Arterial drainage in inter-war England: perspective*

/ t / Arteral dranage n nter-war England: perspectve* the legslatve :1 by John Sheal Abstract The Land Dranage Act of 193o became the benchmark of twenteth-century agrcultural-dranage legslaton. Its purpose was to smplfy and update dranage legslaton enacted snce the sxteenth century and to reorganze the mantenance and mprovement of arteral dranage on a catchment-wde bass. The paper reconstructs the fve stages by whch such a fundamental overhaul was perceved to be necessary and mplemented. The btter controversy as to the fundng of the major mprovements to the estuary and tdal length of the Rver Great Ouse had a consderable bearng on the tmng and content of the Bll. The mmedate and longer-term sgnfcance of the Act s dscussed, both n respect of the wder management of watercourses and the potental for agrcultural mprovement of the adjacent lands. In an earler paper publshed n the Revew, John Bowers hghlghted the endeavours of the nter-war Mnstry of Agrculture to nstgate mprovements to arteral dranage.~ Such schemes were a prerequste to the under-dranage and dtchng works ntended to rase the productvty of ndvdual estates and holdngs. But whlst holdng that those beneftng most drectly from any local mprovement should provde the necessary nvestment, the Mnstry beleved the State mght contrbute techncal expertse and Exchequer ad n carryng out arteral works. Not only mght ths stmulate the leadng agrculturalsts of the affected localtes nto plannng and organsng such an nfrastructure, but the requste Dranage Orders nvarably requred much explanaton and advocacy among the other nterests lkely to be affected wthn the rver catchment and local authorty. As the authors of a gude to the Land Dranage Act of 193o conceded, there were few ssues of such natonal mportance that left 'the general mass of the publc so unmoved as that of land dranage'. 2 The present paper focuses on the controverses that caused mnsters and offcals, and ther 'expert' advsers, to accord such prorty to arteral dranage, as both to captalze upon parlamentary and sectoral support, and to overcome the opposton encountered from those quarters. Although natonal n ts scale and purpose, such advocacy on the part of the Mnstry was nformed and consderably modfed by the nsghts and experence ganed from such The author s grateful for the gudance of the anonymous referees, and for the assstance gven by the Cambrdge Unversty Lbrary, Publc Record Offce and the Bedfordshre and Cambrdgeshre Record Offces. The fgure was prepared by Jule Gaunt. j. Bowers, 'Inter-war land dranage and polcy n 193o (1951). Dobson was an Assstant Secretary, and Hull England and Wales', AgHR 46 (1998),pp. 64-8o. a Junor Counsel, to the Mnstry of Agrculture and 2 A. Dobson and H. Hull, The Land Dranage Act Fsheres. AgHR 50, II, pp. 2.53-270 253

254 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ndvdual rver catchments as that of the Great Ouse. The paper reconstructs the crcumstances n whch the falure of a pecemeal approach to securng the requste admnstratve framework forced a consderably more comprehensve approach to be adopted n what became the Land Dranage Act of 193o. Rather than beng allowed to develop organcally, the Mnstry tself was called upon to defne and mpose, as an ntegral part of the Act, a catchment-wde bass ~ for the executon of such works across the whole country. However nauspcous the tmes, n terms of poltcal and economc turmol, a handbook publshed n 1936 boasted a new begnnng. Those parts of the exstng dranage law, as remaned applcable to modern condtons, had been both strengthened and extended.3 ):;:;:!. F! ~ q ~!~ H! l! :! An estmated 4.4 mllon acres of Englsh farmland depended for ther fertlty on arteral dranage, of whch 1.8 mllon acres were n pressng need of dranage works. No sngle landowner could acheve the full potental of such works: there had to be corporate effort. 4 The General Sewers Act of 1531, the frst of some 16 publc statutes, had provded the framework for the oldest of the three forms of survvng dranage authorty, the Commsson of Sewers. By 193o, there were 49 such bodes. A further 198 authortes had been establshed by Prvate Acts, of whch the earlest and most famous was the Bedford Level Corporaton n the East Anglan Fens. The thrd group of dranage authortes comprsed 114 electve boards created under Enclosure Awards and, snce the Land Dranage Act of 1861 (24 & 25 Vctora, c. 133), by the Board of Agrculture. s The establshment of further electve boards had been severely curtaled by the depressed state of arable farmng from the late 187os onwards, and by 'the somewhat cumbersome proceedngs that had to be followed'. The consent of the owners of two-thrds of the land was requred before a Provsonal Order, drawn up by the Presdent of the Board of Agrculture on behalf of the pettonng bodes, could be confrmed by parlament. A Select Commttee of the House of Lords had called, n 1877, for unfed bodes to manage the dranage of entre catchments. A Rvers Conservancy Bll of 1879 had sought to mplement such a concept, wth the lowland, mdland and upland parts beng rated accordng to the degree of beneft derved from the protectve works. The Bll and later measures faled, largely because of the opposton of the 'mdlanders' who, next to the 'lowlanders' would have pad the hghest rates. 6 The urgent need to rase food producton durng the Great War hghlghted the decayed state of many drans. A sudden nflux of prsoners of war, shortly before the Armstce, provded outstandng opportunty to repar the neglect. Some 400,000 acres of farmland n England and Wales obtaned some beneft. Yet even where full advantage was taken, the Food Producton Department and county War Agrcultural Executve Commttees were appalled at the lack of permanent machnery to mantan, let alone advance, such mprovements. Followng a wartme 3 Mnstry of Agrculture and Fsheres, The Land Dranage Act 193o. Handbook (1936). 4 F.L.C. Floud, The Mnstry of Agrculture and Fsheffes (1927), pp. 255-61. s Parlamentary Papers (PP), 1927, VI, Report of the Royal Commsson on Land Dranage n England and Wales, (1927), pp. 7-14. 6 pp, 1877, X, House of Lords Select Commttee, Commssoners of Sewers and Conservancy Dranage and Rver Navgaton Boards. [ I

/ / ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND / 9-55 :ll measure of November 1914 (5 George V, c. 4), a Land Dranage Act of!918 (8 and 9 George V, c. 12) enabled the Board of Agrculture, or a county councl (or county borough councl), to apply for powers to form, merge or alter the boundares of an electve dranage body. Most mportantly, a Provsonal Order mght be confrmed f not more than one-thrd of landowners objected. 7 A frst substantal advance had been made. Some 50 new dranage dstrcts were establshed, and 652 schemes promoted, n the frst lo years after the 1918 Act. The watercourses were cleared of growng and dead tmbers and other obstructons. Cesses, shoals, bends and weed accumulatons were removed. The earthen walls of sea defences mght be rased and strengthened, stone and concrete ptchng repared, and tmber and fagot groynes provded. A further precedent was set n 1921, when grant ad was awarded for peacetme schemes. Frst under a seres of Unemployment Relef Programmes, and then entrely under the aegs of the Mnstry, grants were made to dranage boards and the agrcultural commttees of county councls. 8 Key fgures emerged, both locally and wthn the Mnstry, who sought to both codfy and extend such powers as had been ganed. Mban T. A. Dobson was a prncpal fgure, both n such networkng and negotaton wth the Treasury. He had joned the Board of Agrculture n 19o8 and had fought on the Western Front at Ypres, before becomng Assstant Drector of Agrcultural Producton at GHQ France n 1918, hs servces beng mentoned n despatches. Now an Assstant Secretary n the Mnstry, hs admnstratve responsbltes ncluded those of land dranage. A further Act of 1926 (16 & 17 George V, c. 24) sought to enhance the role of the county councls by transferrng to them the powers held by the Mnstry under the 1918 Act, namely ts default powers and those to ntate small schemes n areas where there was otherwse no dranage body. They mght addtonally requre drans to be put n proper order, where such mpedment to the flow of water had a detrmental affect on the neghbourng land. 9 :1 - :,/ II The Great Ouse Dranage Board was the frst and by far the largest of the new dstrcts to be formed, accountng for almost half the land area to be affected by the 1918 Act (Map ). The rver, whch rose n Bucknghamshre and had ts outfall n the Wash, had the fourth largest catchment n England of 2 mllon acres. Some 380,000 acres, or 18 per cent of the catchment were fenland n the sense of beng below the tdal lmt that extended to Earth on an ordnary tde. Lord De Ramsey, a long-standng protagonst of dranage mprovement, clamed that a statutory framework had been provded for fnally completng the scheme begun by the Dutchman, Cornelus De Verrnuyden, n the seventeenth century. ~ 7 Parlamentary Debates (PD), Commons, lo5, 1491-15o6; I. Sheal, 'Yorkshre's "Sloughs of Despond": an nter-war perspectve on resource development n Brtan', Envronment and Hstory 6 (2ooo), pp. 379-98. s Anonymous, 'Land dranage', I. Mnstry of Agrculture 26 (192o), pp. lo88-92, and 27 (192o), pp. 764-8; Anonymous, 'Land dranage works for the relef of unemployment', ]. Mnstry of Agrculture 30 (agz3), pp. 519-25; ]. C. Roseveare, 'Land dranage n England and Wales', Trans. Insttute of Water Engneers 37 (1932), pp. 178-2o7. 9. The Tmes, 21 May 1962; Publc Record Offce (PRO), MAF 49/764; PD, Lords, 63, 367-80. 10. R.F. Grantham, 'The present condton of arteral dranage n some Englsh rvers', Procs. Insttuton of Cvl Engneers 202 (1916), pp. 269-70.

[:: ~,.[!!' ' : II l,, I[ [ *: ] 1 t~e'";, 256 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW NORFOLK!: l HUNTING DONSHIIILIK [ : j, ;.! ; L.",,f ~ I l;! NOR'I' [A~d PTONSH I RE I.1" t BEDFORDSItlRB ~, -r-.-,f ~ BUCI(INGIIA~,I~H~.~ l:!;: : MAP 1. The Rver Ouse Watershed After a map of the Rver Ouse catchment by Rchard F. Grantham, 1922 (Cambrdge Record Offce, Cty Records/Mscellaneous papers. Dranage of Ouse, 192o-22). The Fens (area of lghter shadng) and fenland rvers are dstngushed from the upland valleys (darker shadng) and rvers (bolder lnes) that were also made lable to the payment of rates. I : l,, I;! l : : : ~'11! ;ll ': The extensve floodng caused by heavy summer rans n 1912 had emphaszed the urgency of mprovement works n the East Anglan Fens. The prorty for the Board of Agrculture was to educate opnon as to the nature of the remedy. Advantage was taken of the newly-establshed Development Fund to appont two Specal Commssoners (both leadng land-agents) to report on the arteral-dranage problems of eastern England. Ther report of August 1914 was wdely crculated. A paper gven to the Insttuton of Cvl Engneers, n Aprl 1916, afforded further opportunty to publcze ffs fndngs. As a dscussant, Lord De Ramsey complaned of both the carelessness and gnorance of the dranage bodes, but clamed 'the greatest curse of the rver' was the number of separate dranage nterests. The report descrbed how there were over 8o separate dranage bodes, but no sngle authorty empowered to keep order on the man artery, the 4o-mle length of the tdal Ouse. Confronted by so many nterests, the authors of the report had found t mpossble to affx responsblty for undertakng the remedal works so urgently requred n the estuary and lower reaches of the tdal rver, t 11 Ibd., 2,44-~o; PRO, MAF 49/3n.

ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND! / 257 } Havng obtaned the support of the relevant dranage-bodes, the Board:of Agrculture drafted a Provsonal Order under the wartme measure of 1914. A Lower Ouse Dranage Board was apponted wth powers to execute specfed works and rase the funds requred drectly from the area deemed to have benefted. The exstng bodes would contnue to play a crucal part as nternal dranage authortes. In evdence to the statutory publc nqury of Aprl 1915, wtnesses for those bodes recognzed the need for greater co-ordnaton, but stressed the contnung value of local control. Those farmng the mmedate area were most aware of what was needed. They could respond quckest to an emergency. The Legal Advser to the Board of Agrcukure, actng as Inspector to the Inqury, was anxous both to stress the mpartalty of the Board and the need to avod the Provsonal Order beng too ambtous. And ndeed, whlst the Provsonal Order Confrmaton Bll receved the Royal Assent n July 1915 (5 & 6 George V, c. LXXXVII), t proved mpossble to mplement. Although a further Inqury of 1917 found the Dranage Board's proposals techncally sound, there was no agreement as to how the necessary costs mght be met. They far exceeded anythng the rateable area could afford. Although the Presdent of the Board of Agrculture dd not dscount Exchequer support, 'a proper proporton' of the costs had to be borne by those who would beneft. 12 Such an mpasse marked a second stage, namely that of emphassng the benefts of organsng dranage on a catchment bass. At the nstgaton of the county War Agrcultural Executve Commttees, seven of the nne county councls pettoned for what proved to be the frst Provsonal Order under the 1918 Act, namely for a sngle Ouse Dranage Board. As a note publshed n the Journal of the Mnstry of Agrculture emphaszed, the object was not to lay down some general polcy or scheme of works, but rather to establsh a broad vew of all the problems and nterests as mght be addressed wthn a ratng area large enough to avod any unfar burden beng mposed on part of the land to beneft. Of a Board of 42 members, most were to be elected by the varous areas nto whch the catchment was dvded, the remander beng apponted by the county councls, the Kngs Lynn Conservancy Board, and the Mnster. The Board was to categorze ts expendture, each category beng apportoned accordng to the beneft to be derved from the dfferent areas and sub-areas. '3 Although the prncple of an Ouse Dranage Board was welcomed, the ratng provsons were so fercely contested, even by some of the pettonng countes, that the Confrmaton Bll was debated n both Houses of Parlament. Ever snce the General Sewers Act of 1531, t had been assumed that dranage rates could only be leved on the propertes whch drectly benefted from such works. On the prncple of 'no beneft - no rates', there was no requrement, on the part of propertes above the flood level, to contrbute to the cost of mantanng the watercourses. They stood outsde the jursdcton of the dranage authortes. Some leeway had been allowed. The Somerset Dranage Commssoners Act of 1877 adopted a lmt of 2 feet above the hghest recorded flood level. The Thames Valley Dranage Commssoners Act of 1871 had settled for 5 feet, the Ordnance Survey beng employed to survey and produce maps showng the contour. The Land Dranage Act of 1918 adopted a lmt of 8 feet. The effect on the Ouse 12 PRO, MAF 49/312-3. 13 PRO, MAF 49/316, 325; Anonymous,,'Land dranage of the Great Ouse', J. Board of Agrculture 26 (1919), pp. 729-31; Anonymous, 'The Mnstry and the Rver Ouse Dranage Scheme', I. Mnstry of Agrculture 26 (192o), pp. 1172-3.

258 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW :> : ~ :! ~: l :, l '~ 'l :I!! :: :<!! l~!.!:!~,, ~ ~'~ ~ ll:~,: ~!,~ :!! : ~!:~ ~ '.!! ~lll catchment was to nclude not only the 'lowland' fens, but a further 125,ooo acres of 'upland' valley, makng a total of 485,ooo acres, or one-ffth of the catchment, lable to rates, l* At the Second Readng of the Confrmaton Bll, the Members of Parlament for Bedford and Buckngham attacked t for reversng the prncple that the water of the 'hghlands' was tal~en 'by the men of the lowlands down to the sea at ther own expense'. It was unfar to requre those lvng some 7o mles uprver to contrbute to the costs arsng from the tdal rver and outfall. Such upland valleys should be admnstered separately from the 'great fne rollng fenlands ffll of money'. In so far as t could be shown that the cost of the works on the lower Ouse outstrpped the resources of those who would drectly beneft, such nvestments should be regarded n the same lght as the road system of the country. Both were of such natonal mportance as to mert Exchequer grant-ad. In hs reply to the Second Readng debate, the Parlamentary Secretary-, Sr Arthur Boscawen, ndcated (n what became 'a much quoted pronouncement') that there was no change n prncple. The lablty for each area and sub-area would be strctly proportonate to the beneft each was consdered to enjoy. The 'upland' valleys should take some responsblty for the dscharge of ther waters to the sea. 's Although fercely contested, the Select Commttees of both Houses of Parlament approved the adopton of the 8 feet contour. The Land Dranage (Ouse) Provsonal Order Confrmaton Act (lo & n George V, c. CXXII) came nto force n October 192o. 'An acute fnancal stuaton' arose as passve resstance to the payment of the rates spread from the 'uplands' to other parts. It was an 'extremely onerous, expensve and lengthy busness' to prepare rate-books for some 40,000 occupers of property. Many professed to beng unaware of the exstence of the Ouse Dranage Board, let alone ther lablty. There were clams of ts causng sales of some of the best 'feedng land' n Bedfordshre to fall through. 'Upland' members of the Board rejected all tems of expendture untl such lablty was wthdrawn. Ctng Boscawen's words, they nssted each county above the tdal lmt at Earth should be left to deal wth ts own secton of the rver and ts trbutares. Although magstrates upheld the test-cases brought by the Board for the non-payment of rates, there was, by the end of 1923, a shortage of moneys for even essental works. The Mnster, Sr Robert Sanders, offered to draft an amendng Order. It envsaged the 'upland' valleys beng placed under a separate Commttee of the Board. The 'lowlanders' fercely contested such specal treatment. The only pont of agreement was the belef that lttle would be acheved wthout substantal Exchequer support. ~6 Alarmed by the prospect of large areas of fenland beng lost to 'proper cultvaton', the Mnster was authorzed by a Cabnet Commttee, n July 1924, to propose 'a measure of Government assstance'. ~7 The Mnstry offered to meet the full costs of the works, estmated at up to L5 mllon over lo years, provded the Board agreed to repay two-thrds over a perod of 30 years. A further deputaton, n January 1925, rejected the offer on the grounds that the banks had already refused any ncrease n the Board's overdraft. The Mnster n turn rejected the demand for an outrght grant to cover the entre cost of the works. He made nstead a three-part proposal. A specal Commsson should be apponted to nvestgate the whole 14 Grantham, Proceedngs, pp. 263-5. s PD, Commons, lz7, 1929-51. 16 PRO, MAF 491325. 17 Ibd. F~

