If you please: "In connection with this matter attention is called to the fact that the area of the Board severs not merely rating bodies of the local authority but even individual hereditaments. The difficulties of collecting rates will, therefore, be greatly enhanced." Then they point out generally that they object to any authority being compelled to collect rates on behalf of the proposed Ouse Board, if constituted. Then they draw attention to Clause 23 of the Bill which gives power to repeal, vary, or amend the provisions of the Bill, and they suggest that indicates the measure must be premature, and is not a rightly matured measure, or such a power would not be necessary.

So much for Cambridgeshire County Council, which is an upland and lowland county. I propose not to read Huntingdonshire and Norfolk, which are in the same category, unless any of my learned friends desire me to do so.

Mr. Van Den Bergh.] Will you allow me to correct what I think was a slight misapprehension on my learned friend's part? I do so because he said yesterday he would welcome any interruption if it tended to elucidate the issues. The petition my learned friend read is an upland and lowland petition, true, but it is not altogether typical of a County Council opposition, and I want to correct that impression so that he may have in mind the opposition he will have to meet, and your Lordships may see what that opposition is. I represent the County Council of Huntingdon, and my case, so far as the opposition is concerned, goes much beyond the case which has just been read on behalf of Cambridge. Huntingdonshire, as your Lordship will see on the map

Mr. Macmillan.] With respect, my friend cannot begin a speech at this stage. I will read any point in the petition which is not covered by the petition of Cambridgeshire.

Mr. Van Den Bergh.] That is what I was just going to do. I can summarise the position in a few sentences.

Mr. Macmillan.] It is very kind of you, but I am afraid that is irregular. If you will direct my attention to any

C 4

13° Julii, 1927.]

paragraphs of the Petition which you desire read, I will read them.

Mr. Van Den Bergh.] If it is a question of reading I should have to ask you to read a great deal from paragraph 10 onwards, but without doing anything irregular I would like to say this

Chairman.] I think we had better take the opposition of Huntingdon when it arises and leave it to your discretion to read what you think necessary.

Mr. Macmillan.] I will leave it at this. that the Cambridgeshire Petition is not to be taken as exhaustive of the opposition in Huntingdon, and presumably in Norfolk, and your Lordship will not take that as exhaustive.

Mr. Charteris.] I appear for Norfolk. Mr. Macmillan.] Yes, but I noticed you were agreeably silent. Age brings discretion sometimes, Mr. Charteris. So much for these. May I now pass to the upland counties alone, those who are interested only in the uplands? There we have Essex as a single petitioner, and then we have the group of Bedford, Buckingham, Hertford, Northampton and Oxford, represented by my learned friend, Mr. Tyldesley Jones. Perhaps it would be safer to take my learned friend Mr. Tyldesley Jones' petition.

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] I appear for Essex as well-all the purely upland counties. I can help my learned friend considerably here. A great deal of this petition is in the same form as the upland parts of the Cambridgeshire petition and raises the same points, therefore I will not trouble my learned friend to read those. All I would ask him to draw attention to is Article 5, because there is a little table there.

Mr. Campbell.] Paragraph 5 of Norfolk?

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] No, the Bedford, Buckingham and others.

Mr. Macmillan.] Fortunately, this is not a very long petition, although it is a substantial one. May I ask attention to paragraph 5? This is Bedford, Buckingham, Hertford. Northampton and Oxford County Councils, all in one petition. It is an upland county petition exclusively. Article 5, on page 2: "The area coloured blue upon the deposited map includes a very extensive area forming the greater part of the watershed of the river Ouse and its tributaries and including substantial portions of your Petitioners' several counties. No actual or possible benefit

[Continued.

or advantage will, however, be derived by any of your Petitioners or their respective counties or any of the inhabitants of those counties from the construction of the works which are contemplated by the Bill, and the only advantage which any of those whom your Petitioners represent can derive from the Bill is due to the fact that the repeal of the Order of 1920 will render permanent an order, for the temporary suspension of the Order of 1920 in relation to the rating of the area referred to as 'Area A' in that Order, which was made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1925, and which will cease to operate (unless renewed) at the end of the present year.' I know what he means, but I cannot say I admire the syntax of the sentence. "The following table shows, with respect to the counties of your respective Petitioners, the approximate acreage which is coloured blue upon the deposited map and the approximate amount of the contribution which your Petitioners will be called upon to make to the Ouse Board if Clause 4 of the Bill is allowed to become law."

