§ 41. Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to an action in the High Court of Lord Mowbray v. the Attorney-General, in which Form V. was declared to be illegal and counsel representing the Attorney-General was not even in a position to argue that it was legal; and whether, in view of successive declarations in the High Court that Forms IV., VIII., and V., respectively, were illegal, he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps or give any instructions to prevent his Department from issuing any more illegal forms and threatening His Majesty's subjects with penalties to which they are not liable?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy attention has been drawn to the action in question, which was in respect of a form the use of which has been discontinued for some time. The Department concerned fully realises the importance of issuing only such forms as are in conformity with the law, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
§ Mr. CASSELIn view of the fact that three forms, one of which was issued to millions of His Majesty's subjects, have in succession been declared by the Courts to be illegal, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary to take some precautions?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman is absolutely inaccurate. They have not been declared to be illegal; 237 on the contrary, it was purely a question in one case of the date of the issue of the form.
§ Mr. CASSELIs the right hon. Gentleman aware—I know because I was engaged as counsel—Form IV. was declared to be unauthorised in every case where the person was both the occupier and the owner?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. and learned Gentleman may have been counsel in the case, but I was a party to the case. Therefore I know something about it, and I still say it was not declared to be illegal. It was mainly a question as to the date at which it was issued.
§ Mr. KINGIs it not a fact that whether they are legal or not they have brought in A great deal of interesting information?