existing water-courses, outfalls, and dams; to improve existing works, and to make new works when necessary, for the conservancy of rivers and protection of lands from injury by floods; and for these purposes to purchase property when required, and in any case to pay compensation for all loss or injury sustained by any person by reason of the exercise of any of the above powers.

The boards are also to be empowered to raise a conservancy rate to defray all their expenses, the basis of taxation being the situation of the lands, which are described as 'lowlands,' 'midlands,'' uplands,' according as they are subject to ordinary floods,' occasionally subject to floods,' or in neither category though included among the lands within the district declared liable to taxation.

6

The liability of the 'uplands' is apparently determined by the extent to which their artificial drainage contributes to floods, and is in no case to exceed one-tenth of the rate paid by the lands in the district which pay the highest general rate. It is apparently contemplated, though not distinctly stated in the Bill, that high undrained lands within the area will be excluded from rating, or even be omitted from the district.

In attempting to legislate for floods, it must be remembered that floods are not a thing of yesterday, and that nobody proposes or hopes to do away with them altogether. There never was a time when the meadows were not occasionally flooded; and not only is it impossible wholly to prevent floods, but even if it were possible, it would not be desirable to do so. Everybody admits that occasional floods which pass quickly away, so far from injuring, do great benefit to the land. All, therefore, that the most stringent Act of Parliament can effect in regard to floods is in some degree to limit their frequency.

It is worth while to state this truism, because those who do not pay close attention to the subject might easily support a Bill bearing the rather ambitious title of Floods' Prevention' through thick and thin, under the idea that a sovereign remedy for floods was being proposed. If the rainfall should continue to be as heavy in England as it has been during the last few years, the most efficient conservancy board, after the most lavish expenditure, will only attain a very limited success.

If, then, the remedy proposed be partial only, it becomes more than ever necessary carefully to watch any Bill on the subject, lest the cost to the ratepayers be found in practice to exceed the benefit conferred. The first great obstacle to legislation is the objection to create a fresh local rate. Agriculturists are being reminded every day by facts how small already is the margin of possible profit for English agriculture, and how heavy is the pressure of local burdens. They know, too, by experience, how much capital has ere now been swallowed up in improvements which have made no return, because undertaken on a too ambitious scale; and they are becoming more

and more convinced that if English agriculture is to have

any chance of commercial success, capital outlay must be conducted with extreme prudence and even parsimony.

These truths are naturally more slow in reaching the minds of engineers and other professional men, whose attention is directed to great works and professional fame rather than to economy and local rates. Nothing caused more alarm to the general agricultural community than the proposals made to the House of Lords' Committee by some eminent engineers, some of which were embodied in the Government Bill of 1881. If proposals embracing arterial drainage of land, storage of water for drinking and other purposes, the warping and irrigation of land,' had found their way into the Statute Book, there would have been opened for ratepayers an endless vista of taxation, and for the profession a prosperity second only to that enjoyed in Egypt in the best days of Ismail.

On no account should too much latitude be given to a board on which different interests will have power, not in proportion to their representation, but to their pertinacity. If one board should be formed for a whole 'catchment area,' such as that of the Thames or Severn, it is more than probable that some eminent engineer will virtually become the board.

It may be laid down, then, as a principle to be observed in legislation that a conservancy board ought to avoid ambitious projects, and ought to undertake only such works as are of common utility and certain to produce a very appreciable effect. To open the mouths of the rivers seems the most necessary measure. To clear the channels of silt and weeds, to make embankments when necessary, may also be desirable.

Before, however, undertaking any work at the general expense, a conservancy board ought to be bound to have satisfied itself that individual proprietors have done all that they can in reason be expected to do for their own protection. The most important duty of a conservancy board-indeed, its first duty, which has not hitherto been brought into sufficient prominence-is to protect the general body of the ratepayers against undue encroachments from private interests. If the board is to be entrusted by Parliament with the extraordinary power of levying a rate upon property generally to he applied in, and chiefly for the benefit of, a particular area, it can only be upon the understanding that before any rate is levied, the proprietors within the favoured area shall have done all they can to help themselves.

Every riparian owner ought to keep the channel clear opposite to his own property, and ought to embank or to be willing to embank if embankment is needed. The contiguity of the river, which has given to the meadows exceptional value, has imposed upon them also certain obligations. To deny this, while calling out for protection against floods, is to argue that the value of riparian property is to be

maintained, or even enhanced, partly at the expense of lands less fortunately situated. It has been urged on the other side, and not without appearance of reason, that if embankments or similar works are to be constructed by the general ratepayers, the first contribution to the cost ought to be the increase in value arising to the particular land from the embankment, which never could be received by the owner under existing circumstances.

It has been widely felt in the country that an attempt is being made by the owners of low-lying lands to transfer to other shoulders burdens which properly belong to them. This view is rather borne out by a remarkable argument much used by those who advocate a general rate, that it is necessary to tax the country generally because the area of the lands liable to flood is so small comparatively that they cannot bear the cost alone.

It has also been pointed out that in most cases the riparian owners have neglected to make embankments and even to clean out the beds of the streams. And yet a very small embankment has proved effectual in many cases. Mr. Arthur Peel, in his evidence before the House of Lords Committee, mentioned that an embankment not more than two feet wide, which he made on the river Ivel in concert with some neighbours, had saved his property from floods. I myself know a similar case on the river Cherwell, not far from Banbury, where an embankment, formed by soil taken from the stream and thrown up on the bank, saves the adjacent lands from floods when the meadows are flooded both above and below.