In each case my learned friend tells me he has taken from my table the figures shown and they show a slight increase in every case except one.

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] A considerable increase, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Macmillan.] I shall not bandy epithets. £2,037 becomes £2,211; £1,461 becomes £1,534; £460 is about the same, it becomes £459; £730 becomes £747, and £128 becomes £135. It does not affect the matter in principle at all. "Your Petitioners doubt the necessity for the promotion of the Bill, and point out that legislation with regard to the river Ouse was passed by Parliament as recently as the year 1920, when the Ouse Drainage Order of that year became law. That Order was the subject of a prolonged local inquiry, and also searching inquiries by Committees of both Houses of Parliament," and the policy of despair which is suggested there is that we should revert to the 1920 Order which the Preamble of this Bill says has failed to achieve its purpose, and that we ought to proceed by amendment, and I suppose without Government assistance. Ouse Drainage Order 1920 was made. under and in accordance with the general law then relating to land drainage,

"The

13° Julii, 1927.]

which had been revised and brought up to date as recently as the year 1918, when the Land Drainage Act of that year was passed. The proposals of the Bill are contrary to the principles of land drainage, which are embodied in the existing law on the subject, which law has been reconsidered by Parliament as recently as last year. It is submitted that, in view of this recent revision by Parliament, a very clear case for the proposals of the Bill requires to be substantiated, and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to justify proposals which conflict with the principles of the general law, otherwise than by means of a general enactment, applicable to the whole country. (8) Under the present law, as revised in the year 1926 by the Land Drainage Act of that year, provisions are made with respect to county councils, and their position in relation to matters of land drainage. The position of your Petitioners is especially recognised in these matters, by Parliament, and county councils are (it is submitted) at the present time regarded as the principal land drainage authorities throughout the country. Indeed in the Land Drainage Act 1926 provisions have been enacted by Parliament for transferring to county councils the powers of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under Part II of the Land Drainage Act 1918. It is submitted that all legitimate objects which are designed to be achieved by the Bill, can be achieved by means of an application, or applications, under the Land Drainage Acts 1861 to 1926." The next few paragraphs are on the same lines as the upland and lowland petitions which I have just read so far as the uplands are concerned.

My learned friend is good enough to relieve me by inviting me to pass to Article 14: "If, however, it is in the interests of the country as a whole that the value of the lowlands should be maintained, and that the works necessary for maintaining that value should be constructed, your Petitioners submit that any contributions necessary to assist the lowlands in maintaining such value should be borne nationally. Your Petitioners and those whom they represent have no direct interest in the matter at all, and it is submitted that your Petitioners should not be made liable for heavy contributions towards expenditure which it is not proposed that they should, in any

[Continued.

way, control. Your Petitioners do not desire to be represented on either of the Boards proposed to be established by the Bill; the fact, however, that no representation of your Petitioners on those Boards is proposed by the Bill, constitutes, your Petitioners submit, an additional argument against the proposals of Clause 4." Then reference is made to those precedents which are referred to in the Commissioners' Report which I have already dealt with.

Article 17 I am told raises a new point, "There are divers other clauses and provisions in the Bill prejudicially affecting the rights and interests of your Petitioners and other clauses and provisions necessary for their protection and benefit are omitted therefrom. Amongst others your Petitioners object to Clause 15 under which drainage works cannot be carried out by your Petitioners or others in the Ouse District without the consent of the Ouse Board unless that consent is unreasonably withheld." I drew attention to that you may remember this morning when I drew attention to the relevant section.

So much for the Counties' case, subject to the matter to which my learned friend draws attention in the case of Huntingdon. There are certain objections taken with regard to works there. Now I pass to the Borough Petitions. Perhaps my learned friend will help me; I do not propose to read all the Borough Petitions. There are Petitions from the Boroughs of King's Lynn, Bury St. Edmunds and Bedford.