r~! ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND / ~-59 problem of the rver Ouse. Although ntally resstng such a move, the Dranage Board agreed to petton for an amendng Order suspendng the ratng provsons and, therefore the executon of any works, n the 'upland' valleys. The Treasury undertook to provde such fnancal assstance as requred by the Board to functon. ~8 A Provsonal Order Confrmaton Bll was passed n July z925 (15 & z6 George V, c. LXXII), and another n August 19~6, that extended the suspensory perod untl January 1928. : III A thrd crtcal stage had been reached n whch attenton was focused on decdng the apportonment of lablty for meetng the costs of mprovement schemes. The 'specal and expert' Commsson met under the Charmanshp of Sr Horace Monro, the former Permanent Secretary of the Local Government Board and an expert on ratng. The other three members were the dstngushed engneer, W.J. Bnne, Sr John Oakley (later Presdent of the Surveyors' Insttuton), and Leopold Harvey, a Spaldng solctor and Clerk to the Welland Dranage Board and eleven other dranage bodes. In draftng the short-lst of proposed members, Dobson had wrtten of how Harvey, knowng 'the dffcultes from A to Z', was unlkely to 'be taken n by any specous evdence that mght be offered n the varous areas of the Ouse dstrct'. The Commsson's unanmous report of December 1925 warned of how, wthout large-scale engneerng, nundaton was nevtable. There was a real danger of the whole dstrct 'returnng to ts orgnal condton of swamp'. Whlst t mght be argued the 'uplanders' had an mmemoral rght to dscharge ther surplus water nto ts natural channels, wtnesses to the nqury descrbed how the ncreased under-dranage of farmland meant the ranfall was 'voded more rapdly nto the lower reaches of the rver'. 19 Whatever the valdty of these varous clams, the Commsson emphaszed how the necessary works to remove the upland floodwater, prevent the accumulaton of slt n the tdal channel, and to stablze the banks were so ntmately connected that nothng less than the entre scheme would suffce. There had to be a consderable wdenng of the taxaton base. In a matter such as land dranage, the whole catchment had to act as f 'a sngle communty whch cannot be artfcally dvded'. As the Commsson observed, local authorty rates were apportoned not n terms of beneft, but by ablty to pay, as gauged by the annual value of the property occuped. It had also become the practce to spread that lablty beyond the parsh to encompass the county, wth substantal Exchequer grants to help equalze the local burden. Drawng on such precedent, the Commsson came to 'the defnte concluson' that the Ouse Dranage Board should cover the entre catchment and have drect responsblty for all the major channels, banks and other structures n the 'lowlands'. The exstng dranage bodes would contnue to manage the extensve network of mnor drans, as well as provde and mantan pumpng, subject to the Dranage Board havng a power of veto over any operaton deemed to be prejudcal to the nterests of the catchment as a whole. The Commsson recommended that the captal costs, and revenue expendture, of the Ouse s PRO, MAT 49/3zo, 3z4. : Report of the Commsson apponted n connecton wth the 19 PRO, MAF 49/325; PP, 1926, V, Mnstry of Agrculture, Ouse Dranage Board.

260 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW!:. :!~! :H : :~ ~ I : ~:! ~ : ~ ~ ~ :, :!, ~!, : ~ ~ ~, : :l! ~ I ~ ~ Dranage Board should be met equally by the catchment and the Exchequer. The greater part of the contrbuton from the catchment should be met by those parts where there was a 'need to dran as well as get rd of floodwater'. Rather than the Board tself collectng the moneys, t should precept the greater part from the catchment through the nternal dranage bodes. Ms a new prncple, the remander should be rased on the local authortes. Those county councls, and county borough councls, wth lands wthn the 'lowland' area should contrbute 6d. per acre per annum as an 'nsurance charge' aganst what mght otherwse be the heavy damage to publc health and property, and loss of rateable value, caused by extensve floodng. The charge should be mposed on ratepayers of the entre admnstratve area. The remanng ncome to the Board should be rased as 'a wayleave charge' on the remander of the catchment. It should be left to the relevant county councl, or county borough councl, to decde whether the charge of 2d. per acre per annum was confned to those ratepayers wthn the Ouse catchment, or spread over the entre admnstratve area. Although there was no exact precedent to such taxng of local government, the Commsson ponted out how a local act had made the whole of the county of Mddlesex lable to dranage rates. The Lancashre, Surrey and West Rdng of Yorkshre county councls were empowered to charge any costs ncurred by ther respectve dranage acts to county funds. The Commsson beleved the other half of the Board's costs should be pad by the Exchequer. Although 'a very drastc precedent', such 'a lberal measure' of Government assstance was 'strongly justfed'. An extensve area of fertle farmland was otherwse threatened wth catastrophc loss. The mprovement of the outfall was exceptonally dffcult. Wth ts other burdens, the dranage area was unable to meet so large a charge. The dranage works would materally assst the port of Kngs Lynn, and ther constructon help to allevate local unemployment. The Mnster, Walter Gunness, obtaned the Cabnet's approval, n March 1927, for a bll closely based on the Commsson's recommendatons. It was however gven such low prorty n the parlamentary tmetable that Gunness returned to the Cabnet, n May, warnng that, unless the bll was passed, the dstrct would return to 'the state of passve resstance'. Attenton was drawn to the devastatng floods recently experenced on the rver Msssspp n Amerca. The Prme Mnster, Stanley Baldwn, spoke of hs 'strong desre to press on wth the bll'. 20 It was a hybrd bll, n the sense that t was a government measure that antcpated expendture of Exchequer moneys, yet dealt so closely wth prvate nterests as to requre scrutny n the manner of a local or prvate bll. In movng the second readng n June 1927, Walter Gunness descrbed ts purpose as to mplement the 'very careful researches' of the Commsson. The fens lved under the shadow of what was n effect a great reservor of tdal water. Whlst t could easly be empted of water pumped from the fen, consderable mprovements were requred to cope wth the upland waters. There had been enormous development of land dranage n the 'uplands' snce the tme of Vermuyden. Macadam roads, housng estates and new towns had combned to send more water more rapdly down to the tdal channel. 2~ Such general observaton carred lttle weght wth Members whose consttuency nterests were affected. A Norfolk Member, Major Alan McLean, ponted to 'the very remarkable fact' 20 PRO, CAB 23/54-5, CAB 24/187, and CAB 26/9; P. Da- 21 PD, Commons, 207, 12o9-86. nel, Deep'n as t come; The 1927 Msssspp flood (1977). I~ F

ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND :/! / / z61 l that the Bll had unted n opposton the ratepayers of the 'lowlands', the 'uplands' and those of the other catchments of countes that ncluded part of the Ouse watershed wthn ther borders. Norfolk was partcularly affected. The Member for South Norfolk protested at how hs consttuents would gan nothng drectly from the mprovement works on the Ouse. The Member for East Norfolk clamed hs consttuents already had expense enough n protectng themselves from floodng caused by the rvers Bure, Yare and Wensum. Such local crtcsm hghlghted a more general grevance. Whlst the 'expert' Commsson had acknowledged the much wder mplcatons of ts 'very drastc recommendatons', the Government had accepted them for only the Ouse catchment. It had apponted a Royal Commsson on Land Dranage to go nto the wder queston. The Bll's crtcs argued, therefore, that the more prudent course was to wat untl the Royal Commsson had reported. Gunness emphaszed, however, the unqueness of the crcumstances that gave rse to the Ouse Dranage Bll. The Governmem had no ntenton of offerng the same level of Exchequer ad to other catchments. The Bll's rejecton would mean those n the Ouse catchment would have to meet a much larger proporton, f not the full cost, of any future scheme. The effect of the bll's beng gven a second readng, by a majorty of 143 to 45 votes, was for t to be referred to a jont commttee of both Houses of Parlament. 'Upland' nterests spared no effort n pressng, through legal counsel, ther opposton. As the Clerk to the Hertfordshre Councl expressed t, anyextenson of the lablty for meetng the cost of downrver dranageworks would be 'a very serous thng' for hs county. Hertfordshre was 'so entrely an upland county' as to form part of 'several very large rvers'. The Jont Commttee resolved, n November 19z7, by a majorty of 5 to 3 members that the Bll should not proceed. Although the Lord Charman followed the custom of not gvng reasons, t was assumed the majorty thought such a far-reachng decson must awat the fndngs of the Royal Commsson. 22 By a further Provsonal Order Confrmaton Act (18 & 19 George V, c. XXlII), the suspensory perod was agan extended untl 'a day to be decded by the Mnster'. 23 l 2,! IV A fourth stage had been reached. Parlament had rejected a catchment-by-catchment approach for one that establshed a statutory framework for the whole country. The Mnstry was well prepared, n the sense that concurrently wth the promoton of the Ouse Bll, t had set n tran a revew of the arteral-dranage needs of the whole country. In movng the Second Readng of 'the small County Councls Dranage Bll' of 19z6, the Parlamentary Secretary, Lord Bledsloe, had announced the Government's ntenton of ntroducng a Bll for 'the wholesale amendment of the exstng law relatng to land dranage', based on the fndngs of the Ouse Commsson.2,, A large landowner and Unonst Member of Parlament, Lord Bledsloe had acted as the House of Commons' spokesman for the Food Controller durng the Great War, and thereafter Charman of the Lawes Agrcultural Trust. 25 As he wrote to the Mnster, n December 1924, 22 Bedfordshre RO, GPD 6; PP, 19z7 VI, Report of the 23 PD, Lords, 71, 457-8. ]ont Select Commttee, Ouse Dranage Bll; Roseveare,,_4 PD, Lords, 63, 368-9. Transactons, p. 181.,.5 E. J. Russell, 'Obtuary', IRASE 119 (1958), pp. 57-9. I I

262 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ~!! ~ ]I:: : ~ :~ [,!~ : 'C. ~ ~ ' F!, ~ ~? :! ~I~ f?:!'~ 'l :'~ l,~l J:: soon after hs appontment as Parlamentary Secretary, land dranage had become the most mportant problem awatng Mnstry nterventon. A Bll enacted by a Conservatve Government would be far less contentous than one ntroduced by 'any Government of a dfferent poltcal complexon'. ~6 And n a further commentary of September 1925, Bledsloe empha}zed how t would be easer to justfy fnancal assstance to arteral dranage than for any Other 'drect beneft to Brtsh agrculture'. Where mnor schemes mght be seen as subsdsng certan landowners, and feld dranage was entrely a matter for landlords and tenants, a bll to expedte arteral dranage could be represented as enforcng the 'neghbourlness' requred of every landowner n the executon of, such large-scale mprovement-works. 27 As drafted under Dobson's supervson, the bll envsaged the dranage bodes beng gven much greater permssve powers. They mght seek, through Provsonal Order procedures, a wder defnton of the 'area to beneft' and, therefore, a larger rateable-ncome. And secondly, such revenue would be more smply collected through the approprate local authorty. The Mnstry's Legal Advser, C. H. Stocks, protested that such permssve powers, whlst obvously desrable, hardly amounted to 'a real attempt to deal wth a long felt need'. Dobson agreed, but hestated to recommend any compulsory extenson of ratng provson untl t was known whether mnsters were prepared to launch nto 'a bll of frst-class magntude'. As Stocks hmself conceded, there was no legslatve subject better calculated to produce 'opposton and crtcsm from every avalable quarter of those who own or are nterested n land'. The draft Bll mght well have been shelved, but for the pressure Lord Bledsloe contnued to apply. 28 The report of the Ouse Commsson both confrmed the need for a general b~ and yet demanded somethng more by way of evdence. As Stocks mnuted, t was very doubtful whether such an enqury would carry suffcent weght, dealng only wth 'one small quarter of England' - albet one that loomed so large n dranage mnds. The backng of 'a really strong' Royal Commsson was needed. The Permanent Secretary, Sr Francs Floud, agreed that a Royal Commsson would be the most effectve method of creatng the publc opnon needed for such drastc reform. Whlst not dssentng, Dobson warned of how the Bll would be even more delayed. Lord Bledsloe dsagreed. Wth the Ouse Commsson's report to hand, ts nvestgatons should soon be completed. Walter Gunness persuaded the Prme Mnster, Stanley Baldwn; of the need for a Commsson. 29 The Cabnet approved ts appontment n February 1927, wth Lord Bledsloe as Charman. Members were otherwse chosen not so much to reflect dranage nterests as to nclude 'a sprnklng of really promnent men, who wll gve confdence to the publc mnd'. Dobson felt 'very strongly' that the choce should be so framed as to ensure a verdct favourable to 'the watershed prncple'. Leopold Harvey was a member of both the Ouse Commsson and the new body, gvng evdence to the latter n a personal capacty. The twelve members otherwse ncluded Sr George Courthope, a leadng agrculturalst and Unonst MP, Rowland R. Robbns, a past-presdent of the Natonal Farmers' Unon, and Walter R. Smth, the Parlamentary Secretary to the Mnstry of Agrculture n the Labour Government of 1924. Lord Clnton was 26 PRO, MAF 491764. 27 Cambrdge Unversty Lbrary (hereafter CUL), Baldwn MSS, 25. 28 PRO, MAF 49/817. z~ PRO, MAP 491817. -; I,,;! ~ I!!ll!~ I

