§ *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to ask the Lord Chancellor whether he will explain to the House the apparent discrepancy between—
- 1. The statement made by him in this House on the 2nd instant to the effect that the secret inquiry now in progress with regard to the land question "was being made by Mr. Lloyd George"; and
- 2. The statement made on the same evening by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons to the effect that certain persons who have lately issued notices in connection with the said inquiry "have no right whatever" to describe it as instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Question which I propose to address to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack requires only a few words of preface. I ventured to say the other night that we found it extremely difficult to obtain a coherent account of the origin and nature of what is now commonly known as the Secret Land Inquiry, and the more accounts and explanations we receive the more incoherent the story seems to become. I hope that this evening we shall obtain a somewhat clearer statement of what I might describe as the paternity of this inquiry. I should like the noble Viscount, if I may say so, to make an affiliation order against somebody. We have had a number of different statements bearing upon this question. I referred the other evening to one made over the signature of a Mr. Reiss, who dates his letter from the offices of the Land Inquiry Committee in this neighbourhood, and who describes himself as the head organiser of the rural inquiry. Mr. Reiss wrote to a friend of mine, by whom this letter was communicated to me, as follows—
You may have heard of the informal inquiry which has been instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring up to date published information regarding social and economic conditions in rural England.
And then he announces that he has been appointed investigator for the particular district. I have here another letter written this time by a Scottish representative of the Committee. This gentleman begins by saying that he is writing "at great speed for the Government" a special report on the land and housing conditions of Scotland. He says that he believes there are cases where there are premises situated upon
80
bare rocks and let at extravagant rents; he suggests that photographs of these places would be extremely desirable, and he goes on to say that he himself is prepared to find the necessary funds for obtaining the photographs in question. He states that they will be extremely useful for the purpose of impressing the Government. He adds that "the information will be treated as confidential." That means, I presume, that if it is adverse to some particular person that person will not have an opportunity of replying to it. He further says—
It is a unique opportunity of driving it home.
§
Then we had the other evening the statement of the noble and learned Viscount himself. The noble and learned Viscount used this language. He said the inquiry was being made by Mr. Lloyd George, and he added a sentiment, which I think will receive general approval by your Lordships, to the effect that no Minister may divest himself of his official capacity. That is really fit for inscription in the copy-books, if there be such things, of public Departments. Then the noble and learned Viscount went on
But so far as it can be done the inquiry is unofficial.
Those are really, if I may say so, rather cryptic utterances, and leave us with the feeling that no knot can be discovered tight enough to hold a Proteus who changes his shape as often as His Majesty's Government.
§
But while we were discussing this matter in your Lordships' House it was also being discussed in the House of Commons, and I desire to call your Lordships' attention to what passed in that House. The Prime Minister was asked by Mr. Long whether the persons who issued these circulars were at liberty to profess to be acting on behalf of the Government or any member of the Government. He also asked whether the nonofficial character of the secret inquiry had been brought to the notice of all the persons conducting such an inquiry. Mr. Asquith replied—
The non-official character of the inquiry has been repeatedly insisted on by me in answer to Questions, and I cannot doubt that it has been brought to the notice of all persons concerned.
It certainly was not brought to the notice of the gentlemen to whom Mr. Reiss and this other agent of the Committee addressed their communications. There was nothing whatever in those communications to suggest the idea that the inquiry was an unofficial inquiry. Then the Prime Minister
81
said that the answer to the second part of the Question—whether these persons were at liberty to profess to be acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government—was in the negative. The Prime Minister stated categorically that they were not so entitled. These papers in our possession show that they did profess, in the plainest possible English, that they were acting on behalf of I is Majesty's Government.
