LAND TENURE (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY). (Hansard, 15 October 1912)

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
In answer to certain questions which I submitted to him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conveyed to me the information that he has appointed a Committee to obtain for him and for the Cabinet records as to actual conditions of land and labour in Great Britain, and apparently local secretaries- 1189 were chosen in connection with it. I am not here this evening to complain of the appointment of the Committee. I did ask for the names, and at some subsequent date I daresay some information may be given. But that Committee has issued a series of questions—a document running into about thirty-two pages—an epitome of which appeared in the "Times" of 23rd September. These questions are sent to various people with a request that the answer shall be filled in and that they shall be returned to the local secretary— I suppose to go before the local committee and then before the general committee, and then probably before the Cabinet. My request is that before the answers to these questions are submitted by the local secretary to the local committee or any other body, they shall be shown to the landlord whose property is referred to in them, so that he may, if he thinks fit, write any notice on them or put his version, if necessary, at the back. I think I can, in a moment, satisfy any fair-minded man that I am only asking what is fair. Some of these questions—they are long ones—could clearly be more easily and more correctly answered by the landlord than by anybody else, and at any rate they deal with points of which it is only fair that the landlord's version should be put before the Committee.
We are told in the beginning of the document that it is only desired to obtain information of the fairest description, and indeed there is a note warning people against the danger of party bias and so forth, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only anxious to obtain information of the most reliable sort when such a question as this is put— Do the landlords in your district take an active interest in the social welfare of the district—if so, give particulars? Is it not possible that the informant, however intelligent, might not be aware of some of the items a landlord takes an interest in, and would it not be natural that the landlord should desire to make some addition to the list? Again, in reply to the question— How do the assessments of the large houses in your neighbourhood compare? might not the figures be given incorrectly, and who could better correct them than the landlord? Again, there is a question about the management of land— How do college authorities, Church authorities, and those responsible for the management of Crown Lands compare with private owners in this matter? Might it not be desirable, for instance, for the college authorities to put forward 1190 some reply to the criticisms passed on them? In answering such questions, people with the best intentions might make inaccuracies even through ignorance, and one or two cases have come to my knowledge of mistakes certainly due to ignorance. And I must tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in this wicked world, people are sometimes actuated by spite in answering questions. In such a case as that it would be desirable and fair that the landlord should see the statement made against him, and that he should have an opportunity of answering it himself, in writing, to the same tribunal. I put that forward as being of the greatest advantage to the people who are seeking the information. If they genuinely want the best information, surely it would be better than having ex parte, uncontradicted statements by unknown people, to have these statements checked and answered by the landlord whose estate is under criticism. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells me—I do not think he will —that that might allow these patriots who have answered these questions to have actions for libel brought against them, I need hardly remind the House that in the case of the statements being proved to be true that would be a good defence. I can imagine him saying, fairly enough, that they should not have actions brought against them if he allows the landlords to see these documents, and I should have no objection to his obtaining an undertaking from the landlords that no proceedings for libel should be taken upon them, if the writer wishes protection upon that particular matter.
I have appealed so far simply to the desirability of the Cabinet and this Committee, whoever they may be—at present I do not know their names—getting accurate instead of inaccurate information; but I could, if I liked, and I should be fully entitled to do it, make an appeal to this House for common justice, even to landlords, and to say that it is absolutely un-English and unfair to allow people in a district to write statements which may reflect very strongly against a landlord who may have been there for years, and whose ancestors may have been there for years, enjoying their property, and who may feel very deeply as to the duty that lies upon them to manage their estates properly. It is a scandalous thing that rumours of that kind should be allowed to be circulated in the neighbourhood, rumours which must influence the local committee or 1191 the local people before whom they come, and, lastly, may possibly influence people who are strangers to them, in London. I will content myself by reminding the House of the far more eloquent appeal made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, the Postmaster-General, and the Attorney-General last Friday, when they denounced, and rightly, in no measured terms, those who set about rumours which were passed, I think the expression was, from foul mouth to foul mouth without the knowledge of the people who were attacked. I was in sympathy with that appeal, though in their case the attack had been made by a man who signed his name, and who was a Member of this House. In this case the landlord will not know who has made the attack. He will have no opportunity of seeing it, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer yields to my plea this evening, which I submit is a fair one, that the landlord should have fair play, and should be entitled to see these documents and answer them if he can. If he cannot, let him take the consequences.

