Lords Sitting of 2 March 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BRISTOL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BRISTOL CEMETERY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SERLE STREET AND COOK'S COURT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LEICESTERSHIRE AND WARWICK SHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRAM WAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMEND MENT BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MONEYLENDERS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Certificate required for grant of moneylender's excise licence.
(7) Where any person, being the holder of a certificate, is convicted of any offence ender this Act or under the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1911, the court—

(a) may order that any certificates held by that person shall either he suspended for such time as the court thinks fit, or shall be forfeited, and also, if the court
356
thinks fit, may declare that person and, in the case of a company, any person responsible for the management of the company to be disqualified for obtaining a certificate for such further time after the expiration of the certificates as the court thinks fit; and

(b) shall cause particulars of the conviction and of any order made by the court under this subsection to be endorsed on every certificate held by the person convicted, and shall cause a copy of those particulars to be sent to the authority by whom any certificate so endorsed was granted:

Provided that where upon the conviction of a company a person alleged to be responsible for the management of the company is disqualified by order of the court for obtaining a certificate, he may appeal against the order as if he had been the person convicted.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, at the end of subsection (7), to leave out "against the order as if he had been the person convicted" and insert "in like manner as if he had been convicted and as if the order has been a sentence passed on his conviction. "The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that my noble and learned friend approves of this Amendment, which I venture to think is an improvement to the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out line 16 and insert ("in like manner as if he had been convicted and as if the order had been a sentence passed on his conviction").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Courts to which proceedings on moneylending transactions are to be taken.
3.—(l) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that proceedings by a moneylender for the recovery of money lent by him or for enforcing any agreement or security relating to any such money, or any class of such proceedings, may be brought in any court specified in the Order, notwithstanding any limit imposed by statute on the jurisdiction of that court, and that such proceedings, or any class of such proceedings, shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of any court in which they might otherwise have been brought, and any such Order may contain such provisions as appear to His Majesty expedient with respect to the making of rules of court for regulating the procedure to be followed in the case of any such proceedings.
(2) Before any Order in Council is made under this section a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a

357
period of not less than forty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of the said period presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of a new draft Order.
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON had on the Paper an. Amendment to add to the clause the following new subsection:—
"(3) All sums contained in promissory notes or other bills of exchange, personal bonds or any other documents which may competently be protested or recorded for execution in the books of any court it, Scotland, so far as granted in favour of registered moneylenders, shall be recoverable only by way of an action for payment in the appointed court in Scotland, and shall not be recoverable by summary diligence or by proceeding on an extract registered protest or an extract registered bond against any party liable thereunder."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to move this Amendment as I have put down an alternative Amendment which comes later on the Paper.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE LORD MUIR MACKENZIE moved to leave out Clause 3 and insert:
"Proceedings by a moneylender for the recovery of money lent by him or for enforcing any agreement or security relating to any such money shall be brought in the county court, notwithstanding any limit of amount applicable to that court, and rules of court shall be made for regulating the procedure to be followed in the case of any such proceedings."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would not move to leave out the clause if I had any idea that it would be embarrassing to the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill, or that it would really conflict with what was done in the Joint Select Committee. The main objection that I would put forward to the clause as it stands is that it has always been regarded as a matter of principle that where jurisdiction is given to a Court it is done upon the face of the Statute and not in any indirect way.
I think there is more than one defect in the clause as it stands. The object of the clause was very clearly stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Second Reading. He said that he desired to remove what at present is a formidable engine of oppression—namely, that the moneylender threatens the debtor with costly and elaborate proceedings in the High Court. The noble and
358
learned Lord therefore desired to provide a less costly and more acceptable means of enforcing such remedy as the moneylender is entitled to. Under the clause as it stands I do not think that object would be likely to be achieved. The Privy Council may say that exclusive jurisdiction in these cases must be with the High Court, or it might go to the other extreme and say that these cases might be heard in the innumerable small courts of the country. That, I think, would be even more oppressive than the state of affairs that now exists.
I do not remember whether or not, the noble and learned Lord mentioned it on Second Reading, but it is quite obvious that the principal courts to which these cases ought to go, with a view to providing a cheaper and easier tribunal, are the county courts and the object of my Amendment is to put upon the face of the Bill the county court. It is quite unnecessary to have any roundabout proceeding of going to the Privy Council in order to get them to make an order. In fact, speaking from long experience, I think what would happen is that the Privy Council would communicate with the Lord Chancellor and invite him to say what order ought to be made. While I have mentioned the county court I am not unaware that there are some other courts of which it could not be suggested that it would he inappropriate to allow them this jurisdiction. At the moment I have in mind the Passage Court at Liverpool, or the Salford 'Court at Manchester, or the Tobzey Court.. Bristol. There may be some others which I do not at the moment recall. If it were thought desirable that these courts should be added, I submit that the proper authority for dealing with the matter is the Lord Chancellor and words might, if necessary, be put in at the next stage to that effect. But the county courts seem to me to he quite sufficient in number and in all other respects. I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 3 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, so far as I am concerned I am entirely in sympathy with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie. In fact, as I brought in the Bill originally I had put in a clause to a similar effect because in

