Lords Sitting of 1 April 1930

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, might I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord who leads the House if he can give your Lordships any welcome information as to the holidays?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I hope it is welcome. We do not come back after the holidays till, I think it is, April 29, that is the Tuesday after Easter week. I hope we shall get away in Holy Week, but exactly on what day we shall get away in Holy Week I cannot give any further information at the moment. I am sure we shall want to do all our work before we go away and not leave matters outstanding. To-morrow we have a very important Motion which I think will take up our time—the Archbishop of Canterbury's Motion in reference to the investigation he has made regarding Russia. On Thursday there is the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill of which we want to get the Second Reading. It is not a long matter. But we also have to discuss the question of Mr. Brangwyn's frescoes which will be brought forward on the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee by the Lord Chairman. From information I have obtained that is likely to take some time. Next week, on Tuesday, April 8, we propose to take the Land Drainage Bill. That Bill was put down for an earlier date, but representations were made to me that a longer time would be advisable and it was put off (and Notice has been given of this) until Tuesday next. On Wednesday, April 9, Lord Trenchard will make his maiden speech to us when he introduces his Motion on the Air Force. Beyond that I have no desire to say anything, except that if the Land Drainage Bill is not finished on the Tuesday it will be on the Paper again on the following Thursday. I hope that information is satisfactory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have had an opportunity of conferring with one or two of my noble friends in respect of the Land Drainage Bill and I am afraid it presents very grave difficulties; I do not mean to say grave difficulties in respect of its ultimate fate but owing to its immense complication. I am not quite sure that your Lordships will feel inclined effectively to discuss the Second Reading of the Bill on Tuesday. I do not know which member of the Government is in charge of the Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My noble friend Earl De La Warr.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Earl would think it right to make on Tuesday his statement on the Second Reading of the Bill, and your Lordships were not asked to go any further with regard to it without more consideration, that might perhaps be a way of adjusting the various difficulties; but I feel sure that a Bill so complicated and covering so many objects wants very careful consideration. I would like to point out, if your Lordships will allow me, that this Bill is one of those Bills which does something which we are generally most anxious to avoid—consolidation and amendment in one. It is almost impossible for any of your Lordships who are not very familiar with the subject to disentangle the two, and I think it will be almost necessary for noble Lords to have more information before they actually effectively discuss the Bill. I do not want, if I may say so, to interfere with the noble Earl making his statement on Tuesday, but I hope the Government will not be surprised if your Lordships think it right not to discuss it effectively until they have had time to consider this very elaborate Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I rather regret what the noble Marquess has said, because we have a good deal of business that we want to get on with, and I hope to have at any rate a large part of the discussion on Second Reading on Tuesday. But let that matter stand over. The Bill has been put off, as the noble Marquess knows, a long time; and so far as consolidation and amendment are concerned I think the contrary to the noble Marquess. I thought it was the view of this House that the two should as far as possible go together.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, no.
LORD PARMOOR: Oh yes. There is a mistake about that. The Consolidation Committee has often done it at the same time and for a very good reason. You do not want directly after consolidation to have an amending Bill. That defeats to a great extent the purpose of consolidation. But I do not want to go further at the present time into that question, though I feel sure there is nothing wrong in it.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (BLANDFORD FORUM EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a and to be printed.
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PERFORMING ANIMALS (REGULA TION) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Maintenance of banks and cleansing of channels of watercourses.
1.—(1) Where the owner or occupier of any agricultural land is of opinion that such land is being injured or is in danger of being injured by reason of the failure of the owner or occupier of any other land to maintain or to join in maintaining the banks or to cleanse or scour or to join in cleansing or scouring the channel of any watercourse
1074
in or partly in or adjoining such last-mentioned land, it shall be lawful for tile owner or occupier of such first-mentioned land to serve a notice on the owner of the land last-mentioned requiring him to maintain or to join in maintaining the banks or to cleanse or scour or to join in cleansing, or scouring the channel of any such watercourse as the case may be.
(4) If the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) that the land owned or occupied by the applicant is being or is in danger of being injured by such failure as aforesaid;

(b) that the person on whom the notice has been served is unreasonably refusing or delaying to take such steps as may be necessary to remedy or prevent such injury; and

(c) that the cost of carrying out any operations necessary to remedy or prevent such injury is such that it may reasonably be borne by the parties,

he may ordain the person upon whom the notice has been served to carry out such operations as the sheriff shall think necessary and that within such time as may be specified, and upon failure to implement such order the sheriff may grant a warrant authorising the carrying out of such operations, and the person authorised by such warrant shall have power to enter on the land where the operations are to be carried out, and to carry out the same. The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such an order or warrant as aforesaid shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage.
(5) If on any such application the sheriff shall be of opinion that the land owned or occupied by the applicant is being or is in danger of being injured by such failure as aforesaid, but that the cost of carrying out any operations necessary to remedy or prevent such injury is such that it would be unreasonable to make an order under this section For the carrying out of such operations, he may direct that intimation of the application and of his decision thereon he made to the Department, and that any report submitted to him under subsection (3) of this section, and any plan, map, or other document produced in the application, be communicated to the Department.
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, in subsection (1), before the first "cleanse," to insert "clear." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is purely drafting. The person who drafted this Bill had in his mind open drains. The expressions used, maintaining time banks and cleansing the channels of watercourses, obviously refer to open ditches and streams and they are inappropriate to underground tile drains.

1075
I do not know if this Amendment will be accepted. The expression "watercourse" is defined in Clause 9 as including drains, and the Government stated in Committee in another place that "drains" included covered tile drains, and that the provisions of Clause 1 were intended to apply to tile drains. Choked tile drains cause much damage to agricultural land. You cannot maintain the banks of a tile drain and to speak of cleansing or scouring the channel of a six-inch tile drain is hardly a happy expression. The word "clear" is more appropriate. If a tile drain is choked you can clear away the obstruction. The Amendment is purely a drafting one with the object of incorporating some word appropriate to a choked tile drain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after ("to") insert ("clear").—(Viscount Novar.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): I quite agree with the noble Viscount that it is important to have words in this clause that will apply to tile drains, but I have been into the matter very carefully with legal advisers and I can assure the noble Viscount that the word "clear" is understood to be included in the expression "cleanse or scour." That is what we are told by our legal advisers, and therefore I would ask the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment, which only means putting in an extra word already implied.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I think my word is better, but I will accept the noble Earl's assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) If on any such application the sheriff shall be of opinion that the applicant has acted unreasonably in serving a notice in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section he shall ordain the applicant to pay to the person on whom the notice has been served such sum as he shall consider fair and equitable in respect of the expenses incurred by such person in connection with such notice and application."
The noble Viscount said: The intention of this Amendment is obvious. It is to prevent people making frivolous applications. It is most necessary to guard
1076
against that especially, because with the breaking up of large estates you may have a great number of landowners who will be dealing with one another under any considerable scheme. It is to prevent people making frivolous applications and putting their neighbours to unnecessary annoyance and expense. It will be noticed that if an application is frivolous, the sheriff may ordain that the frivolous applicant shall pay to the other party the expense not only in connection with the application to the sheriff but all the expense to which he has been put since the notice was served on him. Under other land legislation in Scotland I have known landowners put to very large expense by claims for the making of small holdings, for example, which were subsequently dropped, and the unfortunate owner has been put to great expense by the Department and remained out of pocket. It is to prevent that kind of injustice that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Novar.)
EARL DE LA WARR: Here again we are in agreement with the intention of the noble Viscount, and if the noble Viscount will look at page 2 of the Marshalled List of Amendments he will see that we have put down an Amendment ourselves that deals with his point and really goes further. Our Amendment does not restrict the point that the noble Viscount is putting to unreasonableness, and it also applies both to Clauses 1 and 2. Therefore I would ask the noble Viscount if he would withdraw his Amendment and let me move my Amendment at the end of Clause 2. In case he has not noticed the Amendment I will read it. It is at page 4, line 12, at the end to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) In any application to the sheriff under this or the immediately preceding section he shall have power to award expenses to or against any party to the application."
The noble Viscount will see that our Amendment goes much further than his and is completely general, whereas his is restricted.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I have not had the advantage of legal opinion in this

1077
matter, such as is enjoyed by the noble Earl, but if he assures me that his Amendment covers more ground than mine does I am quite ready to accept it.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, I do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, towards the end of subsection (4), after "The sheriff may, if he thinks fit," to insert "and shall if so required by the person upon whom the notice has been served." The noble Earl said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name, but before doing so I should like to point out the position. An owner of land is called upon by his neighbour, an owner or occupier, to carry out certain drainage schemes. He has refused to do so, and the owner who made the demand has invoked the assistance of the sheriff. The sheriff, having satisfied himself that the appellant's scheme is reasonable, ordains that the owner so called upon shall perform the work. The owner not having implemented the sheriff's order within two months the sheriff grants a warrant for a person to enter the land and carry out the work. Now I would call your attention to the last five lines of subsection (4). The subsection reads:—
"The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such an order or warrant as aforesaid shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage."
It is unlikely that the work asked for would be of a simple nature such as an ordinary country labourer would be able to carry out—for instance, the cleansing of an open drain or ditch. The probabilities are that the work would be of a much more complicated and serious nature. For instance, the landowner may have been called upon in the month of October to shore up the banks of a river. It is very difficult to get a tradesman to contract for this class of work between the months of October and April, on account of the possibilities of the river suddenly being in spate owing to melting snows or excessive rain, in which case the works would be possibly quite washed away unless they had been completed. Moreover the landowner on whose property this scheme is to be carried out
1078
is responsible for its future maintenance and repair. I submit that the owner on whose land this drainage scheme is to take place should have the option of requiring the person who carries it out to be one who is skilled in matters of drainage, and that the option should not rest upon the sheriff, who may or may not be a person skilled in agricultural matters and who may or may not have availed himself of the opportunity of consulting a skilled man which is provided for in this clause. I submit that it is most desirable and equitable that the owner should have this option. I therefore hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment and that your Lordships will approve it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, after ("fit") insert ("and shall if so required by the person upon whom the notice has been served"). —(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This clause really contemplates two things: firstly, an order on a person on whom a notice has been served to carry out certain operations; and secondly, a warrant authorising a person to carry out the operations. We should have it quite clearly in our minds that this clause does not begin to operate until individual negotiations have fallen through and the sheriff has been appealed to. The sheriff has to come to a decision as to whether the scheme is to be carried out, and how it is to be carried out. Accordingly it is our opinion that it should be the sheriff who decides whether or not he requires expert advice. In actual practice I presume that a sheriff would almost always call in expert advice on a scheme of any size, but we think it should be left to him to make the decision. We must remember that, as I said at the beginning, this clause will not be called into operation at all until we are actually asked to deal with a landlord who has been found so much in default that the condition of his land is actually affecting other people's lands. We think, therefore, that the power should rest, not with the landlord, but with the sheriff to decide when the expert should be called in. I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am loth to interfere in a Scottish Bill, but

1079
this seems to me to be a very reasonable Amendment. All it does is to ensure that the owner shall have the opportunity of asking the sheriff to see that a person who has knowledge carries out these operations. What is the objection to that?
EARL DE LA WARR: He will certainly have the opportunity of asking the sheriff to call in expert opinion, but the matter has by this stage been handed over to the sheriff to deal with, and we think that the full responsibility for the way in which the sheriff deals with it should rest with him. Surely that it is quite clear and reasonable.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If I understand the noble Earl, he says that the owner can ask the sheriff. But the
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
EARL DE LA WARR: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause, in subsection (5), after the first "Department."
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, after ("Department") insert ("of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as the Department)").—(Earl De La Warr.)
sheriff can say: "You can go somewhere else; I will not listen to you." This Amendment will insist upon the sheriff giving attention to the owner. I hope the noble Earl will persist in it.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: The average owner of land knows considerably more about this kind of business than the average sheriff. I think this is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will take it to a Division.
LORD SALTOUN: I think this is a very important Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will press it.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Camden, M.

