13° Julii, 1927.]

have special consideration of their position in consideration of their special legislation.

Mr. Riley.] The Cam is a tributary?

Mr. Macmillan.] The Cam is a tributary of the Old Ouse River. It comes into the portion of the River which has been short circuited. It comes into that part of the Old Ouse Bay. Four rivers come in there, the Cam, the Lark, the Wissey and the Little Ouse.

I am told I omitted some gem from the Cambridge Corporation Petition. "It is submitted that, in view of the obligations of your Petitioners under the River Cam Conservancy Act, 1922, the area of your Petitioners' borough should be excluded from liability to contribute to any contribution paid by the County Council under Clause 4 of the Bill to the Ouse Board. It is, moreover, most unfair, your Petitioners submit, particularly in their case, that the contribution of the county council under Clause 4 should be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes, more especially in view of the fact that the charge to the county council is based on the acreage of the county and not on rateable value." Mr. Jeeves, you appear for King's Lynn ?

Mr. Jeeves.] I think paragraphs 21, 26, 32 and 34 should be read.

Mr. Macmillan.] Page 5, Article 21: "Your Petitioners are the Mayor Addermen and Burgesses of the borough of King's Lynn and are the urban sanitary authority for the borough and the local government of the same is vested in them. The population of the borough is over 20,000 its area is 3,173 acres and it has an assessable value of £88,606. Its outstanding debt amounts to £166,575 and the rates at present chargeable in the borough are 13s. 8d. in the £ in the parish of St. Margaret and 14s. 2d. in the parish of South Lynn. A ld. rate produces only about £320 per annum. As representing the ratepayers and inhabitants of the borough your Petitioners are charged with the duty of protecting the rights and interests of the trading community upon which the prosperity of the borough wholly depends. Your Petitioners have always encouraged and assisted in the provision of docks, wharves railways and other facilities to keep the port of King's Lynn abreast of the times. They have a sum of £82,500 invested in the King's Lynn Docks and

[Continued.

Railway Company and are also owners of or otherwise interested in various quays, wharves and landing places for vessels on the east side of the River Ouse. Your Petitioners are also owners of estates in and near to the borough and within the proposed Ouse Drainage District." In paragraph 22 they say they are seriously affected by the Bill.

Mr. Jeeves.] I think you may go to paragraph 26. There are points raised, but I do not think you need trouble with them.

Mr. Macmillan.] Thank you very much. There is a very long Article you have relieved me of. Article 26, page 9: "The inclusion of your Petitioners' borough in the Ouse Drainage area will inflict grievous injustice on the owners and occupiers of property in and the ratepayers and inhabitants of the borough. The borough is adequately sewered and drained by an efficient system installed and maintained by your Petitioners at very considerable cost which the ratepayers have to meet; no part of the borough is liable to flooding or is likely to be, but notwithstanding this ratepayers in the borough are to be subject to an additional rate to meet expenses incurred in drainage works with which they have no concern and in addition they will be required to contribute their quota to the county rate for the county council of Norfolk of which they are a constituent part are to be called upon to contribute in no small degree towards the expenses of the Board. Moreover, King's Lynn is the largest town in the county contributing to the county rate and consequently the amount to be paid through the county council by the ratepayers of the borough would be excessive. Furthermore, as the King's Lynn Docks and Railway Company are considerable ratepayers in the borough the Corporation will as shareholders in that undertaking be liable to a further contribution to the drainage rate. In three capacities therefore it is proposed that the ratepayer in the borough shall pay towards drainage works which are of no value to him or to the borough. But the extent to which he is to be penalised does not end there, for under Clause 6 of the Bill the Corporation are to be required to pay to the Ouse Board a contribution towards the cost of the drainage works to be authorised under the Bill to an amount

13° Julii, 1927.]

representing the value of the improvement which has resulted, or which it is calculated may result, to the port and trade of King's Lynn by reason of the execution of such works or of a part of any such works. This clause clearly shows how utterly illogical are the recommendations of the Commission upon which the provisions of the Bill regarding the rating of the borough have been founded, for it is an admission that as direct ratepayers to the board and indirect ratepayers through the county council they are to be mulcted not as benefiting from being included in the drainage area but by reason of alleged community of interest and at the same time if any benefit should arise or if an arbitrator can be persuaded that at some time in the future some improvement to the port or trade of King's Lynn will result, then that benefit or improvement is to be paid for direct. This proposal makes it the more clear that in the endeavour to obtain sufficient revenue to meet expenditure on works which ought to be paid for by landowners, both uplanders and lowlanders in the drainage area who will benefit the Commission looked upon King's Lynn as a profitable area without regard to the injustice and hardship which would be caused to the ratepayers in that town who would have to provide the funds."

Mr. Jeeves.] I do not think you need read the rest of that.

Mr. Macmillan.] The next word should be "Inequity " and not " iniquity." I dc not think they are charged with moral obliquity.

Mr. Jeeves.] My learned friend certainly is not. Paragraph 32.