§ Mr. MILDMAY
I wish to say a word or two because my case is a case in point. My home is situated in the middle of my constituency of South Devon, and lately in that constituency a gentleman has made a political tour who has said everywhere round about that he is employed in collecting agricultural facts for transmission to the right hon. Gentleman's commission. I shall say nothing but what is courteous of that gentleman who, of course, is doing his duty according to his own lights. He has held a number of meetings in the course of which he has made a series of attacks on the management of my estate. He has told his hearers that for the purpose of ministering to my own pleasures I deliberately prevent the full production from my estate, and because I put my own pleasure first, to use his own words, there is not that full production from the estate that there ought to be. But it is not only a question of myself. He has made accusations against my tenants. He has charged them with understocking the land and with faulty farming, and so on, and he has, I am bound to say, in the course of his speeches shown, to put it mildly, such misapprehension of the real circumstances, and I hope I may say without offence, such unfathomable ignorance of agricultural conditions that, greatly as I dislike to write of personal matters in 1192 the Press, I felt it my duty to my tenants no less than to myself, to write to the local papers and to explain wherein this gentleman has over and over again erred. I shall be pleased to supply the Chancellor of the Exchequer with that letter, and also of the reply of my opponent, and I am quite sure he will agree with me that that reply requires no rejoinder from me, and that I can leave it to speak for itself. But my point is this. This Gentleman was unwise enough to speak on public platforms about the knowledge that he acquired. I have the opportunity of knowing the sort of stuff which would be sent up to London. I had an opportunity of defending myself, but let us not forget that nine-tenths of these secret commissioners will do their work silently. They will hold their tongues, and landlords in general whose methods have been traduced will not have any opportunity of defending themselves, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that is right and just.
Only one more point. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all who sit on that side of the House are honestly seeking to promote the welfare and brighten the lives of those who get their living from the land. But let me say in all seriousness that many of us on this side of the House are appalled at the danger of basing legislation which, for good or evil, will have a lasting effect upon the agricultural future of this country, upon so-called "facts" supplied by gentlemen who are wholly ignorant of agricultural conditions—upon "facts," that we shall never be able to call into question.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)
If I may reply, first, to the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Mild-may), I have received no communication that I am aware of from Mr. Dunstan, and therefore I know nothing of the charges to which he refers. But what I understand, so far as he is concerned, is that whatever charges he has made, he has made in public. I know nothing as to the character of those charges, and I am prepared to accept, as anyone in this House would, any statement made by the hon. Gentleman from his own knowledge. Therefore, I have not a word to say about that. All I know at present is that I have received no communication of any sort or kind from Mr. Dunstan. I think the House would like to know what answer 1193 I have to make to the speech, but since this question has been mentioned I cannot understand how he could have been led in connection with any inquiry we instituted to make an attack upon a political opponent. As to the character of the inquiry, it is not into the management of individual estates. Eeally, I thought I had made that clear once, twice, or three times. It is not an inquiry into the conduct of individual landlords or individual estates. We have never encouraged that. It is an inquiry into conditions in particular districts. It is such an inquiry as has been conducted by hon. Gentlemen themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "By people who understand and openly."] If I may say so, that is raising a different issue from the one I challenge, as the hon. Member would be the first to admit. The issue upon which I am challenged is that there have been attacks upon individual landlords without the opportunity—

