Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎217r] (433/442)

705 The Government's Lund Policy. [ 24 July 1012] The Government's Land Policy. 706
intentions of His Majesty’s Government,
and that His Majesty’s Government will
take no part in such a programme. But if
there is something in Mr. Outhwaite’s
statement—and, as I have said, I am
afraid it cannot be contradicted—if there
is anything in it and if His Majesty’s Gov
ernment have a policy on this matter,
why do they not tell us what that policy
is ? It seems to me that it is the duty of
the Leader of this House, or whoever
represents him, to speak out on a matter
of such vital importance. I can assure
your Lordships that nothing can be of such
disservice to the country and to the
interests of the country as for the Govern
ment to indulge in hesitation and ambigui
ties and to attempt to conceal—the con
cealment, of course, can only be for a very
short time—from the country what their
real policy with regard to land is.
*The LORD CHANCELLOR (Viscount
Haldane) : My Lords, it seems to me that
the noble Earl is alarming himself quite
unnecessarily. In the statement of Mr.
Outhwaite, which the noble Earl considers
definite and important, I find anything
but definiteness, and I cannot find much of
importance in it. What in the world may
the words “to do something to overthrow
the land monopoly ” mean or not mean ?
The noble Marquess the Leader of the
Opposition has been recently associating
himself with most laudable efforts to enlarge
the ownership of land in this country. I
suppose that may well be described as “doing
something to overthrow the land monopoly,”
and that the Ashbourne Acts in Ireland
and the Land Purchase Act of the late
Government also may be brought within
that description. I suppose the legislation
with which this Government is associated
for land purchase is something in the same
direction. I hope that more efforts will be
made to bring the land and the owners and
occupiers of land into closer contact; and
in that sense I hope that a vigorous cam
paign will be continued up to the next
General Election to do something to over
throw the land monopoly. But as to
whether it will be on the lines of the noble
Marquess’s policy or on other lines there is
nothing in this quotation which throws any
light. Mr. Outhwaite spoke for himself,
and had no authority to speak for the
Government. I know nothing of his
statement except what appears in the
noble Earl’s Notice on the Paper, and no
more, I believe, do my colleagues. What
the Government land programme will be
is a question the Government will pronounce
upon when they have had full opportunity
to consider it. The noble Earl referred to
the unofficial Committee. As my noble
friend Lord Crewe said on Monday, the
Committee is absolutely non-official
The Earl of CAMPERDOWN: It
was appointed by Mr. Lloyd George with
Mr. Asquith’s approval.
*The LORD CHANCELLOR: But it
is absolutely non-official, and was ap
pointed, as the Leader of the House stated,
solely for the purpose of inquiry—not to
draw up a programme, but to collect
! information. The noble Earl is alarmed
at everything. He has been alarmed at
every progressive step taken during the
last twenty years. The programme of
the Government may be seen hereafter.
It is not likely to include the Single Tax
or any of the alarming things of which
the noble Earl has spoken.
Lord RIBBLESDALE: My Lords,
such light as the noble and learned Viscount
has afforded us is darkness, and I think
that wffiat he has told us will only add to
the confusion of the less subtle intelli
gences of average men. The Lord Chan
cellor is perfectly entitled, as a debating
point, to shift everything connected with
this matter on to Mr. Outhwaite. Except
just now, when the noble Earl reminded
him of certain facts, he seemed completely
to ignore the very open and definite
statements which have been made by
powerful members of the Government.
He told us that Lord Crewe had explained
exactly what the Committee was to do
and the work on which it was going to
engage. It involved what the noble
Marquess the Leader of the Opposition
described as “ extended peregrinations all
over England.” Then Lord Lansdowne
asked two important questions. He asked
whether the Committee were going to take
evidence and evidence on one side only,
and whether in considering their Report
the Reports of Royal Commissions on
this subject in recent years w*ere to be
entirely set aside. But although we had
from the Leader of the House on Monday
last a long speech couched in that excellent
tone of taste and courtesy and con
sideration for people who do not agree
with him which always characterises Lord
Crewe’s speeches, I think the noble and