§
Mr. Long, however, returned to the charge and asked t he Prime Minister again whether he was aware that the authors of these notices preface their statement by a paragraph asking whether the people to whom they wrote were aware of the inquiry "which has been instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer." What was the Prime Minister's answer? He said—
They have no right whatever to do so,
And that statement was received with cheers. This is from the report in The Times newspaper. I say that, these conflicting statements leave the whole matter in a situation of great obscurity, but the obscurity is increased by a very remarkable discrepancy between the report of this conversation published in The Times and the report published in the official Hansard. It is a somewhat remarkable thing that in the Hansard report the Prime Minister's reply which I quoted, that they have no right whatever to make these statements, disappears altogether—it disappears, cheers and all. There is no trace of it. And what is equally remarkable, perhaps, is that another statement by the Prime Which in the newspaper report was described as being "inaudible in the Press Gallery," is reported in extenso in Hansard. It did not amount to much, because what the Prime Minister said was—
I do not think I can do more than make this public intimation in the House.
But you have this somewhat remarkable thing—that the reply which was audible and cheered by the House does not appear on the official record, and the reply which was inaudible does appear. In all other respects the two reports agree textually.
§ I venture to hope that the noble and learned Viscount will put an end to our doubts, and tell us exactly where we stand with regard to this inquiry, because the thing is going ahead very fast., these catechisms are being circulated broadcast over the country, and those who receive 82 them really do not know whether they are being appealed to on behalf of the Government to give information for official use with the expectation of its being properly sifted, or whether it is a kind of amateur investigation without more than the general good-will of the Government behind it. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will not, endeavour to convince us that there is a difference between an inquiry instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and an inquiry, as he put it, made by Mr. Lloyd George. If he does, I think we shall have to remind him of that wise dictum which I quoted a moment ago, for which he is responsible, that no Minister can divest himself of his official capacity.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR. (VISCOUNT HALDANE)My Lords, I cannot share the feeling of the noble Marquess that this topic is wrapped up in a cloud of obscurity. On the contrary, I think the answers which have been given by the Prime Minister to which I will in a moment call attention have made the matter as clear as it can be. Mr. Lloyd George desired to obtain copious information about the land question. He desired to obtain it because he thought that this was a most important topic. Apparently in that he found himself at one with many distinguished noble Lords who belong to the other side of politics, because more than one inquiry of this kind is going on with great vigour at the present time. I do not pursue that topic further, and certainly it is not in any spirit of reproach that I have alluded to the activities of noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House.
But what have we here? Mr. Lloyd George desired, first of all, to obtain as much information as he could. He desired to obtain that information in order to see what there was which appeared prima facie to be wrong in our existing arrangements with regard to land and what possibilities there were of dealing with the matter from the point of view of land reform. For that purpose he had to get a great deal of information which he did not possess, and which I do not know how he could have got except by inquiry. To have appointed a Royal Commission for this purpose would have been to put matters off for a long time. What he wanted was nothing going so far as a Royal Commission would have gone. He simply wanted to get as much information 83 as possible on which he might form some opinion, and with that view he asked a very well-known man, Mr. Arthur Acland, who is keenly interested in this subject, to undertake the superintendence of an inquiry. Mr. Lloyd George does not undertake the details of the inquiry. The inquiry is conducted by Mr. Arthur Acland, with a committee—I am not sure that he has not more than one committee—who are endeavouring to obtain this information. When it is obtained it will be submitted to Mr. Lloyd George. At this stage I have not seen any information which has been obi wined; nor, I believe, has any member of the Government, not even Mr. Lloyd George. Nor should we he bound by it. It is not official information, nor is it obtained in any way for the purpose of committing the Government. What we want to get is the same kind of response to inquiry which is being sought elsewhere in order to inform our minds.
In this condition of things the inquiry is being conducted, as I said the other day, quite unofficially. No Government servants and no public funds are being employed. Mr. Arthur Acland and his Committee are getting together such information as they can. I dare say a good deal of the information may turn out, when sifted, to be untrue—that is the inevitable consequences of all such inquiries—but, on the other hand, we shall have possibly a certain amount of information which will enable us to direct our attention to the points which are necessary to be considered. I know of nothing obscure about such a transaction—of no cloud of mystery in which it is involved. I said the other clay, and I say again, that no Minister can wholly divest himself of an official capacity. Mr. Lloyd George is inquiring, not for the purpose of committing his colleagues nor for the purpose of even committing himself, but simply because he thinks there is a question requiring investigation on which action may be taken later.
