4. That all abnormal contaminations should be removed from

the streams. Our tidal rivers are undoubtedly one of the chief sources of our maritime supremacy. For this reason it is of the utmost importance that they should be kept in good repair, free from unnecessary obstructions, and well adapted to the purposes of navigation. As it is, however, this is not always the case. The chief reason for existing maladministration, where it exists, is the absence of a uniform system of control. The Thames, for example, has been hitherto controlled partly by the Thames Conservancy and partly by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The Great Sluice, at Boston, in Lincolnshire, was constructed in 1764 by Smeaton, for the purpose of stopping the flow of the tide in the river Witham, and converting the upper part of the river into a fresh-water canal as far as Lincoln. As, however, the control of the river is divided—one body dealing with the tidal part from the Grand Sluice to the sea, and the other with the canal and drainage of the land above—each opposes the schemes of the other, and the navigation has been ruined.[38] There is one course whereby this condition of things, where it exists, may be prevented. It has been suggested that a new Government Department should be created, with entire charge of and control over all estuaries and navigable channels, and presided over by a member of the Cabinet. The interests at stake are sufficiently large to justify this.[39] They are as vital to our commerce and industry as any matter now dealt with by the State, affecting our material well-being, and they are every year increasing in extent and importance. As regards the principal rivers—the Mersey, the Tyne, the Tees, the Clyde, and the Wear especially—they are now controlled in accordance with the recommendation made by the Duke of Richmond’s Select Committee, that “each catchment area should be placed under a single body of conservators, who should be responsible for maintaining the river, from its source to its outfall, in an efficient state.” There are other rivers, however, that are administered rather in the interest of the landed proprietors than in that of navigation, and where these two come into conflict the State should have powers that would enable the public interest, which is both national and international, to be effectually protected. The following table gives the area and length of some of the chief rivers of England:— NORTH-EAST OF ENGLAND. Area. Length. Miles. Miles. Coquet 240 40 Wansbeck 126 22 Blyth 131 16 Tyne 1,130 34 Wear 456 45 Tees 708 79 Esk 147 21 Humber 10,500 ·· Hull 364 20 Foulness 133 14 Derwent 794 64 Ouse 1,842 40 Aire and Calder 815 78 Don 682 57 Trent 4,052 147 Ancholme 244 25 Ludd 139 7 Withern Eau 189 13 EAST ANGLIAN RIVERS. Area. Length. Miles. Miles. Bure 348 45 Yare 880 48 Blyth 79 17 Alde 109 24 Deben 153 27 Orwell 171 16 Stour 407 45 Colne 192 24 Crouch 181 15 Roding 317 33 OTHER RIVERS. Area. Length. Miles. Miles. Witham 1,079 40 Welland 760 42 Nene 1,077 100 Great Ouse 2,667 143 Wissey, or Stoke 243 28 Nar, or Setchy 131 25 Many of the above rivers are not navigable for vessels of any size, and are therefore not of much value to the transportation resources of the country. In the majority of cases, also, the character of the waterways, as regards locality, water-supply, &c., would not justify any large expenditure in adapting them for purposes of transport. FOOTNOTES: [29] A.D. 1661, Anno. 14 Car. Reg. ii. [30] 7 and 8 Gul. III. [31] Papers relating to the History and Navigation of the Rivers Wye and Lug. By John Lloyd, junr. [32] Andrew Yarranton was born in the parish of Astley, Worcestershire, in the year 1616. He wrote a work which is well known to economists, entitled ‘England’s Improvement by Land and Sea, or How to beat the Dutch without Fighting,’ describing observations that he had made during his travels in Holland, Saxony, and other countries. [33] Smiles states that Yarranton was offered 250_l._ and eight salt vats at Upwich, valued at 80_l._ per annum, with three quarters of a vat in Northwich for 21 years, in payment for the work. It is interesting to compare these terms with those on which some of our modern streams have been deepened and improved. [34] Yarranton’s ‘Improvement by Land and Sea.’ [35] ‘Industrial Biography,’ by S. Smiles, p. 65. [36] ‘Britannia,’ Holland’s Translation, 1637. [37] Address of the President of Section G, British Association Meeting at Dublin, 1878. [38] Paper on “River Control and Management,” by J. C. Hawkshaw, ‘British Association Report for 1878.’ [39] The following figures give the tonnage of the entrances and clearances in the foreign trade (including British possessions) of the principal rivers in 1888:— ─────────────────────────────┬────────────┬─────────────┬─────────── River. │ Entrances. │ Clearances. │ Total. ─────────────────────────────┼────────────┼─────────────┼─────────── │ tons │ tons │ tons The Thames │ 7,471,000 │ 5,471,000 │ 12,942,000 ” Mersey │ 5,368,000 │ 4,941,000 │ 10,309,000 ” Clyde (Glasgow only) │ 994,000 │ 1,154,000 │ 2,148,000 ” Tyne │ 2,818,000 │ 4,392,000 │ 7,210,000 ” Tees (Middlesbro’ only) │ 681,000 │ 555,000 │ 1,236,000 ” Humber │ 1,897,000 │ 1,503,000 │ 3,400,000 ─────────────────────────────┴────────────┴─────────────┴───────────