359
my opinion—and I think it has been proved by experience—it becomes utterly impossible for a man who is in the condition in which a man must be who has borrowed from a moneylender at these high rates, to dispute a matter at all in the Supreme Court without help. The expenses are so great that as a rule the whole proceeding goes by default in a very summary fashion under the Rules the Supreme Court. So far as I am concerned I should be glad if this clause were restored to the Bill. The Committee left it in the more elastic form in which it appears at present in the Bill, but I should think in a matter of this kind that it would be more satisfactory that Parliament itself should indicate to what courts such cases should be taken rather than that it should be left to the legal element in the Government to determine it by Rules which, no doubt, under this section have to be laid before Parliament. But generally that is a matter of mere form. I dare say the learned Lord Chancellor himself, so far as he is personally concerned, would much rather that the matter should be decided by Parliament, but there may be reasons that do not occur to me which render it preferable to keep the Bill in its present state.
I ought, I think, to say to your Lordships that the Parliamentary Bills Committee of the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow, who have issued a very careful report upon the Bill, recommend that the Bill itself should name the Court into which these cases are to be brought. They say this:—
"In the opinion of the Committee, it would be preferable that in Scotland such action should not be competent in the Court of Session, and that it should be made compulsory that all such actions be raised in the Sheriff Court. In their opinion the reference in this section to Orders in Council being passed to define the Courts in which actions may he brought, should be deleted, and it should be declared in the Bill what Courts shall he competent to hear the cases to which the Bill refers. There is no reason why decision should be deferred, and the postponement involved by this section can only promote uncertainty and confusion."
Of course, that is merely the opinion of the Private Bills Committee of the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. It may be that in Edinburgh they would take a different view. Therefore I am not putting it forward as the considered opinion of the whole of the Scottish legal
360
fraternity. It may be, also, that the Scottish Office may wish to consider this matter and may have something to say upon it. But so far as I am personally concerned, the Amendment of the noble Lord brings back the Bill into the form in which I originally introduced it into the House, and unless His Majesty's Government see some objections to it, I hope your Lordships will agree to the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, the opinion of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has, of course, great weight, but I think we should hesitate before accepting this Amendment as it stands. The effect of the Amendment is that all proceedings for recovery of money lent by a moneylender, or for enforcing any agreement or security, must be brought in the county court. That seems to me to be going much too far. It would not be right to refer an action involving£10,000, or perhaps even£100,000, or security to that value, to the county court. It would be quite contrary to our usual practice. The clause as it stands is that recommended by the Special Committee. That is why it found its way into the Bill. It has the advantage that it would enable an Order in Council to limit the amount in respect of which actions are to be taken by the county court and to leave the more important actions to be tried in the High Court. It also has the advantage that it would enable provision to be made for actions to be heard not only in county courts but in some of the other courts to which the noble Lord, Lord Muir Mackenzie, has referred, and in some eases those courts I think would be more appropriate than the county court itself. The matter had better not be dealt with off hand, but if the noble Lord thinks some specific provision should be made in the Bill as to the courts which are to be resorted to, or as to power to make Rules of Court, I think his opinion certainly ought to be accepted. I suggest, therefore, that the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendment now and confer with the noble Lord in charge of the Bill before the next stage.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I am very much obliged to the Lord Chancellor and I should like to avail myself of his offer to take counsel as to the best

361
method of dealing with this matter. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment for the present.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move to insert the following clause after Clause 4:—
"Every moneylender shall clearly state in all advertisements, circulars or other documents issued by him in the course of his business as a moneylender—
"(a) his licensed name in legible characters of at least the same size as any other name therein; and
"(b) under what, if any, other name or names than his own he has carried on the business of a moneylender since the passing of the Moneylenders Act, 1900;
upon conviction of failing to do co, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for each offence."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when this Bill was last before us I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, that he wished me to take counsel with the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Chipstead, with a view to compiling a new Amendment. I therefore ventured, in collaboration with the noble Lord, to put clown this Amendment. I notice, however, that the Government have put down an Amendment with a similar effect and as it is merely a matter of words I do not propose to move my Amendment.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:—
"—(1) Every advertisement, circular and other document issued by a moneylender for the purposes of his business as such shall show—
"(a) in such manner us to he not less conspicuous than any other name, the name under which he is licensed under this Act; and
"(b) any name, other than his own name, under which he was before the commencement of this Act registered as a moneylender under the Moneylenders Act, 1900.
"(2) Any moneylender who issues any document in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds in respect of each offence."
The noble Lord said: 'My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for withdrawing his Amendment. I think we are both trying to meet the same
362
object and, as was promised on the last occasion, the Parliamentary draftsman did undertake to combine the two Amendments. I am glad to know that Lord Bertie thinks we have not been wholly unsuccessful in achieving that object. There is very slight difference between us. Our object is the same and I need not weary 3our Lordships, but will simply move the Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22., at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Desbuorough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Restriction on, cite of interest to be charged.
6.—(1) Where proceedings are taken by a moneylender for the recovery of any money lent after the commencement of this Act or for the enforcement of any agreement or security made or taken after the commencement of this Act in respect of money lent either before or after the commencement of this Act, and the interest charged in respect of the sum actually lent or any part thereof remaining unpaid exceeds the rate of 4 per cent um per month, or the corresponding rate in respect of any other period, the court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that the interest charged is excessive and that the transaction is harsh and unconscionable within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section one of the Moneylenders Act, 1900.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or any part thereof remaining unpaid exceeds the rate of 4 per centum per month" and insert "exceeds the rate of forty-eight per cent. per annum. "The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has two effects—the omission of the words "or any part thereof remaining unpaid" and the alteration of "four per centum, per month "to "forty-eight per centum per annum. "As regards the first point, the words "or any part thereof remaining unpaid" were inserted by my noble friend Lord Carson in order to make it clear that where a loan was repaid by instalments the rate of interest is not to be calculated as though the whole loan was in the hands of the borrower right up to the time when the last instalment was paid. My noble friend Lord Carson, I understand, now agrees that his object is fully attained by the specific provisions of Clause 75, which will govern all calculations of the rate of

363
interest. In these circumstances the words "or any part thereof remaining unpaid" are not needed in Clause 6. Their retention might lead to some misunderstanding of Clause 15 and they are better omitted. As regards the rate of interest, I understand my noble friend is quite willing to accept the Amendment that the rate of interest should be forty-eight per cent. per annum., and it is therefore unnecessary for me to enter into any calculations as to monthly payments or the lengths of various months of the year. I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, leave out from ("lent") to ("or") in line 3 and insert ("exceeds the rate of forty-eight per cent. per annum").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I think this is an improvement in the Bill. It was proposed by my noble friend on the last occasion that the interest should be one per cent. per week. The objection I had to that was that not only was it increasing the amount fixed by the Committee but also that it was rather a deceptive way of stating interest, and might lead those who do not calculate things out to think they were getting loans at a very small rate of interest, whereas really they were getting loans at a high rate. I think it is better to put it at per annum and as four per cent. per month was fixed by the Committee I think it fair that it should be put at forty-eight per cent. per annum.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before we pass to the next Amendment there is a question I should like to ask of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. On scrutiny of the Bill I find something which seems to me to be an omission. The Bill does not apply to pawnbrokers; that is to say, pawnbroking business is left to be regulated by the Pawnbrokers Act. But the Bill is so drawn as to cover part of the pawnbroking business which is called pledge-broking; that is, if an advance is made by a pawnbroker of more than£10 on a specific article at present he comes under the Pawnbrokers Act and carries on business lawfully, but the Bill, as it stands at the present time, will sweep all pledge-braking within its purview, and
364
I doubt whether that was the intention of my noble and learned friend.
I have looked into the point and I think that an Amendment at the end of Clause 15 will meet the case and put the pledge-broker upon the same footing as anybody else. I think it will be right to restrict his rate of interest, and I had some ideas as to what that rate should be, but I should like to know from my noble and learned friend, assuming that he takes the same view as I do of the propriety of exempting the pledge-broker from the disability which the Bill imposes upon him, what rate of interest he should be allowed to have for the concession. He is not a moneylender and does not charge 48 per cent. or anything like that. He is naturally to be allowed to carry on his business, and the only question is, on what terms?
I have framed a clause which, owing to pressure of time, I have only this moment had an opportunity of showing to my noble and learned friend. What I would ask him now is his view of the general point. If he agrees with me, perhaps the most convenient course would be that I should ask the leave of the House—for I cannot do so at this stage without the leave of the House—to print this clause in the Bill and then, when the Bill comes up as amended for Third Reading, your Lordships could alter it, strike the clause out or do what you like, but you would have the advantage of seeing the somewhat complicated clause in its context in the Bill. -Unless you see it in its context it is not very easy to follow. I feel that we have overlooked something which amounts to an injustice and that it is right that we should even now put it straight if it can be done. I am desirous of knowing what my noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill thinks on this point.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has given me an opportunity of seeing the proposal with reference to this class of business and I am bound to say that I think that there is a point that requires serious consideration regarding the bonâfide business carried on in connection with pawnbroking where loans are above£10 and security is taken. Nobody wants in the slightest degree to interfere with a business which is entirely different from