Devonport, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M.

Elibank, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L, (V. Gage.)

Airlie, E.

Mersey, V.

Greenway, L.

Ancaster, E.

Novar, V.

Hampton, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Hayter, L.

Abinger, L.

Lamington, L.

Iveagh, E.

Addington, L.

Leconfield, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Leigh, L.

Lucan, E.

Auckland, L.

Macmillan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Onslow, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Peel, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

St. Levan, L.

Plymouth, E.

Saltoun, L.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sinclair, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Somerleyton, L.

Clinton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cushendun, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Danesfort, L.

Swaythling, L.

Brentford, V.

Daresbury, L.

Templemore, L.

Burnham, V.

Darling, L.

Treowen, L.

Chaplin, V.

Dynevor, L.

Wynford, L.

Churchill, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Esher, V.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

Russell, E.

Kylsant, L.

Thomson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Making of underground main drains.
2.—(1) Where the owner or occupier of any agricultural land is of opinion that such land is being injured or is in danger of being injured through the refusal of the owner of any land to allow underground main drains to be formed through his land it shall be lawful for the owner or occupier of such agricultural land to apply to the sheriff for a warrant authorising him to

1081
make such underground main drains through the land of such owner.
(2) If the sheriff is satisfied that the land owned or occupied by the applicant is being or is in danger of being injured by such refusal as aforesaid, and that permission to make such underground main drains is being unreasonably withheld, he may after such inquiry by remit or report, or otherwise, as he may think necessary, grant a warrant authorising the making of such underground main drains, and the person so authorised shall have power to enter on the land where the operations are to be carried out, and to carry out the same. The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such warrant shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage.
(3) Such warrant shall provide (i) for the payment by the person so authorised of compensation for any damage caused to any other person by reason of the making of the underground main drains authorised by such warrant, the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, to be determined by the sheriff after such inquiry as aforesaid; and (ii) for the proper maintenance or renewal of the said drains in the future at the expense of the owner for the time being of the said agricultural land.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Viscount Novar's Amendment, to insert a new subsection after subsection (1), deals with the same point as has already been decided.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in subsection (2), after the second "the," to insert "agricultural." The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting Amendment. It will be observed that Clause 2 commences with the words "Where the owner or occupier of any agricultural land," etc., as distinguished from "the owner of any land." It is desirable, therefore, to insert the word "agricultural" before the word "land" in line 32. All through this clause the person who is making application is the owner or occupier of agricultural land, and this person is distinguished from the owner of the other land through whose property it is desired to make the underground drainage. I hope that as the Amendment is merely drafting the noble Earl will see his way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, after the second ("the") insert ("agricultural").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As the noble Lord says, this is a purely drafting
1082
Amendment, but I am advised that it is quite unnecessary, for this reason, that the word "land" in line 32 obviously refers back to the word "land" in line 25, in subsection (1), and that has "agricultural" before it. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to repeat, and I am advised that it would be better drafting if the word were left out here. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (2), after "The sheriff may, if he thinks fit," to insert "and shall if so required by the person through whose land such underground main drains are proposed to be made," The noble Earl said: This raises the same point that I raised before, only in a greater degree, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, after ("fit") insert ("and shall if so required by the person through whose land such underground main drains are proposed to be made").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The Government have just the same objections to this Amendment, only perhaps stronger, but your Lordships have expressed your views on the principle and I do not think that it will be any good putting you to the trouble of a Division. I will content myself with entering formal disagreement on the part of the Government.
VISCOUNT NOVAE: Do you accept it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, the noble Earl says that he will not resist it.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: Then they do accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "damage caused to," and insert "loss, injury or damage sustained by." The noble Earl said: I look upon this as purely a drafting Amendment. As the clause at present stands the expression "damage caused to" might refer to personal damage and not to financial damage, which is what my Amendment is in-

1083
tended to cover. There may be damage caused from underground or other drains to the standing crops, dykes or fences.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("damage caused to") and insert ("loss, injury or damage sustained by").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: This is a drafting Amendment, and I am advised that there is really no difference between it and the words in the Bill, except that the Amendment is slightly longer and in our opinion, not quite so well drafted. Unless the noble Earl feels strongly about it I would suggest that we leave the clause as it is.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I feel at present that it is uncertain what the words do refer to.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am advised that there is no difference between "injury" and "damage."
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I will withdraw the Amendment now, and consider the matter before Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "other." The noble Earl said: It appears to me that this word is unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("other").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think if the noble Earl reads the subsection carefully he will see that the omission of the word "other" merely gives an owner the right to claim compensation from himself. The subsection reads:—
"Such warrant shall provide (i) for the payment by the person so authorised of compensation for any damage caused to any other person.…."
The only exception made by the word "other" which it is proposed to leave out is the person himself, and therefore all that the Amendment would do would be to enable the claimant to receive compensation from himself.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I look upon it as purely drafting, and am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:—
"(4) In any application to the sheriff under this or the immediately preceding section he shall have power to award expenses to or against any party to the application."
The noble Earl said: I will not take up any time over this Amendment. It is one which I said I would move as a substitute for Lord Novar's Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Schemes for drainage works.
3.—(1) Where the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as the Department) are of opinion.…
(3) In fixing the amount of the cost recoverable by the Department and in apportioning that amount or in apportioning the cost of maintenance among the lands comprised in the area affected by the scheme, the Department shall have regard to the benefit expected to accrue to such lands by reason of the execution of the scheme, and shall not apportion to any lands an amount in excess of the estimated value of the benefit so expected to accrue to such lands ….
(9) Every scheme made under tins section shall so soon as all claims for compensation have been agreed on or determined, and if the Department propose to proceed with it, be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such scheme is laid before it praying that the scheme may be annulled it shall be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new scheme.
(10) When a scheme has been laid before Parliament in accordance with the foregoing subsection, and the period within which an Address praying that the scheme may be annulled has expired and no such Address has been presented, the Department may decide to proceed with the execution of the works in accordance with the scheme, and if they so decide shall intimate such decision to the persons on whom copies of the scheme shall have been served in pursuance of subsection (4) of this section, and any compensation agreed upon or determined in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section shall then become due.
(12) The cost incurred by the Department in maintaining drainage works executed in pursuance of a scheme under this section shall be recoverable by the Department from the owners of the lands comprised in the area affected by the scheme according to the apportionment therein contained, and any sum due by any such owner in respect of such cost shall, if the Department so decide, be levied on and recovered from such owner by the rating authority in like manner in all respects as if it were a rate leviable by that authority and shall be paid over by the rating authority to the Department.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Amendment, to subsection (1), is purely drafting and consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("(hereinafter referred to as the Department)").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, in subsection (3), after "lands" where that word fourthly occurs, to insert "whether in the case of capital cost or in the case of maintenance cost." The noble Viscount said: It is quite clear that in the Bill capital cost is adequately dealt with, but it is not so clear that maintenance cost is equally dealt with. It is very necessary to be perfectly clear in this matter. These works are going to be executed by a public Department, no doubt in their usual costly and incompetent manner. We have had considerable experience of this in my country, and the work done by a public Department always costs about twice as much as when it is done by anybody else, and it is not done in nearly so practical a manner. Therefore, these safeguards have to be very carefully watched. You may have It work done which is a dead failure, and yet the cost of the operations will be saddled on the land for eternity unless some safeguards are introduced. This is one of them. But I am quite ready to let it stand over till Report.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 17, after ("lands") insert the said words.—(Viscount Novar.)
EARL DE LA WARR: We think that the point is already covered in the Bill, but we will certainly consider it.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I think it may be, but I want to make sure. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in subsection (9), to leave out "and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such scheme is laid before it praying that the scheme may be annulled," and to insert "forthwith and unless a Resolution approving the scheme is passed by both Houses of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which both Houses have sat after such scheme is laid before Parliament the scheme."
The noble Lord said: This provides for an affirmative Resolution by Parliament. Subsection (9) of this clause provides for schemes made by the Department being laid before Parliament before they can be put into operation. If no Address is presented by either House within the next twenty-eight days praying that the scheme be annulled, it is automatically approved. My Amendment, on the contrary, provides that the scheme must be affirmed by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This procedure draws direct attention to the scheme, which might otherwise have slipped through unobserved. It should be noted that there is no legal appeal against the Department's scheme, except as regards the amount of the cost recoverable. An owner or occupier who is dissatisfied with the amount of the cost allocated to him by the scheme can demand that this question of cost shall be submitted to arbitration, and the finding of the arbitrator is final. It should further be noted that subsection (3) of this clause expressly provides that in apportioning the costs there shall not be allocated on any land an amount in excess of the estimated value of the benefit expected to accrue to such land. To the extent to which the cost of the scheme exceeds the benefit which it is estimated will accrue to the respective lands the Treasury has to bear the cost.
It may be argued, therefore, that no individual owner or occupier is in need of a right of appeal against the scheme, for he cannot be made to pay more than the benefit which he is expected to receive, and as regards that benefit he has the right of appeal to an arbitrator selected from a panel appointed by the Reference Committee. There is one point, however, in this argument which is over-