Mr. F. G. Thomas.] With regard to Bedford, the great bulk of the Petition has been already covered. There are perhaps certain Paragraphs.

Mr. Macmillan.] If you please. I will I am rather read anything you wish. anxious to get a typical case put forward. If you please I will read the Petition from Bedford.

13° Julii, 1927.]

through the Bedfordshire County Council, to the expenses of the Ouse Board under the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause

4."

Then come some statistics, slightly varied now, but showing the substantial nature of your interest.

Mr. F. G. Thomas.] Yes, I will not trouble you with those. Then 7.

Mr. Macmillan.] Perhaps I might read the last words of Article 6, because you might want them. "A very considerable part of any sums which the Bedfordshire County Council may be called upon to pay to the Ouse Board under clause 4 (1) of the Bill will, or may, fall upon your Petitioners and those whom "The they represent." Then Article 7. River Ouse passes through your Petitioners' borough, and as long ago as the year 1803 powers were conferred upon your Petitioners by Parliament with reference to that river, and the prevention of flooding arising therefrom. Considerable sums of money have been spent by your Petitioners from time to time in the construction of weirs and other works both within and without the borough of Bedford for the improvement of the river, for the prevention of floods, and for the control of water passing down the river. This is recognised by the report, which is hereinbefore referred to and upon which the proposals of the Bill are based, special attention being called in that report to the fact that your Petitioners have made great improvements in the river which have added largely to to the amenities of their borough.

Mr. F. G. Thomas.] I think these Clauses now, up to 18, have been covered in the general Upland objection which you have already referred to.

Mr. Macmillan.] If you please. Article 18, page 5: "If, notwithstanding your Petitioners' objections, your Honourable House should see fit to allow the proposals of Clause 4 (1) of the Bill to become law, your Petitioners submit that in view of their special position, and the expenditure incurred by them in the past, and their intention to incur further expenditure upon the River Ouse in the future, Clause 4 (1) should only be allowed to become law on condition that that sub-clause is excluded from operation in relation to your Petitioners' borough. Your Petitioners submit that it would be particularly unfair that your Petitioners, and those whom they represent, should be called upon to make the

[Continued.

large contribution to which they would be liable under Clause 4 (1) of the Bill, especially as it is proposed that the contributions of the county council under that sub-clause may be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, to which your Petitioners and those whom they represent would have to contribute, on a basis of assessable value, notwithstanding the fact that the charge to be met by the county council is based upon acreage. Even if the proposals of Clause 4 of the Bill could be justified on any grounds, it is submitted that the liability of individual areas in a county should be assessed on the same basis as that upon which the charge to the county council is based, and that an individual area should only be liable to Then you pay on an acreage basis."

raise the point of byelaws. Do you wish me to mention that?

Mr. F. G. Thomas.] You have already alluded to the point taken in (a).

Mr. Macmillan.] Yes, then the next one is byelaws. I have not referred to that.

Mr. F. G. Thomas.] No, you have not. Mr. Macmillan.] Pray turn, my Lord, to page 6, Article 19 (b): "By Clause 21 of the Bill it is sought to empower the Ouse Board to make byelaws for regulating the use of works under their control, for regulating the opening of sluices in connection with such works and for compelling owners and occupiers of premises to cut weeds in watercourses controlled by the Board. It is not clear under the provisions of the Bill that waterways in the uplands will not be under the control of the Ouse Board, though by Clause 2 of the Bill it is provided that no works are to be carried out by the Board in the uplands. Furthermore, it would appear to be possible for byelaws under the clause to interfere with the proper operation of the scheme for the disposal of the sewage of your Petitioners' borough. It is submitted that provision should be expressly contained in the Bill for enacting that waterways in the uplands are not to be under the control of the Ouse Board and for preserving to your Petitioners the right to operate their sewage disposal works and to discharge the effluent therefrom and storm waters into the River Ouse as heretofore." My learned friend may recall that when I read Clause 21 in the Bill I pointed out that, owing to the peculiar nature of the procedure here,