365
ordinary moneylending and I am aware that those who carry on this business in connection with pawnbroking have certain fears, I think not unreasonable fears, that the Bill may improperly hit their business. They are willing, if I understand my noble and learned friend aright, to have restrictions upon their rate of interest inserted in the clause which eliminates them from the purview of the Act.
The question that arises is, what ought to be the rate of interest? I am exceedingly anxious that no such rate should be put into the Bill as will lead to an argument of this kind: Parliament has enacted that a pawnbroker lending money and getting security, which may be full security, may have some very considerable rate of interest, and therefore, if those who lend on security can get such a rate of interest, those who lend without security ought surely to get six or seven or eight times as much. I am rather afraid of that kind of argument, based on any figure that may be put into the Bill. For my own part, I should have thought that, if these people received this immunity from the conditions of the Bill, a fair provision would be that they should not exceed, say, 10 per cent. I do not know whether that meets the view of this class of business people, nor do I know whether it meets the view of the noble and learned Viscount, but, if the rate were anything higher than that, I think it would be likely to imperil the limits which we hope to put upon the amount charged in the case of necessitous people by those who are taking advantage of their necessity. Otherwise I should certainly, so far as my opinion is worth anything, look favourably upon the claim that these people should be exempted from the Bill.
The noble and learned Viscount has also shown me certain other additions which it is thought may be necessary with regard to the carrying on of this business. I have not been able to go through them in such a way as to form an opinion of them in detail, nor have the Home Office or the Board of Trade seen them, as it is so important that they should. Accordingly, assuming that the rate of interest that I have mentioned meets the views of my noble and learned friend, his suggestion that the matter should be printed in the Bill, on the understanding that the House is not bound in any way
366
to accept finally the details of this clause, seems to me to be a businesslike way of carrying the matter through. When we see the clause in its context in the Bill then, if necessary, either the Home Office, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office or any of the parties concerned can properly amend this clause so as to bring it into conformity with their views.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it appears to me that the great difficulty in the way of taking the course suggested by the noble and learned Viscount is that, so far as I am aware, nobody in your Lordships' House except the two noble and learned Lords who have spoken, would be able to see the clause before it is put in the Bill. I would suggest, therefore, that the proper course is to put an Amendment down for the consideration of the House.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I should certainly have agreed that that was the best course, but the Amendment is rather long and it is difficult to read except in its context in the Bill. My only purpose was to put it in so that it might be read. I am in your Lordships' hands. I can put it down as an Amendment to be moved after the Third Reading, but I am bound to tell your Lordships that it will not be so easy to read as if you had it in the context of the Bill. However, in view of the Lord Chancellor's observations, that is the course which I will adopt.
Clause 17:
Application to Scotland.
17.This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications
LORD CARSON LORD CARSON moved to add the following new subsection:
"(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act contained, summary execution or diligence shall not be competent upon any bill of exchange or, promissory note or upon any bond or obligation registered in the books of any Court, where such bill, promissory note, bond or obligation has been granted to or in favour of a moneylender."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to protect the borrower from a certain summary proceeding, of which I was certainly not aware but which appears to exist in Scotland and is not provided for

367
in the Bill. This also is an Amendment suggested by the Committee to which I have already referred. They describe the present procedure in Scotland, and they add:—
"At present a Moneylender's Bill may be protested, and, in order that a defence may be stated, the granter of the Bill requires to consign the amount appearing to be due as a condition of suspension. From the nature of the ease, consignation is rarely possible in moneylending transactions, and summary diligence in such cases is an injustice to the borrower, if he has a genuine defence under the Acts."
In other words, once a Bill is protested and the protest recorded—whether they are right in saying that the whole amount would have to be consigned is, I believe, doubtful from the information that I have—at all events, a very considerable sum would have to be brought in if this summary procedure were adopted. The whole object of the Bill is to try to enable the borrower who has a defence to pursue his defence in accordance with its provisions, and therefore the Amendment which I put down is to meet the matter to which attention has been drawn by the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow. In effect, putting it shortly, it is to give to the Scottish borrower practically the same opportunity of defence as we have given in the case of the English borrower, and that is why I have moved it in the adaptation clause, rather than in any other part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Carson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGE CULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill and in doing so I should like to remind your Lordships that the two greatest needs of the land of Great Britain to-day are drainage on the one hand and lime on the other, and the former is much the greater. The efficient drainage of our agricultural land would probably increase its average productivity by at least 7 per
368
cent. Out of 27 million acres of cultivated land in England and Wales at least one million are to-day waterlogged, and another half million are badly drained, and these areas include some of the richest land in the kingdom, comprising, of course, a good deal of alluvial land contiguous to the estuaries of our larger rivers. Upon these the food output might be trebled by efficient drainage.
It is estimated that the lack of such drainage involves a loss to the nation in food value of£18,000,000 a year at least. The effect of inadequate drainage is to check germination and delay the ripening of crops; it induces rushes, sedges, mare's tail and other useless weeds to abound on potentially fertile soils, and it also aggravates the effects of drought—which is not generally known—owing to the shallow rooting of grass and arable crops. It not only produces mists and thereby adversely affects human health, but it also spreads liver fluke, foot-rot and other diseases among our livestock, and fungoid and insect pests among our economic plants. It intensifies the danger to our fruit plantations and orchards from spring frosts, and reduces the seasonal opportunities of rapid and successful tillage. It involves also a serious waste of fertilisers, hampers the development of intensive cultivation, and checks more intensive land settlement, such as all Governments in this country are bound now to promote. There is no respect in which the negligence of one owner or occupier of land can more seriously injure others, often over extensive areas where the gradient of the surface is relatively flat, the land is stiff, or the rainfall is heavy. I am conscious that in these days the control of land or its cultivation on the part of either the Government or the local authorities is not very popular, but even the strongest opponents of centralised control have for many centuries past admitted its necessity and efficacy in the case of land drainage. No one can deny the growing seriousness of the land drainage problem in this country.
It is hoped next Session to introduce legislation for the wholesale amendment of the existing law relating to land drainage, based on the findings of a Commission which has recently reported in relation to the very difficult problem of