1087
looked, for, whilst it is true that no owner can be asked to pay a greater share of the cost of carrying out the drainage works than the expected benefit thereunder, each owner has to pay his share of the full cost of the future maintenance of the works. No Treasury grant is available to meet these maintenance costs, although they will be very heavy. The only appeal against the scheme is in Parliament, and therefore Parliament should be asked to affirm these schemes by Resolution, instead of their being allowed to slip through unobserved. There are many precedents for an affirmative Resolution in Parliament, and we feel that it is very necessary in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("Parliament") to ("shall") in line 41 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: This is as important an Amendment as has been moved. I admit it is a cumbersome kind of security for the individual, but I do not see what other is available, and some security for the individual is absolutely necessary, otherwise it means a free hand to the official under whose heel the private individual finds himself. Perhaps I ought to offer an apology for referring to any official or to the Civil Service. I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place in Committee on the Health and Labour Estimates spoke of the invariable custom which screens officials of all Departments from Parliamentary criticism. In pre-War times that was so. Now, however, new spheres are occupied by the Civil Service. Its numbers are enormously increased, so also its power to exercise responsibilities which formerly actually rested on a Minister if he had any executive capacity.
The Circumlocution Office of "Little Dorrit" may in certain respects remain as it is, but its activities are very different. The Lord Chief Justice has dealt with the tyranny of the Civil Service; a Minister has exposed the incompetence of his own Department: to them both the community owes its thanks. Few Ministers nowadays can adequately supervise all their officials and sub-departments, and so the old salutary custom to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1088
referred must necessarily be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The community must have the power to deal with those in actual authority. The dictum that the King can do no wrong cannot be extended to those on whom the power of modifying and enacting legislative regulations has been conferred by Acts of Parliament. Therefore I hold that in this matter there must be some check on the operation of the Civil Department and the Service, and I cordially support the Amendment.
LORD DYNEVOR: I strongly support this Amendment. Drainage schemes may be very costly, and may be a very heavy burden on a great many agricultural landowners. I think, therefore, that every precaution ought to be taken, and every publicity given to a scheme before it becomes law.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, told your Lordships what were the safeguards regarding compensation in this clause. I shall not follow him into that because we are not really discussing that matter. This Amendment really accepts the structure of the clause but is an attempt to alter the means by which Parliament deals with its operation when a scheme is actually laid before it. The question is whether we should have an affirmative Resolution or a negative Resolution of the House before a scheme can go through. A number of schemes will have to be prepared. There will probably be three, four, or five schemes a year. If this Amendment is carried the Government of the day will be in the position of having to allot time not only in your Lordships' House but in another place (and your Lordships know how busy the House of Commons is) for a full discussion as to whether a particular drainage scheme is to be carried through.
The noble Lord said that there are a great number of precedents for that mode of working. I have made inquiries and I must confess that I have not been able to find any precedents for working a scheme of this kind in that way. We appreciate the desire of the noble Lord to see that the individual is protected against the Gorgon of the Civil Service, but I would submit that the machinery we propose does provide that protection. It states that before a scheme is put into

1089
operation it must be laid on the Table of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons for a month. Surely it is clear, therefore, that it would be impossible for a scheme, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, to slip through unobserved. Imagine a scheme in preparation in Scotland with a landlord vitally affected. He first has the power of appealing to the Department. If he fails he will be in a position to approach any member of your Lordships' House or of another place and have the matter raised during the month. Then, if he does that, even under our scheme there will have to be what amounts to an affirmative Resolution of the House. I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. It will certainly hold up the whole operation of this Bill very severely, and His Majesty's Government are most anxious that this new insertion should not be made.
LORD DARLING: This, I think, raises a question rather larger than one might at first sight imagine. I understand that there is a dispute between the noble Earl opposite and the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and, I think, between him and the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, as to whether there is any precedent for this Amendment. I am not unduly attached to precedents, I hope, but it seems to me that if the practically invariable rule with matters of this kind is that the scheme should lie upon the Table of both Houses and should only become law if no objection is taken in either House of Parliament, it would be a somewhat violent departure to say with regard to this particular matter that what is the rule with practically all other matters should not prevail. Before I am called upon to vote I should like to know authoritatively from whoever can give the information whether this Amendment would establish an absolutely new method of dealing with business of this kind. I know what the Lord Chief Justice has written and I agree with most of it, but if this scheme affecting so many people interested in land had to be laid on the Table of this House and could not become law unless it passed this House, I cannot think that it could slip through without any noble Lord having noted it at all and objected to it. That is only one part of the matter. I must say that the argument that it could not happen appeals to me, but I should very much
1090
like to know whether we are here asked to do something which is absolutely outside the ordinary practice.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I understand, rather challenged what my noble friend Lord Fairfax said as to precedents. I have made inquiries and I am told that in the Road Traffic Bill and the Church Enabling Act there are certainly precedents for this, and possibly in the Education Bill and the Local Government Bill of 1929.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: This Amendment has often been moved in another place, and it has occasionally been accepted though I cannot say for the moment on which occasions. It is not so entirely new as my noble and learned friend would think. It is a very much better proposal than the other for this reason, that in the House of Commons the other proposal that the scheme should lie on the Table and become law, unless it is objected to is absolutely useless. It cannot come on until after eleven o'clock, there are very few members in the House, the Government take care that they shall have a majority, and the consequence is that the protection is absolutely useless. In your Lordships' House it is rather different. If you look through all the Papers which you can get if you ask for them, you can find out whether or not there is a particular matter which can be objected to. But how many of those in your Lordships' House look through the Papers? When I first had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House I looked through the Papers, but I have rather given it up because there are such a large number that it almost requires a special secretary to look them up for you. On the other hand, this proposal is a very simple thing. The scheme is to lie on the Table and everybody knows it. If it is good it will pass; if it is bad it will not pass. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): I have had some experience of this question of an affirmative Resolution both in the Road Traffic Bill and in the Mental Treatment Bill that we were dealing with. Might I first say a word about the argument of the noble Lord who has just sat down?

1091
He said that in the House of Commons the mere negativing of a Resolution or scheme which was laid would be useless because it would come on after eleven o'clock when nobody would be there except a majority of Government supporters. Is not that equally true of an affirmative Resolution? That is also business that can be taken after eleven o'clock and would, I suppose, be taken in the same way. There is just the same chance in the one case as there is in the other.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That shows the advantage of this House.
EARL RUSSELL: Very likely; but the noble Lord's argument was that it was futile in another place, and I was only pointing out to your Lordships that if the one process were futile so probably would the other be. There are some precedents, very few, for the affirmative Resolution. In the Road Traffic Bill a very clear distinction was drawn. Your Lordships' House required an affirmative Resolution—I am speaking from memory and I think I am right—only for the highway code which you regarded as a matter of such importance that it ought to have an affirmative Resolution. All the innumerable regulations and orders that might be made under the various other clauses of that Bill were only in the ordinary way to lie on the Table. I am not, as a matter of democratic government, opposing in themselves affirmative Resolutions if they serve any useful purpose, but honestly I cannot say that they do. I should very much prefer, in order to prevent any lingering apprehensions that people sometimes have—and perhaps I have had them myself sometimes—of these things slipping through unnoticed; that we should, at any rate in this House, refer them to some body like the Special Orders Committee, so that we could get an assurance from that Committee, and might know if there was anything to which attention required to be called.
There are in the course of a year so many hundreds of rules and regulations of this kind laid on the Table which are so insignificant and so obvious that it would be quite absurd to require an affirmative Resolution in regard to them. This is a comparatively small matter. It is a case of land drainage in Scotland and affects a comparatively small issue. I think your Lordships would be very
1092
unwise from the point of view of precedent—and I think I might perhaps obtain some support for this from the Front Bench opposite—to insist upon an affirmative Resolution. It would not only embarrass this Government, but it would embarrass future Governments and would be a precedent not only for this but for future Governments. I do not think it would tend to make public business more successful, and I hope your Lordships will not be led away by fallacious and, I think, rather specious arguments, but will resist the Amendment in the case of this Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite understand the appeal which the noble Earl who has just sat down has made to the Front Bench on this side, and no one is more entitled to make such an appeal than he himself, because he has watched the proceedings of your Lordships' House and the methods of legislation for many years. I am quite willing personally not to close my mind upon the issue which is before your Lordships, although I am going to make a suggestion in a moment. Let me say one word about the difference between the affirmative Resolution and the other method of treating these matters. I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Banbury, that the method of affirmative Resolution is much more valuable than the other way, and much more important. The method of negative Resolutions—I mean merely laying schemes on the Table of the House and leaving any member of either House of Parliament to intervene—has become very largely so much a matter of form as to cease to be very effective. I think that is a most profound misfortune. Any method which can be hit upon of keeping the control of Parliament over legislation, and yet on the other hand avoiding the immense trouble of getting a whole Bill through Parliament, is, I am quite sure, a direction in which the development of legislation ought to proceed. It is the real issue from the dilemma.
You have, on the one hand, the obligation of preventing anything being done to the detriment, or what is thought to be the detriment, of His Majesty's subjects without the consent of Parliament. You have that danger on the one hand, and you have the immense difficulty of getting a Bill through all its stages in both

