§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill of three Clauses, dealing with the question of bringing up to date the administration of the Duchy of Lancaster in regard to the three points which are specified in the Bill. It is very long 144 time since the affairs of the administration of the Duchy have been embodied in any Act of Parliament, and the statutory powers of the Duchy for the investment of the funds that may come into their hands are governed by statutes themselves more than a century old. It is most desirable that the power of investment under the terms of the Trustee Act, 1893, should be given to them, instead of their being dependent on these old Acts, which give them no power of investment except in certain forms of annuity and the purchase of land. The second Clause deals with their right to grant mining leases. So far back as the first year of Queen Anne, the period specified in which they might make a lease of that description was 31 years, and for mining leases they are still held to that term. It is common knowledge among Members of this House that at the present day a term of that kind is practically useless, and that a term of 99 years, as is now proposed, will enable them to let mineral properties in a way that would be impossible for them to do if they were restricted under their present powers. The third Clause constitutes the Solicitor of the Dutchy a Corporation sole, in the same way that the Treasury Solicitor was so constituted in 1876. The reason for that, I think, will be apparent. In matters such as dealing with intestate property, with which the Solicitor has to deal, it is a matter of great inconvenience when, on his death or retirement, the estates have to be transferred into the hands of his successor. It means delay in the various processes, and it means expense to the estates. It would be merely giving the Duchy a method of administering that part of their work which is very much more up-to-date than the one they enjoy at present. That is the whole of the Bill. The Bill has been before the House of Lords, and has come down to us from them, and I am very anxious that the House should pass this Bill into law at as early a date as possible, so that the business affairs of the Duchy may not be hampered by being worked on an out-of-date system.
§ Mr. CLYNESI do not rise in any way to object to the Bill, or to stand in the way of its provisions becoming law, but, on the Second Reading of the Bill, a great margin is usually allowed for the purpose of raising matters relating to the particular Department of State to 145 which the Bill refers. I am wondering whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, think this the proper place for me to address a few observations with regard to the functions of the Chancellor of the Duchy with reference to the appointment of magistrates in the county of Lancaster. Should there be no objection from the Chair, I would like to address a few observations to my right hon. Friend on that point. We have felt on this side of the House, for a considerable time, a real sense of grievance with regard to the conduct of the Chancellor of the Duchy with reference to these appointments. I do not mean with regard to the present occupant of the office, or to any particular Chancellor who has preceded. I am referring rather to a tradition, to a general practice, than to the manner in which any individual occupant of the office has discharged his duties. The fact of the matter is that until quite recent years appointments as magistrates in the different counties and boroughs were of a distinctly partisan or political character. It is well known that, in turn, Liberal and Conservative Governments made appointments on the recommendations of party agents, and that only those who rendered certain particular political or party services were in turn appointed to these positions.
That, I say, was the general rule. A general rule always admits of a few exceptions, and we know a few exceptions occurred. In more recent years that practice has been criticised, and has been modified. A Commission was appointed some years ago to consider this matter, and, in the main, made two recommendations. One was that it was desirable to recruit a much larger number of magistrates from the working-classes, and to make appointments which would be more representative of the general body of the citizens in these different towns. The other was that the appointments, on the whole, be made on the recommendation of a Committee, and that that Committee should consist of persons acquainted with the local circumstances, for they would have knowledge of whom it was advisable to appoint to these positions. That Committee was to be called the Advisory Committee, and was to consist of representative persons drawn from the particular area. I think that the Commission recommended that Labour should be represented on this Advisory 146 Committee; so that the first complaint I want to offer is that steps have not been taken, through the Chancellor of the Duchy, to secure the representation suggested on these Advisory Committees. For it seems to me that in the main the appointments in the last few years have been made almost solely on the recommendations of the different Advisory Committees.
I admit that some improvement has been made in regard to these appointments, and that there is scarcely an occasion now on which appointments are made where some Labour representative is not found on the list. But there is at present a very much larger proportion that represents other activities, other organisations, other interests, and other classes; there is a much larger proportion of persons drawn from those quarters than the quarters which can be said to be representative of the mass of the people. I want to make it as plain as I can that I am not asking for ordinary-class representation for Labour—representation in the ordinary sense of the term. What I am asking for is that there should be a larger number of persons, men and women, drawn from the ranks of labour placed in these positions, because inevitably, from one cause or another, the duties performed from magisterial benches are performed mainly in relation to the working classes. I need not explain what is the cause of the offenders who come before the courts being mainly drawn from the working classes. That will be clear enough to every Member of the House. I suggest that the composition of the Benches should be such as to secure on each Bench, to begin with, the greatest possible sympathy with those who are brought before the Bench. In addition to the judicial mind, there should be general knowledge of the locality and the circumstances in which the offences are committed—of course, I am now referring to minor offences—with which these Benches have to deal. It is advisable in these days to look at these offences with sympathy in order that a greater wrong should not be caused by imposing excessive punishment in the case of any wrongdoer.