369
effectively draining the house watershed. This Bill is limited in its scope, and only intended to confer upon county councils wider powers of control over land drainage than those which they already possess. These are, in fact, at present very restricted. For some time past there has been a growing feeling on the part of county councils that in certain directions they might usefully exercise larger powers in this direction, and this has been accentuated by the activities of other county committees, and the various problems which are perpetually confronting them. Several counties, without waiting for this Bill, have sought from Parliament an extension of their previously existing powers under the Land Drainage Act of 1918, to meet their own local requirements, and three, Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire and Surrey, have in recent years secured the passage of private Acts of Parliament with this object. in view. Resolutions have been received from county councils all over England and Wales asking for their land drainage powers to be extended by an Act of general operation. They have been strongly supported by the County Councils' Association, with whom for some time past the Ministry of Agriculture have been in close consultation upon this matter. The draft of this Bill has been submitted to this association, -who have expressed their general concurrence, while regretting that it is not of a more drastic and far-reaching character; but as a speedy passage is desired for the Bill, and as much more comprehensive additional legislation is contemplated next year, it has been thought desirable to make this Bill as simple and non-contentious as possible.
I have no doubt that it will be asked why we introduced this Bill at all when we are contemplating a larger measure next Session. The answer is, first, that this Bill deals primarily with county councils and not with statutory drainage authorities, who will he the parties mainly affected by next year's legislation; secondly, that the powers which the Bill seeks to confer have been unanimously and urgently asked for; and, thirdly, that the vesting of these further powers in county councils will, it is doped, tend to make them take a more. serious view of this drainage problem, an d thereby pave the way for more general amending legislation, which is
370
hound in the long run to affect them materially, as well as the drainage authorities, especially if the present multiplicity of drainage authorities is thereby reduced, as seems not unlikely, at any rate in the long run.
This Bill does two things. By Clause 1 it, transfers to county councils all the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture under Part II of the Land Drainage Act of 1918. By Clause 2 it empowers a county council to require a drain, as defined in subsection (9), to he put in proper order when the flow of water is impeded to the detriment of the surrounding land. All the other clauses are consequential or, ancillary to those two. I may now remind the House of the powers conferred by the Act of 1918, which it is proposed by Clause 1 to transfer from the Ministry to county and borough councils. These are threefold: first, to enforce the liability to repair drainage works for which the owner and occupier are liable under Section 15 of the old Sewers Aft of 1833; secondly, to exercise the powers of a drainage authority in those areas where the failure of the authority to exercise its powers is resulting in injury by flood, or where the council's exercise of such powers might materially remedy defective drainage; and, thirdly, to carry out, and subsequently maintain, what are called small drainage schemes in areas where a statutory drainage authority does not exist, and where it cannot conveniently be set up. The cost of these smaller schemes is limited to£5,000 in all under Section 16 of that Act.
Under the existing law all these powers can be transferred by the Ministry to the county councils or borough councils, and this has, in fact, been done. Except, however, in one or two isolated instances, the powers have not been exercised because dm obligation of finding the requisite money falls in the first instance upon the State, and, with the present need for economy, the Treasury have not been prepared to make the necessary advances. Moreover, during the past four years the Treasury, as your Lordships will know, have advanced large sums for drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment, and these have, in effect, made the execution of the small drainage schemes to which I have referred largely unnecessary.

371
All these powers will, under this Bill, now be transferred to the county and borough councils, who will therefore be entitled to exercise them without reference to the Ministry of Agriculture. But they will have to make their own arrangements—and this must be clearly understood—for finding the money required for their exercise. Theoretically such money is entirely recoverable from the persons who will be benefited by the execution of this work. It is hoped that in the light of the valuable experience which the county councils have gained from voluntary drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment, they may be able to organise such schemes in future with efficiency and success. In places where such schemes are essential as distinct from merely desirable, the councils will be able to obtain the participation of unwilling owners under threat of the, exercise of compulsory powers.
As regards Clause 2, which relates to the maintenance of drains—and this, of course, is new law; it is in addition to the powers granted to the Ministry and now transferred to the county councils under the Act of 1918—the clause gives the power to a council to serve a notice in writing upon the person responsible for the neglect of a drain as defined by the Bill, to put it in proper order except where the work can be more conveniently executed under a scheme of wider application within the meaning of Section 16 of the Act of 1918. It provides that within a month of the notice the person so served must comply with it, but he may within twenty-one days appeal against the notice to a court of summary jurisdiction on various grounds specified in the Bill or, alternatively, he may require any objection based upon those specified grounds to be submitted for arbitration to a single arbitrator, who will be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. The court or the arbitrator may confirm or annul the notice, or vary its requirements. In the event of default after the lapse of one month from the service of the notice or the tribunal's award, as the case may be, the council may execute the work itself and recover the cost from the defaulter—that is subsection (6). Where there are several defaulters the council may apportion between them the expense incurred.
372
Clause 3 provides for the expenses of the council, so far as they are not recoverable from the defaulter, being defrayed out of the county or borough fund, and enables the council to borrow for the purposes of this Bill. Subsection (3) authorises the council to delegate its powers under the Bill to any of its committees; and subsection (4) enables the councils of adjacent counties to combine so as to exercise their powers jointly. All the rest of the provisions of the Bill are ancillary to those which I have described. I am aware that the County Councils' Association desires to amend the Bill in certain particulars, and, if I am unable to accept their Amendments, or some of them, it is not because I am unsympathetic with many of them, but because they are either of a controversial character, or else are better fitted for inclusion in the more comprehensive measure which is contemplated for next Session. I trust that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to this Bill, believing, as I do, that it will lay the foundation of a better organised system of land drainage than has obtained in this country for the last four hundred years, and thus conduce both to human health and to the larger production of human food.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not rise in any sense to oppose this Bill on the Second Reading. It is a Bill introduced by a Conservative Government and, I assume, as a Conservative measure, the clauses of which I welcome, both on my own behalf and on behalf of the Party that I represent, because it incorporates in every part of it what the noble Lord himself spoke of so strongly the other day—the principle of compulsion, of inspection, and of interference with the rights of both the farmers and the landowners in a compulsory manner, and o in a way to which, I am sure, in some cases they very much object. But there are one or two special points in the Bill upon which I am not quite clear. So far as Clause 1 is concerned', criticism does not arise, because it is merely a, transfer of an existing obligation from one authority to another. I should agree with the noble Lord that the authority of the county or the county borough is better than that of the Ministry of Agriculture,