1093
Houses of Parliament on the other; and if you can find some method which will preserve the control of Parliament and yet avoid all the difficulties of complete legislation, then I think that is a course which ought to be cherished and pursued. Of course, it ought not to be applied to matters of great importance. They must go through the difficulties of Bills as before. But if it can be shown that the method of the purely negative Resolution—merely placing proposals on the Table of the House and leaving anybody to object—has become inoperative, then 'we do not succeed on the other side of the dilemma. I am not sure that my metaphors are not a little confused, but at any rate the noble Earl will follow what I mean.
I must say that I think this case is one of much more importance than was suggested by the noble Earl who has just sat down. He talked about regulations, but these schemes of land drainage are evidently not regulations such as were put into the Road Traffic Bill. Small regulations adjusting the operations of a Bill are one thing, but schemes of land drainage which affect perhaps very considerable areas and very important interests are quite another. One case is only machinery; the other case is definitely in the nature of legislation affecting the rights of His Majesty's subjects. I must say that, though it, hardly ever happens, I think the noble Earl in this respect over-stated his case, and I cannot accept his analogy. It appears to me, therefore, on the face of it that this would come within the class of case which ought to be covered by something more than merely laying the thing upon the Table of the House. I will make this suggestion to your Lordships. I admit the difficulty of drawing the line, but I suggest that we put my noble friend's Amendment as it stands into the Bill, and that then we should consider the matter between now and Report. We will do our best to look at this in a reasonable spirit, and if the Government can convince us we have gone too far we will consider with our friends whether we cannot modify it at a future stage of the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: After the very reasonable attempt of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to meet us I confess I find myself in considerable difficulty. We do consider this matter as one of
1094
most vital importance. Perhaps, with out repeating myself, I might mention one further argument to your Lordships. I am inclined to agree with the noble Marquess who has just sat down that perhaps my noble friend Lord Russell did treat this as being not quite so important as it really is. On the other hand, I would suggest to your Lordships that the fact that these schemes are important and that, as the noble Marquess said, they affect very large interests, should surely convince your Lordships that there is no chance of those large interests being overlooked by the two Houses of Parliament. They will be interests which are eminently in a position to lay their case before Parliament, either through their Members of Parliament or through your Lordships. Many of the persons concerned might even be members of your Lordships' House.
Therefore I would ask the noble Lord who is moving this Amendment, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to allow us to reverse the procedure he suggested and keep this subsection in the Bill. Then I will undertake to reconsider the matter before Report and we can have it gone into again. If I have not argued the question adequately this time, I will endeavour to do so next time, and convince your Lordships then, better than I am afraid I have done this evening, that this Amendment will really have the effect, not so much of giving greater protection to the individual than he gets under the clause as it stands but of making the machinery cumbrous, heavy and difficult to operate. It may have the effect, too, of holding up a large number of schemes which we regard as very important and desire to go ahead with as quickly as possible.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I greatly prefer that the boot should be on the other leg. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the manner in which he has tried to help us out of our difficulty. It is not a matter relating merely to this Bill, although I think we have suffered from the kind of work proposed under the Bill far more in Scotland than has been the experience in this more fortunate land. But it goes far beyond this Bill. Before the War in another place the pages that were covered with matters of this kind and were left to lie upon the Table were increasing year

1095
by year. There are so many of them now, and the amount of business included in the things allowed to lie upon the Table is so enormous, that it really is impossible to follow them. It really has become an automatic procedure. It is very seldom that anything lying on the Table is ever challenged. It is useless to do it in the other place. Probably if the attendance were better in your Lordships' House questions might be raised here, but I doubt whether it is of more practical value to have these measures upon the Table in this House than it is in the other House, where it is useless. It is time the Government seriously considered the point, not merely because of the mass of the Bills themselves, but of the greatly increased importance of the undertakings carried through by Government Departments and the powers that Government Departments, as the Lord Chief Justice has pointed out, have of altering Acts of Parliament. The trouble has risen to such a pitch that I consider it ought to be dealt with. I think that to give the Government time to consider the matter before Report, as is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, is the right way, and I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division.
EARL DE LA WARR: I take it that the noble Lord will not agree to my suggestion that we should keep the clause as it stands and that the Government should consider this?
VISCOUNT NOVAR: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Earl should consent to the suggestion I ventured to make to him. We did our best to put it in as conciliatory a way as possible. We do not absolutely close the door, but I am sure he must see that the feeling of the Committee is that they are anxious to put the Amendment in the Bill. Then we can consider what the final form ought to be between this and the next stage of the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, we must admit when we are defeated. I am quite sure that if I went to a Division I should be beaten. I quite realise that the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has done his best to meet us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: The next Amendment, in subsection (10), is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 2, leave out from ("subsection") to ("the") in line 5, and insert ("and has been approved by both Houses"). —(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Service of notices, etc.
6. Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on any person may be served by delivery to that person or by post, and service on the known agent of any person shall be deemed to be service on that person.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, before "post," to insert "registered." The noble Lord said: The insertion of the word "registered" will bring this clause into line with a similar clause in the English Bill. Quite apart from that, if legal proceedings are to follow in the event of a person disregarding any notice served upon him it is highly desirable that there should be unimpeachable evidence that the notice has been served. I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 24, after the second ("by") insert ("registered").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I will not say that the insertion or the non-insertion of this word is really of vital importance to the Bill. At the same time it would be a large departure from the usual practice in legislation of this character. Clause 6 has been drafted in conformity with the general law and is based on Section 26 of the Interpretation Act, 1889. Perhaps I may be allowed to read to your Lordships the words of that section. They are:
"Where an Act passed after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression 'serve,' or the expression 'give' or 'send,' or any other expression is used, then, unless the contrary

1097
intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying, and posting a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
If your Lordships make this Amendment we shall be departing from this method of procedure which has been going on for a very long time, and therefore I would suggest to the noble Lord that unless he feels very strongly on this matter he should not press it.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Interpretation.
9. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:—
The expression "watercourse" shall include any river, stream, ditch, drain (whether open or closed), cut, culvert, dyke, or sluice:
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in the definition of "watercourse," to leave out "river." The noble Lord said: The chief point of this Bill is that watercourses are to be kept open and clear, and the Bill defines a watercourse as a "river, stream, ditch, drain," etc. In 1926 the Government of the day introduced a Land Drainage Bill for England and Wales, the object of which was to keep drains open and clear. The definition of a drain was "any river, stream, ditch, drain," so the two Bills have been practically introduced with the same definition, the only difference being that this Bill talks about watercourses and the 1926 Bill talked about drains. The definition in both cases is the same. I took exception to the definition in the 1926 Bill and I moved an Amendment to delete the word "river." I told my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who was in charge of the Bill, that you could not expect landowners to go to the expense of cleaning out rivers like the River Severn. What surprises me most on reading through the debate of 1926 is to find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor—who I regret to see is not in his
1098
place—moved an Amendment to delete not only the word "river" but "stream" as well. I should have asked him, if he had been in the House at this moment, why he wants rivers and streams in this Bill. I can only imagine that it is due to the change from Opposition to Office.
Your Lordships did not accept the Amendment moved by Lord Parmoor, but you did accept my Amendment, taking out the word "river." I am proposing by this Amendment to do exactly what I did in 1926. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that to call upon landowners in Scotland to clean out such rivers as the Tweed, the Clyde and the Tay was ludicrous. Agricultural landowners are certainly not well off at the present time, and the Bill may impose upon them and upon occupiers very heavy burdens—in fact, more than their shoulders can carry. In order to remove that danger I am moving to take out the word "river." Agriculture is at present at a very low ebb. The Government is doing nothing to assist, and it ought not to add to the difficulties and burdens now upon the shoulders of agriculturists. I assume that in the Budget on April 14 the Government will add still further to the burdens of agricultural landowners. I hope that your Lordships will agree to do what you did in 1926 and will delete the word "river." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 34, leave out ("river").—(Lord Dynevor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, is not in his plane, but unfortunately he was not very well and had to leave. I think, however, I shall be able to make clear to the noble Lord before I sit down what my noble friend's position would be with regard to this Amendment. In our view it is most essential that we should keep the word "river" in the definition of "watercourse," for the purposes both of Clause 1 and of Clause 3. The Bill deals with flooding or danger from flooding and, so far as the desirability of so doing is concerned, it really does not matter in the least whether the watercourse that is causing the damage is called a river or a stream.
Perhaps I might deal for the moment with the fear that I think is in Lord

1099
Dynevor's mind. He mentioned on the Second Reading and again to-day that he is afraid that landowners will be called on to clean out rivers like the Tweed, the Clyde and the Tay. There is no possibility of this happening under the Bill and, if he will look at page 2, he will see why. In subsection (4) of Clause 1 three points are mentioned on which the sheriff has to satisfy himself before he orders a scheme to be carried out. The second point is this:
"that the person whom the notice has been served is unreasonably refusing or delaying to take such steps as may be necessary to remedy or prevent such injury."
The third point is:
"that the cost of carrying out any operations necessary to remedy or prevent such injury is such that it may reasonably be borne by the parties."
Later on, in subsection (5), he will see that, if the sheriff is of opinion that the parties concerned cannot reasonably be expected to carry out the scheme at their expense, he shall report his conclusion to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and it will then be open to them to consider whether or not they will carry out the scheme under Clause 3. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord will see that the individual landowner is explicitly protected against an unreasonable demand to clean out such rivers. Actually in Scotland all the schemes that are really of importance refer to rivers, and, therefore, if we had to except rivers from Clause 1 we should almost be making the Bill inoperative in a number of eases, and if we had to except them from Clause 3 we should make that clause almost a dead letter.
The noble Lord referred to the English Act of 1926. Here I think I shall be able to show him that my noble friend Lord Parmoor's Amendment was not really so inconsistent with this clause as he thinks. It is true that rivers were excepted from that Act, but the exception did not apply where what is required could be done 'by a scheme under Section 16 of the Act of 1918, which corresponds to Clause 3 of this Bill. In the second place, the exception of rivers from the Act of 1928 does not apply where the drain is under the jurisdiction of a drainage authority or board of conservators that is exercising its powers, except with the consent of that authority. It is thus obvious that Section 2 of the
1100
Act of 1926 is not in the least analogous to the provisions of the present Bill. I would therefore ask the noble Lord not to insist upon this Amendment. The clause, as it stands, is not so completely out of touch with the Act of 1926 as I think he supposed, and his Amendment would really invalidate the Bill and make it almost inoperative.
LORD DYNEVOR: I do not know what opinion other members of your Lordships' House have formed, but I think this is a very important Amendment. I still cannot see how the landowner in Scotland is safeguarded. The noble Earl tried to impress upon my mind that the sheriff would be a very kind gentleman and would not encourage any objection able demands on individuals. But, so far as I have read the Bill, the Department of Agriculture has very strong powers for drainage schemes. So far as I can see, it can do very much what it likes and can bring rivers of the size that I have mentioned into its schemes. I should like to hear some other noble Lord on the question. For the moment I am inclined to press the Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: I should like to ask if I am right in saying that the position is this: that the question whether a river is to be cleansed or not is left to the sole discretion of the sheriff. If he is a reasonable person, he will probably say that the cost of cleansing a very large river should not come under schemes of this sort. If he takes a different view, he can say that that scheme must be undertaken, and, although the cost may be exceedingly large and onerous upon the owner, that scheme is to be carried out. Is it right that the sheriff should be left the sole judge of whether a river is to be the subject of a scheme or not? It seems to me to give the sheriff an extraordinarily wide discretion and, therefore, if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
LORD DARLING: I do not feel quite sure that even if Lord Dynevor's Amendment be carried the people who are riparian owners in Scotland will be so safe as he supposes, because as I understand he only desires to leave out the word "river." This definition would then read: "The expression 'watercourse' shall include any stream …." What is