The noble Marquess suggests that there is some discrepancy between what I said to your Lordships the other day and the view taken of this matter in the other House by the Prime Minister. I would remind the noble Marquess that the answer of the Prime Minister to which he referred is perfectly consistent with what I said. And that was not the only answer that the Prime Minister has given on this 84 subject. He has answered innumerable Questions on this topic. On July S he replied—
My right hon. friend has with my approval approached certain gentlemen, among whom are Members and ex-Members of the House, with a view to securing their services on an unofficial committee which has been formed for the purpose of investigating the question of land reform. The Government and not the committee will be responsible for any proposal that may ultimately be made, and will naturally obtain all such information as they conceive to be necessary before coming to any conclusion on the subject. I am not prepared to make any statement as to the intentions of the Government.The Prime Minister, further questioned, said—The committee is a purely unofficial and informal body. It will be presided over by my right hon. friend Mr. Arthur Acland. I see no reason why the names of the members should he published at present. Should their report lie eventually laid before Parliament full information will, of course, be given. It will rest with the committee to decide what method of investigation will be pursued,And then there was the other occasion to which the noble Marquess referred. The Prime Minister then said—The non-official character of the inquiry has been repeatedly., insisted on by me in answer to Questions, and I cannot doubt that it has been brought to the notice of all persons concerned.Further questioned the Prime Minister said that the persons who were putting the questions were not there in an official capacity to put these questions, and he added that he did not think he could do more than make this public intimation in the House. That is the history of the whole matter. If there is any other information which your Lordships would like and which I can give I shall do my best to place it at your disposal; but I fail to see that there is anything mysterious or obscure in the transaction.
THE EARL or CAMPERDOWTNMy Lords, there is one piece of information which I, and probably other members of your Lordships' House, would like to have, and it is this. Has Mr. Lloyd George a double capacity—an official and also an unofficial capacity? Is he a sort of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde? if so, it would be interesting to know when he is speaking in the one capacity and when in the other. Further, I should like to ask whether there has ever been an instance in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or other member of the Cabinet, has started an inquiry of this kind in a so-called unofficial manner. Your Lordships 85 can hardly imagine, I should suppose, that Mr. Gladstone, for instance, would have permitted any member of his Cabinet to start an inquiry into a matter so important in an informal manner.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, the question on which I should like information arises out of what we have heard from the Lord Chancellor. He told us at the beginning of his remarks that as he understood the matter, on which there was supposed to be no obscurity, Mr. Lloyd George desired to obtain as much information as he could from certain persons, who were to be asked to furnish evidence by somebody else, so that he could get a prima facie view whether there was anything wrong in our land system. The question I should like to ask is this. Was lie at all anxious to hear, or was he prepared to hear, a prima facie case that there was anything right in our land system? Were all these people invited because it was perfectly well known that anything they would have to say would furnish Mr. Lloyd George with a prima facie case that there was a great deal that was wrongs If the Lord Chancellor could tell us that the object of the inquiry was to bring out anything that was right in the land system as well us anything that was wrong, a good deal of my misgivings in regard to the inquiry would be removed. But it is perfectly well known that this unofficial inquiry was set on foot for the purpose of forging weapons, as it were, to be used against the present land system.