373
and that the work is more likely to be better carried out in a local way under their superintendence than under the superintendence of a central authority in London.
I should like to be sure that I understand Clause 2. I quite appreciate what the noble Lord has said as to the injury to agriculture which arises from waterlogged land. What I want to ask him is whether I understand the method which he is proposing in this Bill. I quite agree with him that it is not a Bill which goes into the general question. It is a Bill which deals merely with drains under the definition to which the noble Lord has referred, though it is a wide one, in Clause 2 (9). It is a wide definition because it includes under the head of "drain," any river, stream, ditch, drain, cut, culvert, dyke or sluice, and I want to see how the noble Lord proposes to deal with those things. In the first place, which seems to me to be eminently right, there is a provision that notice shall be served "upon any person by whose act or default such flow "—that is, the flow along the drain—" is impeded or any such land is so injured or in danger of being injured. "I assume that applies in two ways. First of all, there may be default in throwing the injury off one man's land and over another man's land. That would be a "default." Apart from that, as I understand the noble Lord, if the land of the owner is injuriously affected so as to become waterlogged, the expense may be thrown upon him though both the drain and the land may belong to the same owner. That I understand to be the interpretation of paragraph (a).
LORD BLEDISLOE: Subject only to his nob causing injury to some one higher up in the water shed.
LORD PARMOOR: I assumed that. That was not the point I was dealing with here, because I assumed that he could not do injury to any one further up in the watershed. That would be a clear interference with another person's rights, which is not contemplated under this Bill at all. I happen to live in the county where there has been a great deal of discussion about the Ouse drainage area and I think the noble Lord is right w hen he says that it is well to introduce
374
a simple Bill of this kind free from the manifold difficulties which are certain to arise in connection with any large drainage scheme both as to the incidence of payment and the area to which it extends.
Paragraph (b) provides that if such person—that is, the person causing the act or default—is not known to the council and cannot be ascertained by them after reasonable inquiry, the expense is to be thrown upon the owner or occupier of the land on which the drain or any part of it is situated, or upon both such persons. Does that mean that although neither the owner nor the occupier is in any way in default, but sonic outside person a distance off, perhaps, is in default, if the person in default cannot be ascertained the whole expense of an act or default with which neither the owner nor the occupier has any connection is to be thrown upon them? That, of course, is a novel suggestion. It is not, perhaps, for any one holding the views I have indicated at different times in your Lordships' House to object, but it is going further in principle than I have heard of in a matter of this sort.
You cannot find the person whose drain has injured adjacent property, and not being able to find him you are to go to the owner and occupier of the land who, ex concessis, have nothing to do with it and are not in default. They have done no act which can effect the injury and yet they are to be made liable and are to pay the expense, 'whatever it is. That is an entirely novel principle. It is certainly one which does not exist at present, and which I cannot see has very much to do with the agricultural industry. Assuming, as the noble Lord has said, that it is necessary that the matter should be put right, why should the expense fall upon people who are not connected with the injury either by act or default? It certainly seems to be a hard measure, although, as I say again, if it is necessary to introduce hard measures of this kind to obtain a better agricultural result from a national standpoint, that, perhaps, may be a justification.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The noble Lord will pardon me for interrupting him, but I do not think he has quite mastered the first part of this clause which obviously refers to a drain upon a certain person's

375
land, the working of which is impeded to the detriment of the surrounding land. That drain is situated upon land in the occupation or ownership of a particular individual. Therefore, primarily he is the person who will be made responsible and served with notice. It will be open to him under the Appeal Clause to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction or to an arbitrator if, in fact, he is not the person who caused the impediment.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that explanation affects in any way the principle, or want of principle, that I was criticising. You are not able to find the person through whose act or default a drain is so operating as to water-log either this or the adjacent land. Not being able to find him, you go to the owner or occupier who, ex concessis, have nothing to do with it and you throw the expense upon them. I will deal in a moment with the power of appeal. That course may be necessary for aught I know to deal with a problem of this kind, but it is certainly an exceedingly hard measure and one which I think could not have found expression or have been advocated except from the Benches opposite.
With regard to the power of appeal, it is not a matter of principle, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that if a county council is involved it is not a good thing to have an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. I think it is much better to appeal to an arbitrator. If there is an appeal at all I suggest it should be to some such person as a County Court Judge and not merely to summary jurisdiction magistrates within the county itself. I do not think that is a satisfactory appeal, but it is a question of detail on which I do not desire to insist at present.
Then, what may the county council do as against an owner and occupier who are not in any way in default? It is provided in Clause 2, subsection (6)—
"If within one month after the service of a notice under this section, or in the case of an appeal or reference to arbitration under this section, within one month after the confirmation or variation of the notice, the requirements contained in the notice or in the notice. as varied, as the case may be, are not complied with, the council may, if they think fit, execute the necessary works and recover the expenses thereof from the person in default"—
376
who, in this case, shall be the owner or occupier—
"summarily as a civil debt."
By "the person in default" I mean, of course, the person on whom the liability is thrown by the terms of the Act itself.
Let us see what that may mean. A drain, as your Lordships will remember, is described in the definition as including "any river, stream, ditch, drain, cut, culvert, dyke or sluice." Supposing a river to be in a state of flood, as from time to time it would be, especially in a season like the present, it is not the default of the owner nor has it anything to do' with his act: is there to be power to incur what might be a huge expense far exceeding the value of the adjacent land? Is there any limitation of the expense which may be incurred? I cannot find any. The noble Lord spoke of a limitation under the Act of 1918; I think that is£5,000, though I am not sure sure about it. Here there is no limitation whatever; so that merely because the wrongdoer cannot be found, there might be cast upon the owner or occupier of land who has done nothing wrong a ruinous expense, far in excess of anything that would compensate in any way for the damage done. In order to carry this out you may have inspection by a representative of the local authority. In other words, as against an owner and occupier, you may have an inspector who may say: "I do not know who caused this damage, but under the Bill I am entitled in these circumstances to go against the owner and occupier, and against them I go." I agree with the noble Lord as regards the damages exception to which he referred. It is a very important matter that water-logged land should be dealt with. I wonder that such a Bill could have been introduced by the noble Lord on behalf of the Party to which he belongs, because it appears to me to be a Bill imbued with what we so often upon this side of the House are taunted with advocating—namely, the Socialistic spirit.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I cannot look with very great favour on this Bill, and I am wondering whether it is really necessary that it should have been introduced. Clause 2 refers to the maintenance of drains, which certainly looks a very inoffensive proposal, but, as has been pointed out by the noble and