§ Mr. MILDMAY
I do not want to do an injustice to this gentleman, who has treated me courteously. I think his attacks have been not upon me personally, but upon my management of my property. My complaint is that, so far as I can see, other landlords will have no opportunity of replying to similar attacks upon their property, because they will be made in secret.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
I am passing from the attack made by the hon. Gentleman to the general question. I say that we are not sending out secret commissions. The whole of this has been published. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was quoting from a document that appeared in extensor in the "Times." [HON. MEMBER: "Not sent by you," and "Marked private."] I agree, but the whole of it has been published. What I want to point out is this: I expected to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman some quotation from that document which is public now, which would indicate that there was any attack upon individual landlords sought for. Why did the hon and learned Gentleman quote it? Hon. Members opposite have been making inquiries into housing. I cannot imagine that their information would be obtained without instituting inquiries. They must have sent down to the constituencies and elsewhere to inquire into the condition of housing in these districts. Well, I might say, "Here is a report that some houses are unfit for habitation." Is not that an attack upon 1194 some individual? It is bound to be an attack on some landlord. That is a private inquiry. I am not complaining of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is no private inquiry."] I am really speaking within a time limit in reply to the questions which were put to me. What I want to point out is: whenever anybody in this House undertakes the promotion of any legislation, I do not care what it is, whether about rates, railway rates, or housing or wages, he is bound to institute inquiries which must be in their nature of a private character.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY
Why private?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Because that is the only way in which he can do it.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY
Star Chamber.

An HON. MEMBER
It has never been done before—a secret commission appointed.

§ Mr. MALCOLM
Lay it on the Table of this House.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Hon. Gentlemen are wasting their own time. If any hon. Gentleman inquires into the conditions of labour, or with regard to housing, or the conditions of the people at all in his own neighbourhood, is he going to sit down and say, "I am a commission; I will summon witnesses"?

§ Viscount HELMSLEY
rose— [Interruption.] Why, if the Government want to make an inquiry, cannot they do it either by means of a Departmental Committee or a Royal Commission, both of which courses are impossible for one single person?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If the Noble Lord had allowed me to go on I was going to deal with that very point.

§ Earl WINTERTON
Go on, Sir. [HON. MEMBER: "Order, Winterton."]

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
If I am not answering it is simply because I am not allowed to answer. When I am attempting to answer questions put to me courteously by two hon. Gentlemen, I am interrupted by twenty or thirty others, which are thoroughly irrelevant. I have told why, in the first instance, an inquiry of this kind must be in its character a private inquiry. I come to the other question asked by the hon. Gentleman, whether there is anything there which invites anybody to give answers attacking private landowners. 1195 [HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] I have asked the hon. Member to mention it. He has mentioned three, I will give one: "comparing the assessment of private houses with business houses." Is that an attack upon the character of a private landlord? It is too ridiculous for words. I am taking one of the questions which are mentioned. [An HON. MEMBER: "Take another."]

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
I mentioned the assessment for another point.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Cannot the hon. Gentleman see how thoroughly ridiculous it is? That was one. The hon. and learned Gentleman tells me he had another.

§ Mr. RAWLINSON
The one which I read was this: "Do the landlords in York take an active interest in the agricultural and social welfare of the people1? Give particulars."

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
To ask whether landowners in a given area take an interest in agriculture—that is an attack upon the private character of every landowner. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you ask?"] To take evidence. If I ask have they organised an agricultural society there—I can assure hon. Gentleman they may laugh—that is the sort of answer that is given to that question. I will give another question which is put by way of getting particulars: "Do they take an interest here in agricultural education?" 1196 Why do not hon. Members laugh at that? Landowners taking an interest in technical and agricultural education in a district is a matter of great laughter! That was the "slander." I have dealt with two out of the questions asked by the I hon. Member. [HON. MEMBER: "Oh, oh!" and an HON. MEMBER: "Will you publish the answers?"] Certainly. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"]

§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to I promise that the evidence and the names I of the witnesses will be published?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
Now I know what they want to get at.

§ Viscount HELMSLEY
Why do you not publish them?

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
They want to get the names of those who supply the information on wages, about the conditions of labour, about management, and about game.