1101
the definition of a stream as opposed to a river? I do not know. I think if I were to search in literature—I have not the time to do it now—I could find the Thames called a stream over and over again. There are rivers in Scotland quite as large and as full of water as the Thames, and I fancy it would not be absolutely inappropriate to describe the Solway as a stream, or the Tay or the Tweed. Therefore, if the word "river" be left out, I am afraid that to live on the banks of one of these rivers might expose one to an order at the hands of the sheriff to clean it out and make it something totally different from what it is. What I have said may possibly lead the noble Earl to accept the Amendment, because he will still have the word "stream" in the Bill, which will suffice for the sheriff to ruin many a riparian owner.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am rather inclined to suggest to my noble friend that he should not press his Amendment, for two reasons. In the first place there is the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Darling, to which we have just listened. He has pointed out that there is some doubt whether the Amendment would really carry out what is intended. The other reason is that I do not know how far my noble friend is familiar with Scottish opinion in this matter. I am not, and I waited to hear whether those who represent Scottish opinion here would take the lead in suggesting what course we ought to pursue in reference to this Amendment. We have not heard any of that advice forthcoming, and, therefore, I hope that in the circumstances my noble friend will not press his Amendment at this stage of the Bill. Between now and the Report stage he will be able to see whether his drafting is as complete as it generally is, and he will also be able to find out whether noble Lords from Scotland take the same view on a rather intricate point.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I would also suggest that this Amendment should be withdrawn and considered at a later stage of the Bill. I own land on the Upper Clyde, and I ask myself whether we want a big drainage Bill or not. From the present appearance of the Upper Clyde I know that it is imperative in the near future to have a big
1102
drainage scheme, but the fact is that landowners are not unnaturally fearful of the consequences of a permanent burden being put upon the land. The Government may not be aware that the land is taxed practically to its fullest capacity, although I hear tales of still further taxation in the coming year. Of course, we are all of us in Scotland very keen to see something done for the country. All Scottish Peers should be really anxious to pass a beneficial Drainage Bill, and we would be all of us very glad to assist the Government in this matter, were it not for the fear at the back of our minds of the consequences of the resulting financial burden. For instance, we know that a small part of the actual estimated cost of such a scheme—it would be a capital charge of course—would be laid upon us, and then afterwards we have to consider the cost of maintenance which will go on for many years. I venture to suggest to Lord Dynevor that he should not now press his Amendment, so that, as was suggested by the noble Marquess, we who come down from Scotland may further consider the matter and make up our minds whether this is a beneficial proposal or not, and how far we are prepared to support it.
LORD DYNEVOR: I am quite well aware that there was and is great difficulty in actually defining what is a river. I remember the argument on the Bill of 1926, and Lord Bledisloe said then that the kind of river which he wanted in the Bill was one that somebody could jump over. I could not withdraw my Amendment to take out 'river' at that time, because I did not think it possible to put in an Act of Parliament the jumping power of various members of your Lordships' House. Therefore we took out "river" and left an "stream." I suppose it is possible that a stream is a river and a river is a stream, but I do not like to argue it in, the presence of Lord Darling. As, however, the voice of Scotland seems to be rather silent on this subject, I will follow my noble Leader's advice and not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CADET CORPS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW rose to call attention to the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the Cadet Corps; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for bringing this matter before the House to-day, because it has attracted considerable attention in the Press and elsewhere, and is a matter of great importance indeed. It involves a very small sum of money, but the influence which it has upon a large number of boys in the country renders it of such importance as to deserve considerable notice at our hands. I would first of all call your Lordships' attention to pages 60 and 61 of the Army Estimates for the financial year, issued on February 24. On those pages you will see that a sum of £10,700 is provided for grants to the cadets. Four shillings is given for each qualified cadet, and there is a grant of one shilling for each qualified cadet for administrative purposes. Now, the fact that this is included in the Estimates is quite conclusive proof that the Government, when they issued the Estimates on February 24, were not of opinion that arguments existed for the suppression of the cadets on moral and educational grounds—which is the excuse which we have heard since—for those moral and educational grounds were not known to the Government when they issued the Estimates. And, really, those words seem to me to be almost insulting, indeed they would be quite insulting if they were not so absurd. The excuse given seems to me to be so absurd as perhaps to mitigate it, if possible, in its deadliness. Really, it is impossible to believe that the Cadet Corps and the Church Lads Brigade are in any way subversive of morality.
Of course, the whole thing is perfectly ridiculous. Evidently the Government never thought so until Mr. Shaw had certain interviews with members of another place and certain individuals who are members of the National Union of Teachers—at least, that is what we have been told. Whatever the National Union
1104
of Teachers may say, and whatever other secret advisers of the Government may say, I notice that the Incorporated Association of Headmasters of Public Secondary Schools in England and Wales hold very different opinions from the advisers of the Government—those advisers whose authority on moral and educational values has proved so potent in altering the mind of the Secretary of State for War from his original intention. I understand that that Association contains practically all the headmasters of public schools and secondary schools, both the old ones and the new ones in England and Wales, and it includes all the secondary schools which have cadet corps. This very authoritative body—I do not think any of your Lordships would deny that a body of this kind is very authoritative—profess entire and complete disagreement (and they have published it in the Press officially) with the Secretary of State for War and those who have prompted him to make this change.
I do not think I need weary your Lordships with anything more to show the complete absurdity of this argument, and all I would do is to ask whether these advisers of the Government represent officially anything like so authoritative a body as the Incorporated Association of Headmasters, or indeed, whom they do represent, if they represent anybody beyond themselves? In my four years' experience at the War Office I saw something of the Cadets, and I do not recollect that one single word was ever said against them. I do recollect that a great deal was said in their favour. The very highest praise from all quarters reached us at the War Office as to the educational and moral value of their training.
I should like to quote a statement of Miss Octavia Hill. I do not think anybody could possibly regard her as anything but a pacific person, or as one who would have wished to inculcate belligerent notions. She wrote:
"There is no organization which I have found influence so powerfully for good the boys in such a neighbourhood or gather them in so eagerly as that of the Cadets.… The Cadets learn the duty and dignity of obedience; they get a sense of corporate life and civic duty; they learn to honour the power of endurance and effort; they get exercise which develops their bodies and improves their health, and they come in contact with manly and devoted officers. The summer camp, too, is a great gain."

1105
Miss Octavia Hill was a woman whose whole life was devoted to social service, and who thoroughly understood what she was talking about. Her opinion, surely, should carry some weight in the counsels of those who have to do with bodies like the Cadets. I should like to quote also the opinion of my late colleague at the War Office, the then Director-General of the Territorial Army, Lt.-Col. Sir Hugh Jeudwine. He says:
"I have never heard anything but praise of Cadets, and of the good the training does them as citizens. I am a profound admirer of them and of those who give up their leisure to training them."
These are the views of two people with great knowledge of this matter.
I now call your attention to another matter, and that is the Memorandum of Mr. Shaw which he issued with the Estimates. On page 7 of that Memorandum your Lordships will see quoted, apparently with pride and satisfaction, the doings and performances and successes of the Cadets during last year, and we are told that no less than 1,678 cadets or ex-cadets joined the Forces. That is 600 more than joined from the Officers Training Corps. But in spite of this, so powerful were the views of certain individuals when they put them before the Secretary of State, that at the very last moment Mr. Shaw was convinced of the error which he had made, and which he had given effect to in the Estimates, and which he apparently laboured under when he wrote his Memorandum; and, with complete equanimity, he executed an entire volte face and made this astonishing announcement in the House of Commons. I wonder that he did not stand in a white sheet, and repent that he had thought of giving money to such an undesirable body as the Cadets or the Church Lads Brigade.
But I am not complaining only of this financial deprivation. Not only are the unfortunate Cadets to be deprived of their humble grant—for it is at the outside only 5s. for each approved cadet—but they are to be officially regarded as an accursed thing. They will have no recognition whatever. They are to be cut adrift from the Territorial Associations in the counties. No Territorial officer apparently is to be deputed to inspect them—they will not be allowed to do that. The affiliation which they enjoyed with Territorial Battalions is to
1106
disappear. That affiliation was commented upon in high terms by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff the other day after these Estimates were published and before the announcement was made in the other House. And why is it to disappear? What have these unfortunate boys done to be treated like pariahs and outcasts? Are they even to be denied access—I imagine they are if the full policy of the Government is to be carried out—to War Department lands, on which to go to camp and train? Are they to be refused the occasional use of War Office buildings? Are they not to be allowed, as they are at present, to have the loan of equipment which they draw from the War Office but pay for if they damage in any way? Is that to cease as well? I imagine that if the full policy of the Government is carried out it will cease. Of course the Cadet Corps and the Church Lads Brigade will continue. I do not think they will be entirely destroyed by the action of Mr. Shaw. But they will be obliged to curtail some of their amenities and some of their pleasures. I think very likely some of their bands will have to be cut down, in the poorer ones at any rate, and some of the amusements in camp and possibly on some occasions the camp itself will have to be curtailed. When these disabilities overtake them I only hope they will recognise to whom they are indebted therefor.
I should like to ask how far this petty persecution is going to extend. Are the Cadets to be forced to alter their uniforms? Apparently from the statement in another place they are. And, if I understood rightly, it is possible they will be deprived of the right of wearing uniform altogether. Who is to compensate them? After all, they bought the uniforms out of their own pockets, and if you are going to deprive them of the use of them at any rate in common fairness you ought to compensate them for the loss they have sustained. They are not rich, often they are very poor people, and very likely they and their parents have provided these uniforms at, to them, considerable expense.
I come to another point. Am I correct in assuming, as I suppose I am, that the grant which now goes to the Central Council of Territorial Associations for administering Cadet Corps will disappear I suppose it will. If that is the