Mr. Macmillan.] Thirty-two, if you please. "Your Petitioners object to Clause 20 of the Bill generally, and particularly to Sub-section 5 thereof, which transfers to the Board the liability of the Norfolk Estuary Company under the Norfolk Estuary Act, 1877, and the Norfolk Estuary Act, 1899, to maintain the new cuts for the water of the river known as the 'Marsh Cut' and the 'Vinegar Middle Cut.' Your Petitioners ought not to be saddled with any part of the cost of relieving the Norfolk Estuary Company from liabilities imposed upon them by the said Acts of 1877 and 1889." King's Lynn Corporation is naturally. particularly interested in the outfall part of the works, which are really just at their threshhold, and in the Cuts which

[Continued.

have been made to convey the water by Training Walls out to sea, and they are more intimately concerned in these works than others, and that is, I take it, why they refer and object to this matter of the Norfolk Estuary arrangement. The next I have dealt with. Article 34:

Clause 25 of the Bill further illustrates the very exceptional character of the Bill, as it proposes to confer on the Ministry the right to make an Order under Section 1 of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, repealing the whole of the provisions of the Bill after it has become an Act and for repealing varying or amending any particular enactments contained in the Bill. This Clause inevitably leads to the inference that the Bill is not expected to be a solution of the problem of the drainage of the Ouse District."

Then perhaps the next Petition to take might be the London and North Eastern Railway Company.

Mr. S. G. Turner.] While I was not in the room, I gather you thought the Petition of the King's Lynn Dock Company might conveniently be taken with the Petitions of the Railway Companies? Mr. Macmillan.] I put them in the category which I call "miscellaneous."

Mr. S. G. Turner.] I was going to suggest it might be taken next to the King's Lynn Corporation.

Mr. Macmillan.] They are locally associated, and they are also associated financially in some way.

Mr. S. G. Turner.] Yes.

Mr. Macmillan.] I will take the Petition of the King's Lynn Docks Company, and perhaps my learned friend will be good enough to guide my faltering steps through it.

Mr. S. G. Turner.] It is a very long Petition, and I think you may start at Paragraph 15, on page 6.

Mr. Macmillan.] Paragraph 15 of the Petition of the King's Lynn Docks and Railway Company: "Your Petitioners were incorporated by the King's Lynn Docks and Railway Act, 1865, and various further powers have been conferred upon them by subsequent Acts. (16) Your Petitioners were by the said Act of 1865 authorised to construct and have constructed a dock in the Borough of King's Lynn known as the Alexandra Dock and under powers conferred upon them by the King's Lynn Dock Act, 1877, your Petitioners constructed another Dock known as the Bentinck Dock and

13° Julii, 1927.]

your Petitioners' undertaking comprises railways and sidings in connection with the London and North Eastern Railway and (by means of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway) with the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. The undertaking of your Petitioners is situated on the easterly side of the River Ouse and within the Borough of King's Lynn and an important business has been developed and is now being carried on at the Docks by your Petitioners."

Mr. S. G Turner.] Then in Paragraphs 17 and 18 there is set out an extract from the Report and then I think if you proceed with Paragraph 19 which starts: Having regard to these expressions of opinion."

Mr. Macmillan.] "Having regard to these expressions of opinion on the part of the Commissioners your Petitioners would submit that it is by no means clear that the proposed works at or in connection with the outfall of the River and which are primarily designed for drainage purposes may not interfere with the existing navigable channel by means of which access to the Port of King's Lynn and your Petitioners' Undertaking is obtained." That is quite right. That puts us to the proof of the character of our works and that they will not interfere with the navigation of the harbour which is, of course, a very proper subject of anxiety to my learned friend. "Your Petitioners would point out that there is no definite provision in the Bill as to what works are to be carried out inasmuch as there is no reference in the Bill to plans or sections of the works referred to in the said Third Schedule and moreover by the said Sub-clause (3) of Clause 5 of the Bill it is proposed to authorise the Ouse Board with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the Treasury to vary the works proposed in Part I of the said Schedule by omissions therefrom or modifications therein or by the insertion of other works or otherwise." Upon that matter we will put an Engineer in the witness chair and he will be subject to my learned friend's cross-examination, and we shall endeavour to make it as precise as we can what we propose to do. Of course, the protection of the 1920. Order is continued in the Clauses of that Order which, in the Schedule, are preserved. "Your Petitioners submit that it is inexpedient that any such wide and indefinite powers for the construction of

[Continued.

works particularly in the lower reaches of the River and at the outfall should be conferred upon the Ouse Board the effect of which works is apparently in doubt and which works are subject to variation without any opportunity being afforded for a consideration of the altered or substituted works by the Owners of property which may be affected or for representations being made with regard thereto." Then you refer to the disposal of shingle, sand or clay. On that I may say at once, we would be most happy to protect you against having any of it deposited in your navigation. I understand you are anxious we should not deposit anything.

Mr. S. G. Turner.] I will say no more on that at the moment. It is unnecessary to read that paragraph.