/ :! ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND / 263 Charman of the Forestry Commsson. Sr George H. Etherton was Clerk to the Lancashre County Councl and of the Lancashre Rvers Board, and Sr ]oseph Prestley was a member of the Hertfordshre County Councl. John W. Hlls, the Unonst MP and Fnancal Secretary to the Treasury n 1922-23, had recently publshed a book on government fnance. 3 The Royal Commsson worked wth 'thoroughness and despatch', takng nne months to produce ts report. As antcpated, t panted 'a vvd pcture' of a tangle of no fewer than 361 dfferent authortes, wth antquated powers and nadequate resources. One-seventh of lowland England and Wales was nadequately draned, or waterlogged. It recommended that the whole of each rver basn should be brought under 'a supreme authorty', a new Catchment Area Authorty composed manly of representatves of the county and country borough councls, The ncome provded by those councls would be rased as part of the general county rate - the 'uplands' payng a lower rate. The Catchment Authorty would have drect-charge of the man channels and banks, and general oversght of the exstng nternal dranage authortes, whch should contnue to functon on the prncple of beneft and escapement from danger. 3' The Mnster, Walter Gunness, appled, as was 'the usual custom', for Treasury approval for the crculaton of a Cabnet paper, recommendng the draftng of a Land Dranage Bll based on the Commsson's fndngs. Although acknowledgng they must be examned, Treasury offcals mnuted how such proposals came at 'an awkward moment'. Not only dd they seek to establsh new authortes and extend ratng provson, at a tme of major upheaval n local government, but opponents would certanly demand the whole, or a large part, of the burden beng placed on the Exchequer. Although the Treasury must contnue to put up 'a stff fght', ts poston had been much weakened by the grant ad provded under the unemployment-relef schemes. The 1 mllon agrcultural-dranage fund had further whetted the appettes of local dranage boards. Its justfcaton, on the grounds that 'the cost of the necessary works s greater than the land can bear', had set a very dangerous precedent. Whlst approvng the costs of the preparatory survey work for any bll, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Wnston Churchll, nssted (and Gunness conceded), n June 1928, that there must be further 'very careful consderaton before the Government commt themselves even n prncple to any such far reachng scheme'.32 Although Lord Bledsloe resgned offce n February 1928 (to become founder-charman of the Imperal Grassland Assocaton), he contnued, as a constructve crtc, to sustan the poltcal momentum. In movng an adjournment debate a year later, n February 1929, he focused partcularly on the wastage of nvestment n the 'patchy, sporadc and solated attempts to mprove dranage condtons' (usually as part of unemployment relef schemes), wthout the State havng frst prepared the way wth arteral schemes. As the Earl De la Warr (the Opposton Spokesman) expressed t, only the State could provde the requste funds and 'drectng ntellgence', whereby the soluton of one problem helped resolve another. Not only mght unemployed mners and others be gven work, but ther sklls were so hghly suted to such arteral-dranage schemes. The bref debate (there were only three speakers) provded the most publc platform for the Parlamentary Secretary, the Earl of Stradbroke, to refute any suggeston 30 ]. W. Hlls, The Fnance of Governm'ent (1925). 31 See n. 6 above. 32 PRO, T 161/483

- a 264 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW ~. r, I of the Commsson's fndngs beng pgeon-holed. They were beng actvely developed. Prelmnary and hghly-specalst work was proceedng n delmtng the catchment areas. Where the Commsson had dentfed a hundred catchments, the Mnstry beleved some twenty of the most major and 'urgent' areas must be surveyed and dentfed as part of the legslaton.{ 3 Perhaps most decsvely, there was strong party-poltcal support. 'No speces of work' was perceved as 'more valuable for the countrysde'. The Unonst's Agrcultural Commttee urged the Prme Mnster, n March 1929, to combne land dranage, land settlement and unemployment as 'a really bg tem n a polcy whch would appeal to the towns as well as the country'. The extreme unpopularty of an 'uplands' rate could be avoded f each catchment receved an Exchequer grant. Not only would that be justfed, f the whole country were admnstered on the bass of catchment areas, but the Boards would be better able to plan, wthout watng for the collecton of contentous rates. 34 The Conservatve Manfesto, for the General Electon of May 19~9, promsed that, f re-elected, a Bll would be ntroduced. : I~!! ' V In the event, t was Noel Buxton, as the Mnster of Agrculture n the new Labour Government, who mpressed upon the Cabnet, n July 1929, 'the utmost mportance of a bll', both on agrcultural and poltcal grounds. The waterlogged condtons of much of the countrysde were a serous handcap to effcent farmng. Dranage work provded the chef agrcultural contrbuton to the relef of unemployment. The Royal Commsson had emphaszed how a drastc revson of the law must precede further dranage development: The Earl De La Warr moved the Second Readng n the House of Lords n Aprl 193o, descrbng t as an enablng measure 'Bll of machnery and of preparaton for work to come'. 36 The Bll provded ntally for 47 Catchment Boards, ncludng what became known as the Bedfordshre Ouse Catchment Board. Each was to comprse up to 32 members, of whom two-thrds would represent the relevant county councls and county borough councls. Besdes one member representng hmself, the Mnster was to appont the remander as representatves of the lands that would drectly beneft from the dranage works. The ndvdual Boards would be responsble for the works requred on the 'man rvers'. As well as general oversght of the schemes undertaken by other partes, the Catchment Boards would have powers to grant ad, 'modernse' and establsh new nternal dranage boards so as to cover n tme the whole of the 'lowland' areas? 7 Complcaton arose from the decson made by the prevous Government, under the Local Government Act of 1929, to exempt agrcultural land and farm buldngs from the payment of local-authorty rates. The effect was to create, under the Royal Commsson's proposals, the anomalous stuaton whereby farmng, the prncpal benefcary of mproved dranage, escaped any lablty for ts costs. At Buxton's suggeston, the Cabnet sought the advce of an ad hoc commttee of offcals from the Treasury, Mnstry of Health and hs own department. It concluded that no dfference n prncple exsted between other local government 'servce' rates 33 PD, Lords, 72, 881--904-34 CUL, Baldwn MSS, 25. 3s PRO, CAB 24/205 and CAB 23/61. 36 PD, Lords, 77, 67-1o6. 37 PRO, CAB z6/13 and CAB 23/63. /

! ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND / 265 and the general dranage charge that was to be mposed by the Catchment Boards on the local authortes of the whole catchment area. So as to secure some agrcultural contrbuton, the nter-departmental commttee recommended that a precept should be rased addtonally on the nternal dranage boards (IDBs) as a 'beneft' rate of such lowland areas. The Cabnet approved such a compromse. 3s The Treasury had recognzed the whole noton of grant ad would have to be reconsdered. Wth 'no stable and normal bass of Catchment Area control' prevous arrangements had been necessarly ad hoc. Offcals refused however to ndcate the scale and nature of any future Treasury support. The Mnstry accepted such vagueness as an nevtable condffon of ts approval for the Bll. A deputaton from the County Councls Assocaton, n March 1930, warned however that ts support depended on such expendture as rased from local authortes beng counted as a new servce under the Local Government Act, and therefore qualfyng for grant ad. Dobson reported how the Mnster, havng read all the papers on the subject, was convnced the Bll must explctly offer such fnancal assstance. As Treasury offcals acknowledged, the Assocaton mght easly defeat such a contentous measure. 39 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Phlp Snowden, agreed to the general prncple that 'the State was prepared to contrbute to the captal cost of gettng the land dranage system of the country nto decent order', but he emphaszed t was no part of the State's busness, once acheved, to support ts upkeep and repar any more than to provde grant ad for other such local servces as the dranage of urban areas. Approval was gven for the Earl De La Warr to gve 'a cautously worded promse' durng the Lords' Second Readng. Treasury offcals were furous however when he departed from ther bref, under close questonng, and vrtually commtted the Government to tablng a fnance clause n the Lords. Not only dd ths show sngular dsregard for the House of Commons' prvleges, but t gave crtcs ample tme to prepare for the Fnancal Resoluton n the Commons. There was however no mstakng the hostlty of both Houses of Parlament to the 'great powers beng gven to Mnsters' and the mposton of 'serous labltes on landowners and ratepayers'. 40 Wthout an explct commtment n the Bll to the Government meetng a large part of the costs of carryng out the ntended dranage-works, there was a real possblty of ts beng defeated on ts Thrd Readng n the Lords. A Lords' Moton appled further pressure, demandng publcaton of the detals of the Exchequer grant-ad, before the Lords' Commttee Stage. Whlst Snowden protested that 'Exchequer money spent on dranage s a sheer gft to the landowners', the Cabnet saw no alternatve but for the Lord De La Warr readng out the text of the fnancal clause whch would be moved durng ts passage through the Commons. It ndcated the mnster mght, out of moneys provded by Parlament, make grants towards expendture ncurred by Catchment Boards under the Act, n the mprovement of exstng works or the constructon of new works of such amounts as the Treasury may from tme to tme sancton. Dobson regarded the ncluson of 'the mprovement of exstng works' as a sgnal achevement 3s PRO, CAB 24/207 and CAB 23/62. : 39 PRO, T 161/483. 40 PRO, T 161/483; PD, Lords, 77, 82-3.

266 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW. ~ ~!:!! ~/'~ [rt!~ ' l.! ':" I:l, ~1~. I n the Mnstry's negotaton wth the Treasury. More mmedately, the clause proved suffcent to satsfy crtcs, yet elastc enough for account to be taken of the volume of work and rateable ncome of the ndvdual Catchment Board n decdng the level of ad the mnster mght award.41 Chrstopher Addson (who had succeeded Buxton as Mnster of Agrculture) moved the Second Readng of the Bll n the House of Commons n June 193o. Almost every contrbutor to the debate remarked on how t was one of those very rare occasons, when the frontbench spokesmen of all three poltcal partes supported a major Bll. As Gunness noted ruefully, the Labour Opposton to hs earler Ouse Dranage Bll had argued that such large-scale Exchequer support should only be gven where the land was taken nto publc ownershp. That pre-requste was now forgotten as those the very same persons also strove to transfer the 'crushng burden', carred by a comparatvely few ratepayers, to the 'broader shoulders' of the whole catchment and the State. But f land natonalsaton was quetly 'bured', a small number of backbench Conservatve Members showed ther 'outrght hostlty' to the bll. Captan R. C. Bourne, the rfember for Oxford, moved a 'wreckng' Moton', argung that farmng was smply not worth the 30-4o mllon of publc expendture, whch the Royal Commsson estmated would be ultmately necessary for dranage mprovement. In so far as the Government had money to spare for agrculture, t should be nvested n makng farmng proftable on the nherently better sols. 42 Buxton had warned the Cabnet of ferce crtcsm to the ratng provsons. The Royal Commsson had nssted the ambtous mprovement to the man channels could only proceed f the entre catchment was assumed to beneft. 4~ But as the Agrcultural Commttee of the Bedfordshre County Councl emphaszed t was also the very prncple upon whch the 'upland' countes had defeated the Ouse Dranage Bll. The Clerk to the Hertfordshre County Councl was confdent that they 'could agan wn n any Commttee Room'. But as he also noted, the prncple of the Land Dranage Bll, as an explctly Government-measure, would be debated and decded n 'the body of the House'. Ranged aganst the Government Whps, the 'upland' countes were bound to lose. The Clerk to the Bedfordshre County Councl accordngly pressed for a compromse, whereby each county would reman 'the responsble Dranage Authorty', but wth 'the Mnstry of Agrculture beng clothed wth sutable default powers'. 44 It was a compromse developed by the Member for Bedford, n secondng the hostle moton. As the dranage authortes responsble for ther respectve admnstratve areas, the county councls should be encouraged to form groupngs to address the needs of the ndvdual catchments. 45 As antcpated, the Government obtaned the Commons' approval for the prncple of the bll. The backbench moton was outmanoeuvred. As one Member put t, the bll had both an agrcultural and socal aspect. It promsed to provde employment through dranage works for many of hs consttuents thrown out of 'blast-furnace work'. Although a former Conservatve mnster, Col. G. R. Lane Fox, complaned of how the Lberal Party had, through Davd Lloyd George, especally 'blown up' the employment opportuntes, the Bll was essentally what the prevous Conservatve Government would have promoted. It had placated the exstng dranage 41 PRO, T 1611483; PD, Lords, 77, 330-6, Commons, 240, 43 PRO, CAB 26/13; CAB 23/63. 999-1ooo and 1515-48. 44 Bedfordshre RO, GPD 6. 42 Ibd., 240, 993-1o34. 45 PD, Commons, 24o, lo34-9. I