377
learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, it includes rivers and streams. I remember that last July, when we had the Public Health Act before your Lordships' House, I drew attention to the power in that Bill given to local authorities to compel owners to clear out watercourses. That word "watercourses," like the word "drain" in this Bill, applied also to rivers and streams, and I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Salisbury for the assistance he gave in getting that clause modified, though I should myself have liked it to go still further. Under that Act the clause as to the cleaning out of watercourses was confined to urban areas with a population of over 20,000. It could be extended to smaller urban areas and to rural areas with the consent of the Minister. How is it that within six months after Parliament had decided that these powers could only be extended to rural areas with the consent of the Minister, a Bill is now brought in giving all these powers to a county council without the consent of the Minister?
Clause 2 says "where…land is injured by water." I read that to mean that no new pond and no new reservoir can be made in the future as the land will be injured by water. I should have thought that it ought to be confined more to the injuring of your neighbour's land than to do doing injury to your own land. Then follow the words "or is in danger or being so injured. "I think those words are rather hypothetical. Later on the Bill says that if notice has been served on an individual to clean out a river or a stream, it must be done within one month of the date of the service of the notice. I do not think that it would be possible always to do it within one month. The river or the stream might be in full flood, and it might remain in full flood for the whole of the winter. Moreover, it might be extremely difficult to obtain labour, and the expense on the owner of cleaning out the river or stream might be prohibitive.
It is quite clear that the expenses of a county council under this Bill are expected to be fairly heavy, for power is given to the county council to borrow money for the purposes of the Bill. That means additional rates. By the Agricultural Rates Act the rates of agricultural land were reduced. By this
378
Bill fresh rates are imposed. What was given to us by one Act is now being taken away from us by another Act. We are continually being told that economy should be practised. I agree, but I hardly see under this Bill where the economy of county councils is to come in with these fresh burdens imposed upon them, although the Treasury, I agree, is being relieved. I do not know yet whether I shall or shall not move any Amendment to this Bill in Committee. Very heavy expense is going to be imposed on owners of property and on the county councils. To do any good the Bill, I think, would have to be most drastically altered.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, it is only with the consent of the House that I can say anything in reply to the noble Lords who have spoken.
LORD PARMOOR: You have a right to speak again.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I was under a misapprehension. As regards the observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, I understand that after my explanation of the purport and intention of Clause 1 he is in general agreement with it.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, that is quite true.
Lord BLEDISLOE: As regards Clause 2 I am bound to admit that the definition contained in the Bill of a drain is a very wide one, and if some other definition can be found to include all watercourses which can conceivably be blocked by riparian owners or others through whose land such watercourses pass, I am sure we shall be very glad to accept the alternative definition. I am bound to confess that the word "river" is somewhat alarming, but I am informed that there are certain watercourses, particularly in the higher reaches of certain rivers. which are called rivers, and over which the owner is the person who has the most important control. I fail to understand what exactly my noble and learned friend means by his main objection to Clause 2. There is a familiar saying, certainly a saying which is familiar to lawyers:
"Sic utere tuo ut alienum non lœdas."
I fancy the noble and learned Lord must admit that that is a maxim of the

379
common law which is universally accepted as just. His observations appear to me to militate against the equity of that maxim, because if a drain is found to be obstructed upon a certain man's land surely the liability must primarily be upon that person to remove the impediment and enable the drain to work.
LORD PARMOOR: The drain might run through a man's land under an easement, and he might have no power whatever to touch it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: All the Bill does in such a case is to say that prima facie the liability is that of the owner or occupier, as the case may be. There is a proviso, which the noble Lord may have overlooked, a proviso to subsection (1) which provides for the ease where he himself cannot remedy the defect without a scheme of more general application being made and others sharing in the chargeability. That goes to a large extent to meet his objection, but in any case there is an appeal and among other grounds of appeal, as is shown in subsection (4) (a) and subsection (4) (b), is that the service on him of the notice is not authorised by this section or that the condition of the drain is deemed to be the act or default of some other specific person. If these provisos and limitations are not sufficient to safeguard a person in a position such as the noble Lord has indicated, I am sure we shall be only too pleased to accept Amendments to see that no person who has not committed an offence shall be chargeable with the cost of making good the defect.
As regards the tribunal to which appeal should be made it is perfectly true that there has been considerable difference of opinion as to what this tribunal should be, and it is for that reason we have put into the Bill two alternative tribunals—the petty sessional court on the one hand or, alternatively, an arbitrator, to be appointed in case of doubt by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. I am given to understand that the County Court Judge would not be for many reasons a suitable tribunal, but if the noble Lord will be good enough to raise that on an Amendment in Committee I can deal more fully with the matter.
My noble and learned friend twits me and my Party with being responsible for
380
submitting this measure to Parliament. Well, I should like to remind him and Lord Dynevor that the most drastic Act relating to this subject—apart from the Bill of Sewers of the reign of King Henry VIII—is the Sewers Act of 1833, which, in Clause 15 or Clause 16, confers, upon drainage authorities even larger powers than are contemplated by this Bill in relation to defective drains. In any case, all over the country these drainage authorities exist and are exercising their powers. I do not say that they are exercising their powers in every case with full satisfaction to the areas in which they operate, but these drainage authorities are working, and have been working in some cases for several centuries, without any reasonable objection on the part of those over whose land they exercise such powers.
LORD PARMOOR: I may remind the noble Lord that the principle of the Sewers Act is that a person should only be taxed or put to expense on benefit received.
LORD BLEDISLOE: That is the intended effect of this Bill. It is for the noble Lord to make it perfectly clear, if that is not going to be the effect, how this Bill differs in that case from previous legislation. But as I have already explained to the House. there are three counties which have obtained private Acts of Parliament, all containing much more drastic powers than those in this Bill which is intended to be of general application. I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Beading to the Bill, and if there are any Amendments which, without destroying the intention of the Bill, can be reasonably accepted by the Government, I am sure we shall be pleased to accept them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to submit a Motion to both