There are other duties besides these that I have enumerated. I may say I have personal experience of one or two constituencies in the county where con- 147 siderable inconvenience is caused to the mass of the people because of the absence of any magistrate residing in the locality, or approachable, and who can be got at by persons who have to get documents signed and declarations of various kinds filled in. This is all the more true following the War. Documents in connection with pensions, certificates, declarations of various sorts have to be signed by the magistrates. Rightly or wrongly, it is the fact that there are many members of the ordinary working classes who do not like to go to people except those of their own class. I know a particular constituency, indeed, in which there is no single resident magistrate of this particular class. It is not merely a hardship. It is a condition which gives rise to a real sense of injustice. I hope, therefore, that some step will be taken to cause a far larger preponderance than has yet occurred in the direction I have indicated.
It will not do—and this is my last point—when we see the addition to the Board of eight or ten new men merely to see only one or two Labour men. That still leaves the grievance there. It does not redress it, or produce anything like that evenness and balance which ought to be created as between the different classes, interests, and concerns in this matter, I do not make any complaint against the present Chancellor or his predecessors, but against what has been the custom, and is still the system. I hope, as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has given me the opportunity of making these observations, that they will be conveyed to the proper quarter in order that we may have the matter reasonably considered and the redress which is sought for conceded.
§ Mr. RAFFANI have no doubt the points which my right hon. Friend has just made will be conveyed to the Chancellor of the Duchy. I presume that is all he hopes for following his very interesting speech, and, after all, I think there is no Clause in the Bill which deals with that particular matter. I desire to ask for some information in regard to a Clause in the Bill which deals with the extension of the period of mining leases. As I understand it, at present a lease can only be granted for 31 years. The Bill gives power to the Duchy to extend that period to 99 years. I desire to ask whether the policy of the 148 Government in regard to the nationalisation of mining royalties has undergone any change, because if it is still the policy of the Government to introduce a Bill for the purpose of the nationalisation of mining royalties, I should have supposed that that measure would deal with the whole question, and would include in its scope the mines under the Duchy of Lancaster.
With regard to the particular provision in the Bill, I have no objection—quite the contrary—to the extended security being given to those who invest their capital and undertake great risks of its being lost in undertakings of the sort, the sinking of mines, and so on, increased security for a moderate period. With that I am in entire agreement. But I should like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when these leases are drawn up they should be drawn in such a way that the terms could be revised periodically. Confiscation of the capital after 31 years ought not in these days to be allowed by either the Duchy or any other owner of minerals. That is altogether oppressive. On the other hand, it may well be, when a lease is granted, that it is not fully realised that the benefit may be very much larger than had been originally supposed, and, therefore, I suggest that it is only right that the Crown should be able to revise its terms either by an increase of royalty or ground-rent, so that the full value of the minerals should accrue to the State. While I do not propose any Amendment to the Bill, or seek to tie the hands of the Duchy by putting any stipulation in this measure, I suggest that this is a matter of policy which ought to be kept in mind. If this additional security is given, it is all that can reasonably be expected, and the owner ought to give such period as may be determined, and there should be a revision of the terms frequently. There should be a periodical revision of the terms, and that is the suggestion which I make and which I hope will be kept in mind.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI am thoroughly in accord with this Bill, but I want to ask a question. I want to know who is responsible in this House for answering questions relating to work done in the Duchy of Lancaster apart from this Bill? Perhaps I might be told who is responsible in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI hope the suggestion put forward by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) does not mean that we are going to have any more Ministerial appointments, because the Government now are kept in a permanent majority by their Ministers, Deputy-Ministers, and Parliamentary Secretaries, and I do not want to see two more gentleman appointed to answer for the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to disabuse my mind on this point.
§ Mr. BALDWINIt gives power to make the period 99 years.
Major BARNESIn Northumberland and Durham leases are granted for periods of 45 years. I hope we are not going to have action taken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which is not going to have any connection with the present policy of the country. I do not think we ought to be granting long mining leases when the Government is contemplating the re-organisation of the mining districts under a considerable amount of control. Perhaps in Committee we shall get some further information on this point.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Baldwin.]