ARTERIAL DRAINAGE IN INTER-WAR ENGLAND./ /! 267 boards by ntegratng them nto the larger scheme of thngs. 46 Indeed, sorte of the most relevant and powerful argument n favour of the Bll came from Opposton Spokesmen. Sr George Courthope had been a member of the Royal Commsson. He spoke of how, n the same way as the householder expected to contrbute to the costs of the sewers that carred away the scullery waste and bathwater, so every part of a rver catchment should accept some lablty for arteral dranage. There was, as Alan Wlt has observed n a wder context, recognton of how 'the country landscape' was changng unmstakably. 47 In wndng up for the Opposton, Vscount Wolmer attacked the backbench moton of Members of hs own Party for gnorng the urban mpact on the countrysde. The Moton had faled to recognze how dranage costs arose not so much from farmng needs as from the physcal consequences of 'our great towns'. Although the concept of 'a natural prescrptve rght' mght stll pertan, say to the dranageofan upland moor, the dscharge from a comparable area of buldngs and waterproof streets had a very dfferent effect. Not only was t consderably accelerated, but the transfer of mllons of gallons of water, from such catchments as those of Wales and the Lake Dstrct meant the volume of some of the rvers dranng the ctes and towns had ncreased by as much as fve to sx tmes. 48 Where t mght seem most equtable for the payment of dranage rates to be based on acreage, so as to reflect the volume of ranfall, Courthope beleved the Royal Commsson had correctly pressed for the annual value of property, as a better gude to the enormous nfluence now exerted by such bult-up areas on the dscharge to the rvers. 49 The Bll was gven a Second Readng wthout dvson. VI The Bll receved the Royal Assent n August 193o (2o & 21 George V, c. 44). Wth that ffth stage n the dranage-reform process, farmers had moved from a poston where those drectly to beneft from a scheme met the full cost, to one where the ndustry bore only a small proporton of the nvestment n arteral dranage. Over the frst fve years, 1931-35, local authortes provded some three-quarters of the ncome of the Catchment Boards. The nternal dranage dstrcts contrbuted 16 per cent and the Exchequer most of the remander, s0 Such an mbalance made re-organsaton and extenson of the dranage dstrcts even more pressng. A much-cted case was that of the Wtham and Steepng rvers catchment area of Lncolnshre. Forty-seven exstng bodes coverng 238,893 acres were replaced by 7 nternal dranage boards that together had jursdcton over an addtonal 93,572 acres. The Medway Catchment Board of Kent most famously sought, at a 3-day Publc Inqury n March 1933, to nclude every acre of land that could concevably be brought wthn an nternal dranage dstrct. It ncluded both urban and rural land up to 8 feet above the hghest known flood-level n both non-tdal and tdal areas. Offcals obtaned the personal authorty of the Mnster for both draftng and wdely-publcsng what became known as 'the Medway Letter', that explaned why 46 Ibd., 240, lo39-45. 47 A. Wlt, Food for war. Agrculture and rearmament n Brtan before the Second Word War (2ool), pp. 156-7. 48 PD, Commons, 240, loo3-1o and lo92-7. 49 Ibd., 240, aoo8 and lo9z-7. so Mnstry of Agrculture, Report of operatons and proceedngs under the Land Dranage Act 193o to 31 March 1937 (1937).

268 THE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY REVIEW the gudelnes adopted snce the 1918 Act must be followed. The lmt to ratng by nternal dranage boards n urban areas should be the hghest-known flood, or sprng tde, level. In rural areas, t was 8 feet above the hghest non-tdal flood, and 5 feet above the ordnary sprng tde - the dfference reflectng the slghter mpact of tdal floodng on the rootng-systems of farm crops. Whlst the Catchment Board had rghtly ponted to the benefts of protectng underground electrcty and other utltes, the 'Letter' descrbed how ths was 'a communty servce' for whch the Catchment Board already precepted through the local-anthorty rates. Feld trals carred out by the Rothamsted Expermental Staton subsequently demonstrated how the prescrbed agrcultural lmts were 'far and reasonable'. ~t As the nternatonal stuaton deterorated, and the strategc mportance of home-grown foodstocks was agan recognzed, opposton to such mnsteral nterventon further weakened. The dranage provsons of the Agrculture Act of 1937 (1 Edward VIII & 1 George VI, c. 70) marked perhaps a sxth stage of mprovement. Grant ad could be pad to both nternal dranage boards and county councls for mprovements to the lesser streams, drans and watercourses. Although pressed durng the Second Readng debate to ndude the 'overhaulng and relayng' of feld-drans and dtchng-work on ndvdual farms, the Parlamentary Secretary argued t would be premature untl such 'mddle schemes' were functonal, s2 Whlst Members suspected the 'nggardlness' of the Treasury, offcals of the Mnstry's Land Dranage Branch became ncreasngly concerned at the poor response to the grant ad already offered, namely of 33 per cent for 'the ordnary work of dranage' and 50 per cent for such constructonal works as a pumpng staton, sluce gates or sea walls. The 213 schemes undertaken n the frst operatve year of the Act, at an aggregate cost of 194,636, made a ptfully small mpact. Only 63, costng as lttle as 8,929, were promoted by the county councls. As one frustrated Mnstry offcal protested, n October 1938, the Government was enttled, when grants were offered, 'to expect the co-operaton of local authortes n seeng that the facltes offered are taken advantage of'.53 More fundamentally, such a shortfall n actvty hghlghted an anxety voced n the parlamentary debates, namely that the 'cart' was beng put before the 'horse'. The farmng ndustry was too mpovershed to take advantage of such admnstratve and fnancal ad. The Land Dranage Branch had argued, durng the draftng of the 1937 Bll, that land dranage, as 'the prmary servce' n many dstrcts, should take prorty n ts labour requrements over 'normal agrcultural operatons'. The Mnstry's Labour Branch was, however, so anxous as to the competton for labour, as would come from the hgher wages pad for dranage work, that t succeeded n confnng grant ad to 'the wnter nterregnum', when such work mght help tde over those seasonally stood down on the farms. The grant ad pad, say n sugar-beet dstrcts, was delayed untl Chrstmas, the worst possble tme of the year for dranage-work. The compromse, as eventually approved by the Mnster n November 1938, was to lmt such restrctons to manual dggng. A sklled excavator drver and hs mate, or those employed on structural work, were hardly agrcultural labourers. 54 5~ Mnstry of Agrculture, Ibd., pp. 69-72; PRO, MAF 49, 18z; B, A. Keen, 'Land dranage: the area of beneft', J. Mnstry of Agrculture 43 (1936), pp. 521-6. 52 PD, Lords, lo6, 677-736. 53 PRO, MAF 49/836. 54 PRO, MAF 49/836-7. ~! I ~1{',, ll