THE MARQIESS OF LANSDOWNEI quite understand that His Majesty's Government, and his Majesty's Government alone, can be responsible for any legislation founded upon the results of this inquiry. The object of my Question was to ascertain what responsibility His Majesty's Government accepted for the methods pursued in collecting this; information. That is one point. The other is this. Ant I to gather front the statement of the noble and. learned Viscount that His Majesty's Government adhere to the view expressed by the Prime Minister in the passage which appears in the unexpurgated edition of the report, to the effect that the persons who issued notices and circulars have no right whatever to represent themselves as making the inquiries on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI certainly adhere to the view that these gentlemen have no right to represent themselves as making inquiries on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his official position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has delegated the conduct of the inquiry to Mr. Arthur Acland, and it is to him and his Committee that the inquirers are responsible. They certainly in no way represent the Government, nor have they any right to state that their questions are put on behalf of the Government. I do not see why Lord Ribblesdale should say that everybody understands that the object of the inquiry is to find out only the bad side of the land system and not the good side. Mr. Arthur Acland, who has been a distinguished Cabinet Minister, is a man of the very highest standing and fairness of mind, as well as one who is largely connected with the ownership of land, his family being among the greatest landowners in the West of England, and he would not have touched the inquiry except with the view of getting at the truth. My noble friend may dismiss front his mind the idea that the inquiry is of a partisan nature, directed to bringing out the case against with no reference to the other side.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEI was quoting the Lord Chancellor's own words. He said Mr. Lloyd George desired to obtain information in order to see what there was which appeared prima facie to be wrong in our existing laud system.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOREither I am or the noble Lord is very obtuse. I should have thought those words quite free from ambiguity. I1 that is the only source for the suspicion of my noble friend then I am much relieved, As to the question whether Mr. Lloyd (barge has a dual capacity, I have already said that it is impossible for a Minister wholly to divest himself of his official capacity. Mr. Lloyd George is making the inquiry of his own motion and on his own account, but with the full knowledge of the Prime Minister, and, of course, it is impossible for any one occupying the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, though he may be inquiring for himself and in an altogether unofficial fashion, to divest himself of the responsibility which attaches to the fact that he holds a high official position. I have stated the nature of the inquiry, and I leave it to the judgment of 87 noble Lords who have heard the facts which I have given to draw their own inference as to what is the proper technical language in which to describe it.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, I am an unfortunate recipient of one of these communications, and I am still in a sea of doubt as to whether I ought to reply to it for the benefit of His Majesty's Government or merely for the private information of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble and learned Viscount surely realises that all of us who have estates may be most willing to give to the Government under ordinary conditions any information in our power with regard to the condition of rural England; but to ask us on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as the noble and learned Viscount said, cannot wholly divest himself of his official capacity, to reply to a large number of questions in the course of an inquiry which is not a Government inquiry, which apparently is not under the control of the Government though actually to be put to any use which the Government may desire, is really an entirely novel state of things and one which would form a most dangerous precedent. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is willing to give us a little more information than has been vouchsafed in another place. If this inquiry is not being held with Government money, how is it being held? Is the inquiry being held with the aid of private subscriptions I If so, are those subscriptions being solicited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purposes of an inquiry which is afterwards to be made use of by the Government, if necessary, on which to found legislation? Such a position seems to me an extraordinary one for a Minister of the Crown to take up. My noble friend Lord Camper-down suggested that Mr. Lloyd George was acting in a dual capacity. Of that I think there is no question whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Dr. Jekyll, issued an edict to Mr. Arthur Acland to inquire into this matter. Then in the House of Commons we are assured that these gentlemen have issued these documents to us without any authority, and that what we may have heard of the "informal inquiry instituted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer." is without authority; and when we ask the noble and learned Viscount he is unable to enlighten us as 88 to whether it is Dr. Jekyll in the open or Mr. Hyde, under which Mr. Lloyd George hides himself apparently when this ceases to be an official inquiry. I hope the Government will either take the responsibility on their own shoulders, which they have not done hitherto, and promise that this information shall be given to Parliament, or insist that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should withdraw from the entirely impossible position in which he has placed himself, a position which I venture to say is without any precedent. The whole of the rural population will regard with suspicion the result of an inquiry in regard to winch two leading members of the Government on the same day in different Houses of Parliament give wholly different accounts.