381
Houses of Parliament this Session for the appointment of the Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Question which stands in my name on the Paper I can explain my reasons for doing so in one or two sentences. It will be within the memory of the House that in the year 1919 a Joint Select Committee presided over by Lord Selborne recommended that a Standing Joint Committee should he set up to be appointed by both Houses of Parliament for the purpose of keeping Parliament in closer touch with Indian affairs. As a matter of fact that Standing Joint Committee has been appointed every Session since that time. Your Lordships will remember that in 1923 the terms of reference were more precisely defined "to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them by either House of Parliament and to consider, with a view to reporting if necessary thereon, any matter relating to Indian affairs brought to their notice by the Secretary of State for India. "I assume, of course, that if the Secretary of State for India, on behalf of the Government, is able to agree to the setting up of this Standing Joint Committee again this Session, the same terms of reference will govern the procedure of the Committee.
It is not necessary for me to state again the ground upon which I have often urged that this Standing Joint Committee on India should be set up. I think the fact that the Joint Select Committee to which I have referred recommended that it should be a Standing Committee is sufficient evidence of their intention that it should be set up each Session, and as a matter of fact the Committee has been set up every Session up to the present time. The view may possibly be taken in certain quarters that recent changes and political developments in India may have rendered the consideration by such a 'Committee of Indian matters less urgent and perhaps less useful than it would have been under different conditions; but I do not think that view can be widely entertained. It seems to me, on the other hand, that recent political and other developments in India, whatever may be our interpretation of the causes that underlie these changes, rather strengthen the necessity and do not weaken the, desirability of setting up this Committee every Session
382
for this purpose. I would only venture, in addition, to express my view that the advantage of the deliberations of such a Committee as this cannot really be decided in one or two Sessions. Experience is required for a longer time.
As I have already said, I will not detain the House by setting forth in detail the many reasons I could urge in favour of this Committee being set up. I will merely, in conclusion, say again that I hold a strong opinion as to the necessity of providing every Session machinery by which, if necessary, questions can be referred to such a Committee which can usefully be considered and reported upon. Speaking for myself, as I have more than once previously ventured to urge in this House, I should like this principle of Standing Joint Committees to be extended to other spheres of our Imperial responsibility. I cannot see how Parliament can make the best use of its knowledge and experience of Imperial affairs solely through the accidental medium of a chance debate upon Imperial matters. Accordingly, because I believe that it is important that this machinery in regard to the consideration of Indian affairs by a Standing Joint Committee should not be broken but that there should be a continuous policy with regard to it, and also because I desire that nothing should take place which should hinder at all events the possibility of a further extension of the principle, I do venture to hope that the Secretary of State for India will be able to give an affirmative reply.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having postponed his Question until an occasion when I am able to answer it myself. It is my purpose once again to invite the services of the Standing Joint Committee and with that object I shall shortly place upon the Notice Paper a Motion in the terms of the Motion which I employed last year for the same purpose. It is my hope, having regard to the present situation in India, that I may be able to avail myself of the good will and experience of this Joint Committee without at the same time imposing upon them duties too arduous.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I think the House will have heard with satisfaction the proposal of the Secretary

383
of State for India to set up this Committee again. It is a Committee which Government after Government has appointed and which belongs to the history of the evolution of the Constitution of India. I think the House is very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Clwyd for his diligence in looking after these matters and not permitting us to forget their importance.

NEXT IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
LORD STRATHSPEY: My Lords, I wish to ask His Majesty's Government the question of which I have given Notice—namely, if serious thought and consideration are being given to the Imperial Conference this year, and the presence in England of our oversea Prime Ministers. Since I last had the honour of speaking in your Lordship's House the position of affairs has somewhat changed in this country, but in the main it is still the same. We still have unemployment and we still have certain other issues which only time itself can obliterate. I often wonder whether we seriously consider the future and look to the consolidation of our Empire in years to come, say, fifty years ahead. Are we working towards that end? The old order of things has passed away. The people of Great Britain and of our Oversea Dominions will for many years have to bear a very heavy burden of War taxation and that burden must greatly change the financial and economic life of every part of the Empire. We cannot yet discern the dull nature of these changes, but it is evident that, in the future far more than in the past, every one of us in all parts of the Empire must work for the benefit and the mutual good of all.
To ensure the restoration of this country to its old prosperity two things are necessary: one is a secure food supply, and the other the development of our markets to enable our industries to absorb the whole of our population in employment. The three essential conditions of our food supply are security, continuity and cheapness. Security is needed in case of war and against certain operations of foreign trusts, and it is only to he found in our own Empire. Continuity can be developed only from sources with which we are intimately in touch and which are not subject to foreign control; particularly can it be secured from those countries
384
that are our best customers in all branches—namely, the Oversea Dominions. Real cheapness depends both on security and on continuity. I hope that a lot of these points may honestly be cleared up at the coming Imperial Conference.
Speaking the other day in Wellington, New Zealand, Mr. Coates, the present Prime Minister of New Zealand, is reported to have said that all must stand by the Motherland, not merely giving her lip-service but absorbing her trade and her surplus population. He said that nowhere in the Empire was there greater opportunity for the full development of British trade than in New Zealand, and pointed out that all that was necessary was for British manufacturers to supply the right class of goods. New Zealand, for her size, took more British goods than any other portion of the world. The Government and the people of New Zealand, he added, were ready and willing not only to give Britain a fair chance but also to make contracts and increase the preference for British goods. Mr. Coates's reference to manufacturers supplying the right class of goods is important. I am afraid that manufacturers here do not always consider that the requirements of their oversea customers may possibly be different from those of their English customers, and sometimes the Dominions cannot get what they require from this country and have to go to other countries instead. I know by experience that our Dominions are anxious to stand by the Motherland and give of their best.
I quite agree with Mr. Amery's observation that England had no right to push out to her Dominions people who, under the industrial conditions here, were stranded. But there ought to be no question of pushing people out, for they go of their own free will and, if people, perhaps a. whole village, cannot get work here and wish to go overseas, and if they think that any other country in the Empire has reasonable prospects and is willing to take them, why should they not go? It is totally wrong to make any suggestion that they are pushed out. We have in England all sorts of people, some of a very good type and others who have not been educated sufficiently. It is wrong to give them the impression that they are being pushed out, because it is instilling false ideas of the Dominions. My contention is that, given suitable