1107
case and this is a Territorial economy, why was the Central Council not consulted first? I Your Lordships are aware, I think, that it has been for some time past a recognised procedure to consult the Central Council regarding, and at any rate to inform them of, any economies which were to be effected in the Territorial Army Estimates. But in the case of the Cadets, especially in the case of this administrative section in which the Council are intimately concerned, no notice apparently was sent to them and the matter was never mentioned to them at all, so far as I understand, until they read it in the newspapers after the debate in another place. This is very peculiar. It is the more peculiar because this discourtesy, as I may call it, was a single one. On the other points of economy the Territorial Associations were consulted. Why was this particular matter kept secret until the very end? What necessity was there for doing so?
I do not know that the Central Council were the only ones so treated. I am not at all sure that the Army Council themselves were consulted. At any rate, the Chief of the General Staff did not seem to know anything about it when he made his speech to a number of cadets in Kent, I think it was. I am not sure that the noble Earl opposite knew very much about it, because I understand that he had a very important engagement to present the prizes at the Cadets' Boxing Tournament and at the very last moment he had a pressing engagement elsewhere and was represented by somebody else. I rather think that when he accepted that engagement, and in fact for some considerable time afterwards, he did not know anything about these dreadful moral and educational difficulties which had arisen in the mind of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the advisers of the Government had not been called into conclave when the noble Earl accepted the invitation.
We are accustomed to retrograde measures from the Socialist Party. This is not only a retrograde but a surprising and astonishing measure. It is astonishing, I think, because we hear from members of the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong much about the advantages of fresh air and exercise, of games and camps, of out-of-door recreation, excursions and so on. But when it comes
1108
to giving a little assistance to no less than 50,743 boys and men, because the officers are included, of whom no less than 19,484 went into camp and gained from their association with the Cadet Corps, and the Church Lads Brigade great moral and educational advantages, they find that they cannot do it. That, I think, is a very peculiar attitude indeed. What becomes of another very favourite saying of the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong—equal opportunities? Your Lordships are aware that a number of schools have Cadet Corps. Some of those would undoubtedly like to have an Officers Training Corps instead of a Cadet Corps; but the number of Officers Training Corps is limited and it is not every school that is able to have one. That we know, and very often they have a Cadet Corps instead. There is no difference in the schools to which I am referring. They are schools of just the same kind although one has an Officers Training Corps and the other a Cadet Corps. But supposing a boy wants to go into the Army and his school has a Cadet Corps, it is an advantage to him because he can get his A certificate and can get the training which is so necessary to fit him to be an officer in the Army. Now he will not be able to get that training, and what becomes of equal opportunities? I do not know whether noble Lords opposite will think that that is an equal opportunity, or what excuse they will make.
Then it is said that it may make your boys wish for war and will encourage a bellicose and belligerent spirit in them. Can one consider for a moment that such an argument is tenable? Is it not really utterly absurd? Can any single case be put forward? I ask the noble Earl opposite whether he can quote a single ease where a boy, from his association with the Church Lads Brigade, has developed a bloodthirsty desire for war. You might just as well say: "I will not take my children to see 'Peter Pan' at Christmas because if I do they might grow up to be bloodthirsty pirates." I think that both arguments are equally ridiculous. I will not keep your Lordships any longer because the hour is late and I know other members of your Lordships' House desire to say something upon this matter, so I beg to move.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I wish to say a word before the noble Earl replies for the Government. I will not deal with the whole question of the Cadet Corps but I feel bound to say a word or two on behalf of other organisations which are equally affected—the Church Lads Brigade and the Boys Brigade. There seems here to be a case of most unworthy prejudice. It is the application of a theory without any regard whatever to the relevant facts of the case. I am not authorised by the Church Lads Brigade to make any protest against the treatment meted out to them. With a wonderfully good spirit they have said that they will accept this change if the country needs the £4,000 a year, and accept it in their customary spirit of patriotism and obedience. But I think they are entitled, certainly from my long connection with them I am entitled, to have some further explanation of the words which the Secretary of State used elsewhere about these brigades. He must have had them in view because he spoke of them in connection with the Cadet Carps.
It is worth while to recall to your Lordships his actual words:—
"… I have come to the conclusion that representations made to me on educational and moral grounds are unanswerable. Teachers in elementary and secondary schools appear to be, in a large majority of cases, against this particular training on educational grounds."
Therefore he feels justified in withdrawing all assistance from the Church Lads Brigade and the Boys Brigade. What educational argument which is unanswerable can there be? The suggestion about the secondary schools is, as Lord Onslow has pointed out, repudiated by the official representatives of the secondary schools in the country. Are objections taken by the teachers, particularly of the elementary schools? A large proportion of the boys in both these brigades join them and are active members of them after they have left the elementary school, and when there is very often no alternative for them even for that physical exercise which we all desire that they should have, except in the streets.
But I let that pass. What I want to know, and I am sure the noble Earl who replies will put us right in this matter, is what does the Secretary of State mean by saying that there are moral objections
1110
to these brigades that are unanswerable? Does he mean that it is morally objectionable that these boys should be taught to be alert in body and mind, that they should be taught how to be ready to obey and capable of leading? It cannot mean, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said, that the moral objections are unanswerable because these brigades inculcate a spirit of fierce militarism. To one who has known these brigades as I have all my life, the mere statement is preposterous and it ought not to be made. I have spoken now because I very much hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will do something this afternoon and in your Lordships' House to remove that stigma.
I might go further. In the case of these two brigades that I have mentioned, the Church Lads Brigade and the Boys Brigade, not only is there an inculcation of those admirable qualities of discipline, obedience and command, but the whole purpose of those organisations is to lead the boys on to the highest service of all, to which they have pledged themselves in baptism—to be faithful soldiers and servants of the Kingdom of God. It is really rather absurd that it should be said that there are moral objections to these brigades which a Minister of the Crown regards as unanswerable. I regret this expression of opinion and I ask this afternoon for an explanation—and possibly elsewhere the Secretary of State himself to explain what he meant by words publicly used in another place which must necessarily create—I put it mildly—misunderstanding, on the part of those who, for all these years, have done so good a work for the boys of this country. I would go further and would venture to ask, possibly in this place, possibly elsewhere, that these brigades and Cadet Corps should not be cursorily dismissed by the withdrawal of grants—in the case of the Church Lads Brigade only £4,000 a year; and that at least, if it should be done, the doing of it should be accompanied by some words expressing the gratitude which the country owes to those who have given years of voluntary service to the boys of the country.
I will recall to your Lordships what was said the other day by Field-Marshal Sir Claud Jacob on behalf of the Church Lads Brigade and their services to the country—how, when such service was much

1111
needed, 25,000 of these boys were serving; how they had a battalion of their own which had a high record both of achievement and of conduct, and how they contributed no less than 22 to the glorious number of those who were awarded the Victoria Cross. I say nothing of the 1,500,000 who have passed through the Church Lads Brigade, and what I say of the Church Lads Brigade is equally true of the Boys Brigade. They have contributed to the virile and healthy-minded citizenship of the country. I venture to ask that these arguments shall not be dismissed by the mere withdrawal of the grants, but that the suspicion that there are moral objections to their life and their conduct be removed, and that some words of gratitude be expressed for the admirable work that they have done.
VISCOUNT ALLENBY: My Lords, I take a great interest in this matter. I have the honour to be President of the Public Secondary Schools Cadet Association, and lately I became Chairman of the Joint Committee of that Association and the Incorporated Association of Headmasters. Your Lordships may imagine, therefore, that I know something of the feeling in those associations regarding this terrible blow that has fallen upon us. The Cadet organisation, I believe, nearly dropped out during the Great War. It was saved by the courage and patriotism of some schoolmasters, who banded themselves together and kept the movement alive, creating certain funds which were afterwards supplemented by Government grant. Thus was saved the life of this movement. The Public Secondary Schools Association, of which I am President, was founded, I think, in 1915. There were a few hundreds then, and there is now a membership of over 11,000, and its headmasters are all members of the Incorporated Headmasters Association.
The Cadets are of the same age as the junior members of the Officers Training Corps, and we do our best to train them on the same lines as the Officers Training Corps. Last year we had a camp at Marlborough and had nearly 2,000 present at it. The masters attend our annual camp. We had hoped, and we still hope, to have another camp this year, at which the number attending will probably be greater. The camps are all directed,
1112
managed and organised by the headmasters and the assistant masters of the schools. I think there are something like 80 schools in the association. During the last camp we had 61 schools represented on Marlborough Downs, and I can testify to the value of those camps. Personally, I know something about training, and I can testify to the value of this training morally, mentally and physically. I wish some of your Lordships would come down and see them in camp. We have had a good many visits from influential people to these camps, and nothing but admiration has been expressed for them. You could not see a keener, happier and fitter lot of boys anywhere. I am sure that our standard of efficiency is no whit less than that attained by the Officers Training Corps. We are not envious of them, but they surpass us in no way except perhaps in wealth and social prestige.
To those who have shall be given! I suppose they receive six times the amount of grant that the boys of our public secondary schools receive, and even the little that we get is to be taken away from us. It is a very small sum indeed that is spent as insurance for this body of potential officers, because these boys of ours are potential officers in emergency, and we have now 11,000 of them. I think that the small grant for these boys is the cheapest bargain ever made. Our boys receive certainly the elements of military training, but there is no compulsion upon them to join the corps, and they cannot be accused of militarism. I was called a militarist the other day. I have also been called at various times a pacifist and a defeatist, but I do not pay much attention to the names that we are called. It is, however, discouraging to these boys and to the officers who are headmasters and assistant masters and give up two or three weeks of their scanty holidays to live in camp with these boys. They live in camp in the same way as the boys, subject to the same discomforts and taking part in the same amusements, and there is a thoroughly good feeling between them and the cadets.
These cadets learn in camp, as has been said, the virtues of citizenship. They are disciplined, they are taught to work together, they are taught to think with each other, they are taught self-respect, self-control and self-reliance, and taught