Mr. Macmillan.] Then "Your Petitioners also object to the proposal contained in the said Clause 14 to relieve the Ouse Board from liability for damage caused by reason of the execution of or the failure to execute works."

Mr. S. G. Turner.] The next paragrarhs are the most important.

Mr. Macmillan.]"23. Your Petitioners strongly object to any such proposal as is contained in the said Clause 6 by which it is sought to impose upon them the Corporation of King's Lynn and the King's Lynn Conservancy Board or any of those bodies a liability to contribute towards the sums falling to be defrayed by the Ouse Board in connection with the execution of the works specified in the said Part I of the Third Schedule an amount representing the value of the improvement." This is the so called Betterment Clause.

Mr. S. G. Turner.] That is right.

Mr. Macmillan.] "Your Petitioners submit that it would not be practicable to determine the value of any such improvement even if it were to result, and that it would be impossible to determine the value of an improvement which it

No

is calculated will result' to the port or to the trade of King's Lynn by reason of the execution of any such works. justification can be shown to exist for the inclusion of any such provision in a Bill the object of which is the drainage of lands. Even if the object of the Bill were the improvement of the port of King's Lynn any such proposals as are contained in the said Clause 6 would be impracticable. Your Petitioners object to the imposition upon them of any such liability as is proposed by the said clause.

13° Julii, 1927.]

(24.) Your Petitioners submit that even if any such contribution as is proposed by the said Clause 6 could be justified (which your Petitioners do not admit) no justifi. cation can be shown to exist for differentiating between your Petitioners and any other companies bodies or persons whose interests in common with those of your Petitioners are dependent upon the navigation of the river. (25). Your Petitioners moreover object to any such contribution as is proposed by the said Clause 6 being imposed upon the Mayor Alderman and Burgesses of the Borough of King's Lynn and upon the King's Lynn Conservancy Board. Your Petitioners as large ratepayers in the said borough would be liable to pay increased amounts by way of rates in respect of any contribution which might be levied on the borough and any such contribution payable by the Conservancy Board would necessarily result in increasing the dues charged in respect of vessels using the port. Any increase in charges as compared with those at other neighbouring ports would tend to diminish the traffic using the Port of King's Lynn and your Petitioners' Docks and undertaking and to reduce the trade of the port and of the town of King's Lynn. (28). It is proposed by the said Clause 3 of the Bill to empower the Ouse Board to levy the drainage rates therein referred to on owners of hereditaments within the Ouse District including the undertaking and property of your Petitioners which is situated in the Borough of King's Lynn and by Clause 4 your Petitioners' said undertaking would in addition be liable to the further rates to be leviable by the Council of the County of Norfolk under the said Clause 4. Your Petitioners object to any such liability to rating as is proposed to be imposed upon them by the said Clauses 3 and 4. (27). Your Petitioners submit that the proposal to levy a contribution upon them directly, and also a contribution indirectly through the Corporation, in addition to liability to rating by the Ouse Board and by the County Council is inequitable and cannot be justified."

Chairman.] This is rather a long Petition, and a good deal of it has appeared in others.

Mr. Turner.] I was just going to intervene and say that the remainder of the Petition relates to what I may call comparatively minor matters, and so long as I am not prejudiced by the paragraphs

[Continued.

not being read, I do not ask for them to be read, but perhaps my learned friend Mr. Macmillan would read paragraph 31.

Mr. Macmillan.] "Your Petitioners object to the provisions contained in the said Clause 20 and the Fifth Schedule to the Bill with reference to the Company of Proprietors of the Norfolk Estuary. The effect of the said Clause and Schedule would appear to be that a statutory title to the lands described in the said Schedule is intended to be conferred upon the said Company. Certain of the said lands which now form a large part of your Petitioners' undertaking have been purchased by your Petitioners from and conveyed to them by the said Company and your Petitioners strongly object to the inclusion in the Bill or in the said Fifth Schedule of any provision purporting to confer upon the said Company any right or interest in any lands belonging to your Petitioners." Then the topic is further developed in the next article.

Mr. Turner.] Yes.

Mr. Macmillan.] Now, the King's Lynn Conservancy Board. Perhaps my learned friend will guide me there.

Mr. Rimmer.] Provided that I am not in any way prejudiced, I think that it will be quite possible to dispense with the reading of the Petition in so far as it relates chiefly to the same sort of points that have been raised on the other Petitions.

Chairman ] It is scarcely necessary to trouble the Committee with that.

Mr. Macmillan.] No; I am obliged to my learned friend. Then there is the Petition of the Middle Level Commissioners. Mr. Raikes, will you come into action now?

Chairman.] You cannot say the same thing, Mr Raikes?

Mr. St. John Raikes.] My Lord, this is an entirely different interest; it is the Petition of the Fen people who have got to carry practically half of the burden. They set out their objections to the scheme and also some engineering objections. My Lord, I do not want to strain my learned friend's voice more than can be helped.

Mr. Macmillan.] Or your auditory nerves!

Mr. St. John Raikes.] I do not mind about that.