385
work and a fair wage, there are very few men in this country who would be willing to remain on the "dole" and in idleness. Human nature is the same wherever we go, all over the world. There are always a few people who may be lazy from birth, and they will continue so to the end, but these are only a handful.
Unemployment, however, might be considerably helped if, along with other matters, it were approached in the proper light and thrashed out at the Imperial Conference. Our Empire has now reached that stage when we want not only words but deeds and actions. When our oversea Prime Ministers are in England I hope that Empire matters will be discussed at that Conference as a first consideration and that until our Imperial matters are threshed out and finished, no outside matters may be touched upon at all. We have heard a lot for several years about the reform of your Lordships' House. I hope that when it does come there will be no drastic changes, for that may do more harm than good, bat there is one reform which might be of value, and that is that this might be made more of an Empire House. Towards this end I think the opinions of the oversea Prime Ministers might be taken while they are here. The other day I read in the daily newspapers that within the next few months England would welcome about 400 well-known Americans, and would show them lavish hospitality—they would not even have to pay for a penny postage stamp. This year all our oversea Prime Ministers will be in England. I know they receive great hospitality here, but are they to receive the same liberal treatment that reports tell us will be given to the Americans? Many people have asked me for information on the matter, but I could not tell them anything. I think that it would be only fair to the people of this country if they were given fuller and more candid information about various subjects from time to time.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord has evidently given a great deal of care to the preparation of the remarks he has delivered to your Lordships, but I think we have some reason to criticise the form in which the Question is placed upon the Paper, because it seems to
386
imply that there was a possibility that the Government would not have given serious thought and consideration to the coming Imperial Conference. I am bound to say that I think the noble Lord very much misjudges the strong conviction of His Majesty's Government that nothing is more important than to consider these questions of world-wide importance. I should be sorry if any one drew the inference from what the noble Lord has said that we failed, in any respect, in valuing the opportunity which these Conferences every few years give us of personal contact with the Prime Ministers of the great Dominions and of learning at first hand their views on matters of Imperial importance.
In reply to the definite form of the noble Lord's Question, I have to say that on February 25 the Prime Minister, in another place, announced that he hoped there would be an Imperial Conference in October of the present year, and at that Conference he had every reason to expect that the Dominion Prime Ministers and representatives of India would be present. There is also a question which is to be answered in another place this afternoon by my right hon. friend the Dominion Secretary, as to the agenda at that Conference. I can just repeat for your Lordships' benefit the effect of that answer—namely, that not only is it hoped that matters relating to foreign affairs and Imperial defence will been considered, but also economic questions, such as were considered at the Economic Conference of two years ago. I think that is a practically complete answer to the noble Lord's Question. I am quite certain that the occasion will be treated with all the seriousness that even he would demand, and we anticipate from the discussions at that Conference, and the conclusions which may be come to, very great benefit to this country and to the Empire at large.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS.
EARL FOTITESCUE: My Lords, I desire on behalf of Lord Clinton to ask His Majesty's Government if they propose to introduce a Bill to amend the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, as proposed in the Reports of the Advisory Committee of 1924 and 1925.
LORD BLEDISLOE: The reply to the Question is that a Bill to amend the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1906, is now being drafted, and it is hoped that it will be introduced into Parliament shortly. It is proposed to introduce it in this House, and probably soon after Easter. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the sincere gratitude of the Ministry of Agriculture to Lord Clinton for the great assistance which he has rendered as Chairman of two Departmental Committees which inquired, in 1924 and 1925, into the working of the Act of 1906.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I wish to ask when the Smoke Abatement Bill will be introduced. Those noble Lords who are interested in this Question, and who are unfortunately very few in number, will probably recollect that in consequence of the continual worrying of myself and other people three successive Governments introduced Smoke Abatement Bills into this House, but that each was introduced in circumstances which made it perfectly clear that none of them bad any chance of being passed. I do not know that that was any great misfortune, because each succeeding Bill was worse than its predecessor. I and my friends have abstained for some time from worrying the Minister of Health on this subject, but, in order to make fairly sure, I got an undertaking from the present Minister of Health, in writing, to say that he would introduce a Bill in this Session, and that it should be placed well in the forefront of the Government programme. It seemed rather an ominous fact that this Bill was not mentioned in the King's Speech, and so far we have not heard anything about its appearance. I am now asking the noble Lord who may represent the Minister of Health to give a definite assurance as to the date on which the Bill will be brought forward. Unless he does so, and gives us a definite date, I know perfectly well what will happen; The Bill not having been mentioned in the King's Speech, the excuse will be made, when it reaches the other House, that there is no time to proceed with it. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will give us a definite assurance that the Bill will be brought in on a definite date in the near future.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that the career of this Bill has been rather unfortunate, for on three previous occasions it has been ended by the downfall of the Government.
LORD NEWTON: Oh!no, only once.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am subject to the correction of the noble Lord, but I understood it was as I have stated. I hope, anyhow, that the noble Lord will be satisfied about the stability of the present Government, and so far as their intentions are concerned I can assure him that they are whole-heartedly in sympathy with the objects which he desires to achieve. I have authority for giving him a definite assurance that the Bill will be introduced before the Easter Recess. As the Bill is still in draft form I cannot give him precise details, except that efforts are being made to meet the criticisms which were made when the previous Bills were introduced in this House—chiefly the criticisms of the noble Lord himself. I cannot, I am afraid, give him more definite information regarding the exact date when the Bill will be introduced, but I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied, from the assurances that I have given him, of what I may describe as the honourable intentions of the Government.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I regret to say that I am not at all satisfied with the assurances given by my noble friend. He tells me that the Government are whole-heartedly in favour of this Bill, but he definitely refrains from naming any date when it is going to be introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before Easter.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, before Easter, but the Session is already a month old. What I desire to observe about this Bill is that I have not the smallest doubt whatever as to the good intentions of Mr. Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Neville Chamberlain is one of the few Ministers who have had practical experience of the official work which they are called upon to do. He has been Lord Mayor of Birmingham, and he has a full knowledge of all municipal matters. I am perfectly certain that he is wholly in favour of this Bill. But I do not feel at all confident about the attitude of his colleagues, and I am not at all sure that

389
they share his enthusiasm. If I depended solely upon Mr. Neville Chamberlain I should not be in any doubt at- all, but my impression is that his colleagues have been telling him all along that he need not be in any hurry about this Bill, that there are no votes in it, and that there are only a. few cranks interested in it, and much more important matters are before Parliament. I shall repeat my Question and shall hope to get a definite reply from my noble friend before long.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I must say I think my noble friend is a very difficult man to please. What did he expect? Did he expect the noble Viscount who replied to him to fix the actual date for the introduction of the Bill? It is perfectly clear to me that my noble friend has never had the conduct of business on a large scale in either House of Parliament, or he would not expect anything so unreasonable. My noble friend Lord Gage went as far as he could do. He promised that the Bill should be introduced within the next month—really, in less than a month, unless your Lordships are going to sit on the Saturday before Easter, which T hope will not be the case. Yet my noble friend is displeased. He suspects all sorts of iniquitous treachery on the part of the colleagues of my noble friend Lord Gage, by which we are going to murder his miserable Smoke Bill even before it is introduced. I think my noble friend may be satisfied.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I hope the Government will go quietly in this matter. We have heard that three Bills have already been introduced on this subject, and each Bill was worse than the one that went before. Now we are going to have a fourth. Let us guard against my noble friend saying that the fourth Bill is the worst- of the lot, and in order to- do that, I hope the Government will be slow and consider carefully what the Bill is going to be.
[From Minutes of February 25.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
Serle Street and Cook's Court Improvement Company [H.L.]
Reading University [H.L.]
West Hampshire Water [H.L.]
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.