1113
to be, I hope, men who will take their places in the world of men. The Public Secondary Schools Association are so convinced of the great value to the nation of this movement that even if we lose our money we shall try to carry on; but we do beg for official recognition. Without official recognition, we are in danger of extinction. If we have official recognition, we have, as the noble Earl, the mover of the Motion has said, permission to borrow such things as tents and camp equipment, which we cannot afford to buy ourselves or even to hire. If we are assured of official recognition, we may, I hope, carry on at any rate for a year. We may be able to have our camp this year to which all the officers and cadets are looking forward with great eagerness, but if we lose that recognition I am afraid our case is desperate.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words to support in the strongest possible way the words that have fallen from my noble friend Lord Onslow with regard to the Cadets. I know something about the work that they do and about the value that cadets were to the regiment I commanded for many years. I am convinced of the great value of the Cadet Corps to the country. It is extraordinarily difficult to understand the motives of His Majesty's Government in perpetrating what I call a mean and contemptible pettifogging action. If it is an economy, it is only an economy of £10,700 in a Budget which will amount to something like £850,000,000. It is unworthy of the country, unworthy of the Government, and it is calculated to make every Englishman ashamed of the Government and of his country if the country supports the Government in this.
We all know the good which these corps do in these days, when one of the things which we are trying to counteract is the tendency to develop what is known as hooliganism in the streets and everything possible in the way of disrespect of authority and of everything else. Yet, just because a few masters—who I conclude come from that tribe who seem to cultivate a sort of diseased mentality which sees red the moment they see anything approaching or pertaining to military formation—come and object to this thing, then we have this action on the part of His Majesty's Government. I sincerely
1114
hope that there will be a strong expression from the country on the subject, and I cannot help thinking that His Majesty's Government will find that they have made a very great mistake—the appearance of these boys when they come home from camps up and down the country is evidence of the good they do—and that mistake will re-echo through the country and will make itself felt at the next Election. I sincerely hope that wiser counsels may yet prevail on the part of the War Office and that we may still see a continuance of the grant to the Cadet Corps.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the position of His Majesty's Government is quite definite on this matter.
Several NOBLE LORDS: "Shame."
EARL DE LA WARR: It is perfectly true that there was no mention of it in the Estimates, but I do not think that the noble Earl will contend that we are not entitled to initiate any form of policy once the Estimates for the year are concluded. Of course, no sooner have we concluded preparation of the Estimates than we go on to the preparation of other items of policy. This was the first matter to be considered. I say that our position is quite definite. We believe that military training for a number of boys, the vast majority, or at any rate a very large majority of whom are under sixteen—they can join when they are 12—is definitely undesirable.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Ridiculous.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are living today in times when we talk a great deal about the League of Nations. Is it really contended that it is necessary for the security of the nation to get hold of boys at twelve years of age and train them?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, we say it is wrong.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Will the noble Earl allow me to say that as far as the Church Lads Brigade is concerned it has nothing to do directly with the defence of the nation? It has to do with the building up of the boy's characters.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will come to the point of the most rev. Primate in a moment. It is really very difficult to tackle this question at all.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: You do not like it. You are up against it.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is very difficult, for this reason. On the one hand we are told that there is nothing military about these Corps, and then we are told by the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, that they constitute one of the greatest reserves of officers in this country. Which is it to be?
EARL PEEL: Both.
EARL DE LA WARR: Well, I will endeavour, if you will allow me, to answer you on both points. If it is to be military training, then I say we consider it undesirable to get hold of boys at that impressionable age and train them in the use of arms. For that reason—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I ask why it was desirable on February 24 and not now?
EARL DE LA WARR: We had not time in the first eight or nine months of office to decide on every item of policy. We have to take things in their turn. Therefore on this ground it was decided to stop the grant to the Cadet Corps and the official Government recognition of Cadet Corps at once. At the same time that that announcement was made my right hon. friend in the House of Commons pledged himself to meet all the liabilities that had been incurred by the Cadet Corps. It was discovered on going further into the matter that they really had all incurred very great liabilities, if not their total liabilities, for the coming camping season. Under this pledge they would receive most of the money which was due to them, but it was decided by my right hon. friend, in order that there should be no complaint whatsoever that he had dealt with them hastily or unfairly, to continue the grant until October 31. From that date the grant will be withdrawn, recognition will be withdrawn, arms will have to be given up, and no new uniform will be served out or allowed. They will be permitted to wear out existing uniforms, but without military badges or any other military marks. This is exactly the same step—as I may remind your Lordships who feel that the Empire is now being imperilled—as was taken in 1922 by the noble Earl, Lord Derby. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has asked us why we did not con-
1116
sult the Central Council of the Territorial Associations. Lord Derby did not do so in 1922.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The new arrangements were not made in those days.
EARL DE LA WARR: The Central Council of Territorial Associations was in existence, and Lord Derby could perfectly well have communicated with them. So much for the question of procedure and the way in which this decision will be carried out. It has been contended by the most rev. Primate and I think by all noble Lords who have spoken—indeed I thought I heard sounds of laughter when I talked about military training—that there is no real military training given spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, said, and that the main objection of noble Lords to the withdrawal of this grant is on social and educational grounds. I admit of course that these cadet units do carry out a great deal of useful and desirable work. No one would attempt to deny that. But if your Lordships really contend that the work of these Cadet Corps is social work and not military work, why should your Lordships suggest that they can only be carried on by means of a grant from the War Office? These Cadet Corps are not going to be abolished, or to be, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow said, accursed. The Boy Scouts, with a very much larger membership than the Cadet forces, do not receive any recognition or grant from the War Office. Are they "accursed"? Of course they are not. What about all the boys' clubs in the East End? Must they receive support from the War Office? Are they "accursed" The withdrawal of this grant and of the recognition that goes with it will not render these bodies, as the noble Lord in very exaggerated language said, "accursed." We have been told by the representatives of the largest portions of these forces that they are going to carry on. They will not even be abolished.
What, therefore, is the position? As I see it, it is perfectly clear, and the case of the War Office is perfectly clear. We have to make up our minds, and your Lordships have to make up your minds, whether this is military training or not. If the answer is that it is military training, we say that it is undesirable at that

1117
age. If you say that it is not military training, then we contend that this is not proper military expenditure, and that we should bring the work that these Cadet units have performed into line with a great deal of other work that I have mentioned, such as that of the Boy Scouts and boys' clubs in the East End. The problem must be tackled as a whole.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord one question? He said just now that it was the War Office that decided that this training at that age was undesirable. What does he actually mean by the War Office? Is it the War Office or His Majesty's Government?
EARL DE LA WARR: I mean my right hon. friend the Secretary of State, who is responsible for policy at the War Office. This work can go on, and actually at the present moment, since your Lordships feel that it is not only on social and educational grounds that you object to the grant being cut off, under Section 17 of the Education Act, 1918, local educational authorities can provide assistance for non-military organisations for boys to go to camp. Surely that meets a very large part of the case that the most rev. Primate has made. I think he particularly mentioned these annual camps for boys, and I sympathise with him. It is undoubtedly desirable that as many of these boys as possible should get away into the country at least once a year to camp. I have pointed out to your Lordships that, under existing provisions of the Education Act, boys who are in schools can perfectly well be sent away into camp with public assistance from the Board of Education, but they will not be provided with His Majesty's uniform or with arms or rifles. If noble Lords feel that more assistance is needed for this social work of sending boys away to camp, then I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government would consider any suggestion.
I must say that t gives great pleasure and surprise to some of us—no, I will not say "surprise"—to notice this enthusiasm on the other side for social and educational work. We also are keen on these ventures, and I hope that very shortly, if Parliamentary time permits, we shall have an opportunity of giving your Lordships a chance of proving your enthusiasm for the children of this
1118
country by putting before you a Bill for raising the school-leaving age to fifteen.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: What has that to do with it?
EARL DE LA WARR: It has a great deal to do with your Lordships' enthusiasm for social and educational work for these boys. Meanwhile, the decision about the Cadets must stand. We recognse the social value of the work that they have performed, and I most gladly pay a tribute to those public-spirited men—with different ideas from ours, but public-spirited none the less—who have given so much of their time to this work. I most earnestly hope that the social and educational part of the work will continue. But in future these bodies must stand on their own feet, as social bodies, just like the other bodies, such as Boy Scouts and boys' clubs, which carry on similar work.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, my desire in saying a few words on this subject is to preserve that coolness and dignity that is appropriate to this House. I think that the noble Earl is still young enough to be thoroughly ashamed of the speech that he has addressed to us.
EARL DE LA WARR: Not a bit.
EARL PEEL: I know that sometimes Under-Secretaries have to deliver defences of a chief when they are not perhaps entirely in sympathy with their chief's policy, and I venture to hope, for the sake of the moral regeneration of the noble Earl himself, that he is not entirely in sympathy with that which the Secretary of State for War has said. I observe further that we have not heard a single word of defence from the noble Earl of the charges made by the Secretary for War against these associations. Very definite and very serious charges have been made by the Minister for War—charges that he says were so strong that he was obliged to agree with them—about the educational and moral injury that was done to these boys by these associations. That was the charge levelled publicly in Parliament by the Secretary of State for War against a large number of boys and other persons who are doing their best to carry on these associations. I do not ask for an explanation from the noble Earl, because I think he has not been instructed to give one, but I do think that, when

1119
the Secretary of State for War, in the great position that he holds in the Government and in the country, brings a definite charge of that kind against these bodies and associations, he ought at least to try to have the manliness to stand up and explain what he means and, if necessary, to bring his witnesses into the open.
Apparently he has not consulted anybody. If these charges are so grave, why does he not consult the Central Council of Territorial Associations? Why does he not even consult the Army Council? Has he consulted anybody? I gravely doubt it. He tells us that certain representations have been made by certain teachers, I think from the elementary schools or from the National Union of Teachers. Are we not entitled to know what those charges are? Are we not entitled, before you destroy these valuable and useful associations, to know what crime they have committed? Cannot these people come forward and substantiate the charges? Surely everybody knows that when a charge is made the defendant should at least have some chance of replying, but in this case the charge is locked up secretly in the bosom of the Secretary of State for War, and not a single member of the Government Bench opposite dares to get up and say what the charges are.
Who has been consulted? The Secretary of State apparently consults those gentlemen who have no knowledge of the subject at all. He cannot have consulted the Incorporated Society of Headmasters, because they are unanimously in favour of this training. I suppose he wanted to consult somebody who would agree with the preconceived notions which he had. I say that this is a foul slander passed by the Secretary of State upon these bodies, and I challenge him, either in another place or elsewhere, to substantiate the charges or withdraw them. I can add my humble testimony to the work done by these bodies, because I was for three years at the War Office after the War, responsible for these associations and these grants. With my noble friend behind me, we cover seven of the ten or eleven years which have elapsed since the War, and I think our testimony can be put against that of Mr. Shaw, who has only been at the War Office for three-parts of a year.
1120
I am quite sure that there is no substance in or basis for the charge that has been made. Never during the time that I was at the War Office did anybody, whether schoolmaster or conscientious objector or passive resister, come and make any such charge. The noble Earl tried to make some point as to whether these Corps were purely educational, or whether they had some military advantage. Let me say what happened at the end of the War, because at that time three of the Departments of the Government took great interest in these bodies. They were, in their particular order, the Education Office, the Home Office and the Ministry for War. The Education Office took great interest in them because of their educational value; the Home Office were interested because of the discipline; and the War Office, although I do not say that the military attainments of these Corps were very high, yet urged them to go on with their work because, in view of the difficulties of employment after the War, of the great value which in after life their discipline and training would prove to be to them. That was the high position in which these bodies were held while the great struggle was going on.
I hope and trust that there is some military value in these associations. I was listening the other day to a debate in the House of Commons, and the complaint of the Secretary for War was that he was very short of men to enlist in the Army. It is true that he said: "I suppose while you have an Army you must have men in it," but he was complaining of the difficulty of finding men for enlistment. Now we are told by hard statistics what numbers of these lads at a later stage do join the Army. I do not know whether it is militarism to join the Army, and whether he deliberately wants to cut off the supply of soldiers for the Army. Anyhow, if he is so anxious to get recruits it seems, from a military point of view, rather stupid to cut off one of the sources which has supplied in the last few years a number of recruits. I wish to bear personal testimony to the value which these lads get from their training in obtaining after employment. We have seen the numbers of unemployed rising higher and higher since the Socialist Government came into office. We were told that they were going to reduce unemployment. Unfortunately that has