A conservancy board ought also to be empowered to require all owners to clear out the channels and waterways opposite to their own property, subject, of course, to an appeal against the decision. It is notorious that millowners take very little trouble in too many instances in cleaning out their mill-lades. It has been found a much simpler and cheaper expedient to raise the height of the sluice, trusting to the carelessness or goodnature of the neighbours; and the result has been that the amount of waterlogged land extending up stream above mills is constantly on the increase. And yet no principle has been more rigidly asserted by Parliament than this, that no prescription can entitle any person to cause a nuisance to his neighbours. By the Rivers' Pollution Act of 1876 manufacturers, who from time immemorial had polluted streams, were ordered to withhold all solid matter and even liquids, unless they could show, in the latter case, that they had taken the best practicable and reasonably available means to render them harmless.'

6

A conservancy board ought also to have the power of compelling. adjacent proprietors to construct works in concert, an appeal, of course, being reserved. Much of the neglect of individual proprietors has arisen from the fact that in many cases it would have been useless to act alone, while concert was impossible.

A board must also be charged with authority to make all necesVOL. XV.-No. 83.

H

sary bylaws for preserving and regulating the waterways, especially in times of flood.

When, but not until, individual proprietors have complied with all obligations properly incumbent on them, recourse may be had to a general rate for urgent works of general utility. In the Bills already presented to Parliament it appears to me that the duties of a conservancy board have been inverted in order of their importance. Great stress has been laid upon such matters as rating, works, purchase of property, compensation; but the enforcement of obligations which, though perhaps not enjoined by law, are certainly enjoined by ordinary prudence, has been relegated into comparative obscurity. In any Bill which is to command assent this order must, I think, be changed, and the intention of Parliament more clearly indicated.

It will be time enough to appeal to the general community when the laws of prudence have been obeyed. The only ground for such an appeal is that extraordinary damage has been occasioned by causes over which the individuals could exercise no control, and for which the general community is partly responsible.

It would not be right to overlook the question of subsoil drainage, when considering the causes which have contributed to the aggravation of floods. Subsoil drainage does undoubtedly let off the rainwater from the upper lands at an accelerated speed. Although some witnesses denied the fact, and although upper proprietors deny their liability, the committee of the House of Lords agreed with the majority of the evidence that there would be no injustice in rating uplands for the maintenance of a channel to which they contribute waters, and still less in rating towns which are at present exempt from taxation for this purpose.' This conclusion appears to me just. But, on the other hand, the doctrine of constructive liability is full of danger and may easily be pushed too far. At all events it must be applied equally and impartially. If it be just that A should contribute on account of damage sustained by the property of B and C on the ground that A's drainage has sent down water more quickly than nature used to send it down, surely it must be first established that B and C have not interfered with nature in any such way as to retard the flow of the water, and also that they have done everything in reason to protect their property against ordinary floods.

One remark with reference to the question of compensation will not be out of place. From the Bill of 1883 it would seem as if the Government is preparing to repeat the blunder committed by their predecessors in the case of the Artisans' Dwellings Act. For the purpose presumably of conciliating opposition, much more attention has been bestowed upon securing full compensation to all interests vested or supposed to be vested than upon ascertaining whether compensation is required or deserved. For instance, it is proposed in Clause 10 of the Bill that before any dam or weir or other obstruction is removed or altered, full compensation shall be made. If only power had been taken

to compel the owners to keep the approaches clear, it is probable that in most cases the necessity for alteration or removal would cease. It is not easy to understand why the owner of a mill or dam should be allowed to cause a nuisance first, and should then be compensated at the general expense. The principle on which general property becomes liable is that no man may interfere with nature to the direct or indirect prejudice of his neighbour. It is hardly consistent with this principle that a millowner should first dam back the water upon himself and his neighbours, and should then have his property embanked or purchased at their expense, in order to remedy the nuisance which he himself has caused.

The rates levied by a conservancy board ought to be imposed and levied directly and solely upon owners. Not only will the collection of the rate be much facilitated by this arrangement, but the improvement of river-channels inures directly to the permanent advantage of property, and, as such, ought not to be a charge on occupiers, and certainly not on yearly tenants. If the works produce permanent benefit, as is hoped, owners will be able to reimburse themselves in the shape of rent; and under any circumstances it will be in their power to make special private agreements with their tenants.

One last word also with regard to the constitution of the board itself. It is to be hoped most fervently that a conservancy board will not be chosen by means of a special election and a special machinery. It may look well on paper to divide a district into wards, and to make arrangements for a model election. But all who have experience of the country know how inconvenient. and ineffectual, as well as costly, is such a method of proceeding. As in all probability there will be one board for each catchment area,' the place of meeting will be at a great distance from many of the wards, and few of the members from a distance will attend. It would be much better that the governing body of each county comprehended in the district should delegate a fixed proportion of the members. Besides other advantages, this plan has the merit of being self-adjusting. At present the board would be returned by the courts of quarter sessions, but it would pass without friction into the hands of the new county boards as soon as formed.

To recapitulate. The general position which I wish to support in regard to floods is, that it is desirable to restrict floods within such limits as are possible without immoderate or disproportionate outlay; that the first and most important duty of a conservancy board is to enforce uniformity of rules and action, and to compel riparian owners to act in concert and to help themselves before appealing to the general public; and that, subject always to the preceding conditions, a rate may be levied upon the general body of owners, from which the proprietors of uplands which are drained cannot in reason claim to be wholly exempt.

CAMPERDOWN.