Proceedings.] CORRESPONDENCE ON THE CONSERVANCY OF RIVERS. 301 who appeared to take the latter view should give at least some Mr. Browne. ground for their opinion. The Rev. J. C. CLUTTERBUCK remarked that the frequency of J. c. floods, and the damage caused by them, had been put forth in proof Clutterbuck. of the necessity of placing the rivers, as main arterial drains of the watersheds of England, under Boards of Conservancy, armed with legal powers to carry out remedies for acknowledged evils. It was obviously impossible to devise a scheme by which all rivers and their watersheds could be dealt with alike. Take the watershed of any river, and it would not be found practicable to calculate the flooding capabilities with reference to its measured surface area, due to its geological condition. In the chief rivers finding their outfall in the Wash, as in all cases, the geological condition varied. So, in a remarkable way, the Thames in its upper district gathered its waters from the springs of the chalk, and oolitic, and liassic strata, and the surface waters of the Gault, Kimmeridge, Oxford and Lias clays. These latter were to a great extent covered with sand and gravel, in which the water accumulated, from the surface of which it would not flow, and whence floods were not augmented except in some instances of artificial drainage. Rev. J. C. no power to remedy the evil, nor 'was it reasonable that they C1utterbuck. should have it.