1121
not happened and we see the numbers going to something like 1,600,000. I understand that the Government put it down to world causes, and not to themselves, but, whatever the cause, surely you ought to do everything you can to assist people to get employment, and if this training leads to discipline and self-control, which increase the chance of employment later, surely it is very petty to put your fist upon these associations, smash them all up, and take away this additional opportunity for lads to obtain employment in after life.
I do not know what the Government are going to do. Apparently they say that this rather hastily taken resolution is going to be adhered to. I am not pleading so much for the money—although the idea of the Socialist Government trying to save £10,000 a year is so humorous, when we see them squandering hundreds of thousands elsewhere—but what these bodies want are the status and the feeling that they are recognised by the Government, through the War Office, that their sacrifices are recognised, and that the great advantage which is given to the lads of the country is also recognised. The blow which the Government has dealt them is a cruel blow, it is a mean blow, and it is unnecessary. It is really hitting these small institutions below the belt. I do not know why it is done, or what crime these people have committed, but I do know this, that it will be a source of great satisfaction to all that horde of passive resisters, conscientious objectors and other degenerates who give it support.
LORD LEIGH: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few remarks on this subject from what may be called a county point of view. For several years now since the War there has been an expedition abroad of cadets drawn from various districts of England and Scotland, to the number of about a thousand. The expeditions have been organised by the Warwickshire Territorial Association, and have been recognised by the War Office. But the expense to the taxpayer has been, if any at all, infinitesimal, as there has been a contribution for expenses from each of those taking part in the expeditions. The expeditions have been to Brussels, Malo les Bains, Cambrai and other places, and have lasted about ten days. In the
1122
various towns that have formed the headquarters of the cadets the greatest interest has been shown in them by the inhabitants and by the municipalities, and the most cordial relations have been established between them and the cadets, which is certainly all for good, and the conduct of the cadets has been invariably exemplary. I may mention that at Brussels the cadets had the honour of being inspected by His Majesty the King of the Belgians.
I cannot stress too much the excellent effect and power for good that these expeditions have on the cadets, both on the older and the younger, and it will certainly be infinitely regrettable should the Government cease to recognise the cadet units affiliated to the Territorial Army. As the Secretary of the Warwickshire Territorial Association remarks:
"The Cadet Force plays an important part in the training of youth by inculcating discipline, self-reliance, leadership, and mental and bodily alertness."
And he adds:
"I feel certain that there will be a widespread feeling of resentment, both among the boys and the parents, at the slight placed upon them by the severance of the connection with the Territorial Army."
LORD SWAYTHLING: My Lords, at this hour I do not wish to detain you long, but as treasurer of one of the largest of the voluntary organisations affected by the threatened withdrawal of the Cadet grant, I feel I cannot let the opportunity pass of supporting the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The Secretary of State for War has stated in another place that the Cadet Force is of no military value. I find it impossible to reconcile that view with the facts. How can one say that the training of character, the inculcation of ideals of patriotism and the development of physical fitness, have "no potential military value"? This organisation would appear to me to possess not only military value, but a great social value. The Cadet force—I speak particularly of that portion of it which is not directly concerned with schools—supplies a want in the community, if the well-being of poorer sections of society is not to be made to suffer. As an alternative to idleness and pleasure-seeking in the streets or undesirable places, units of the Cadet force offer a valuable training ground for the youth of the country.

1123
We are not only deeply concerned, but also deeply perplexed at the reasons given for the withdrawal of the Cadet grant. We do not claim the right to official recognition, indispensable as that might be as a military organisation; but as a body successfully tackling a problem of real national importance—of turning out sturdy, self-reliant and respected citizens—it would appear that even if the War Office cannot recognise the military value of which I have spoken, this comparatively small sum would be saved to the country over and over again if given through the Ministry of Health or the Board of Education. When compared with the large sums spent on other Social Services this sum seems to be almost negligible, and yet the return is enormous.
One of the greatest assets of the Cadet movement, particularly in the case of the Boys Brigades, is the immense personal service and influence of the officers and those who work in the movement. The money required to keep the movement going is necessary, and if the officers who devote their time and energy freely to this great work have to collect still more money than they do at present, it goes without saying that they will not have so much time to devote to the more important branches of their work, and some small units may even find it impossible to continue. The Boys Brigades furnish, besides physical drill and training, opportunities for boys of the poorer classes to enjoy all forms of recreation—swimming, boxing, cricket, football, shooting, etc., which would otherwise be denied to them. There are also indoor activities — gymnasium, library, etc. They have interesting lectures provided, and other educational facilities, and they are helped to find employment. In short, the brigades help, by their training, both mental and physical, to turn out good citizens and to build up an A 1 nation.
But by far the most important work that is done is the provision of the yearly camp. Cadet Lieutenant-Colonel Ashdown in The Times a few days ago pointed out that even if the money grant is withdrawn His Majesty's Government ought still to loan equipment for camping and make provision for camping sites. Boys who go to camp are given ten days of disciplined yet enjoyable holiday by the
1124
sea, during which time the officers have greater opportunities than during the rest of the year of getting to know their boys well, and helping to mould their characters. If any of your Lordships could see these boys who come from some of the poorest parts of London coming to camp pasty-faced and seedy-looking little specimens, and returning ten days later brown, jolly and healthy, you would not fail to see immediately what a wonderful thing it is for them. They are boys who would otherwise very probably be unable to have a holiday at all. Those of them who can do so contribute to the cost according to their means, but some are unable to pay anything. No boy, I might say, in the organisation with which I am familiar, has ever been refused to be taken to camp because he is too poor to pay anything.
The camp equipment costs the country nothing. The units concerned have to provide transport facilities from the military depot to the camping ground and back, and have to insure against loss, so that all risk is obviated, and there can be no cost whatsoever to the national finances. I cannot conceive what possible advantage there can be to this country to withhold this privilege from the Cadet force. It costs the country nothing, yet if the Cadet force had to find its own camping equipment and grounds, the expense, which is considerably above the money grant given, would become prohibitive. I earnestly urge His Majesty's Government to reconsider the question, and to continue the support, both in money and loan of equipment to the Cadet force, in order to enable this force to carry on the important work which it is doing.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is only by your Lordships' permission that I can add one word. There was one point raised by the most rev. Primate which, I gather, I did not quite clearly answer, and that was his point as to what we meant by moral and educational reasons, which he felt cast an aspersion on the work that these schoolmasters and other public-spirited men have been performing. Let me make it quite clear that when moral and educational reasons were referred to it was simply the feeling of objection to instilling military ideas into them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I think you will agree with me that we have not had a very satisfactory explanation from His Majesty's Government of the reasons for which they have thought fit to take this step, and, as for the explanation of moral and educational values just given to us, it does not take us very much further than we were before. I asked the noble Earl several questions but he has not given me many answers. From what he has said I gather that the Cadets are to be persecuted. That is the substance of the explanation we have had from the Government. But we do not know who the instigators of the persecution are. My noble friend Lord Peel did his best to elicit from noble Lords opposite who these secret advisers of the Secretary of State are. They are described as certain Members of Parliament and certain members of the National Union of Teachers. It has been carefully left out that they in any way officially represented the National Union of Teachers, or, indeed, anybody but themselves, and so I must take it that these nameless advisers whose identity is so very carefully concealed are persons whose authority is entirely self-constituted.
I am sorry the noble Earl has gone away, but I know that a public engagement calls him. He asked: "Do you say that these Cadets and the Church Lads Brigade are necessary from a military point of view?" I say from both points of view, because the same virtues are necessary in a soldier as in a civilian, and the training they get fits them equally well for civil and military life. I have been too long acquainted with public affairs to be easily moved either to enthusiasm or the reverse by the tergiversations and antics of politicians, but I must confess that the vindictive treatment of these poor boys inspires me with some indignation and I really do not know which is the more contemptible—the ineptitude of the measures which the Government have thought fit to take against them, or the lameness of their excuses. I think the present Secretary of State will go down to history as the Minister who promoted disarmament by persecuting the Church Lads Brigade and the Boys Brigade.
On Question, Motion for Papers agreed to.

TERRITORIAL ARMY TRAINING.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question that stands in my name.
[The Question was as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government how much money will be saved by the recent War Office decision to curtail the number of permanent staff instructors with Territorial Army units.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I have to answer this Question on behalf of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War who has been called away on important public business. The cost of the permanent staff instructors with Territorial Army Infantry Battalions, who are being reduced, would amount to approximately £16,000 in a normal year. These instructors will return to their own Regular units and, as a result, there will only be a small immediate saving on such matters as lodging and other allowances. My noble friend endeavoured to make it clear in the previous discussion of this question that the reductions arose from a review of the establishments of instructors and have not been made merely in order to save money. The revised establishments have been carefully worked out with due regard to training requirements and proper administration. An assurance has already been given that cases in which difficulties arise will be carefully considered. It is not anticipated that the difficulties which have been prophesied will arise to any serious extent. But that can only be a matter for experience, and will be determined by the working of the revised establishment in practice. I suggest that we ought to have at least a year's trial before we come to any decision. In any case, I am advised that the War Office will very carefully watch the working of the training under the revised establishment.
I am further informed definitely that there is no truth in the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in a recent debate on this question, that this reduction of establishments represents a case of sacrificing the Territorial Army for the benefit of the Regulars. There is no truth in that. Whatever may have been the position when the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was at the War Office, the attitude of the Regular Army is now in-

1127
creasingly influenced by a recognition of the importance of the Territorial Army. Assistance by Regular units and depots is being freely given. The number of courses in which Territorial personnel participate is increased; and this year, I am informed, special facilities for training are being provided at the expense of the Regulars. It is a mistake, therefore, to attempt in any way to play off one against the other in this matter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his very full reply to the Question I asked and for other matters as well. But the upshot of his reply to my Question is that no particular saving is being made by these reductions.
LORD MARLEY: Not this year.

RENFREWSHIRE UPPER DISTRICT (EASTWOOD AND MEARNS) WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to Renfrew-shire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) water; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 23 and reported from the Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.