PRIVATE DETECTIVES AND PUBLIC SERVICE.
THE correspondence between Miss Violet Markham and Mr. G. S. Shove is extremely interesting. Mr. Shove is, by his own statement, an agent employed by the secret committee instituted by Mr. Lloyd George to make inquiries into the system of land tenure. In that capacity Mr. Shove, whose name is, perhaps, a little un- fortunate, was sent down to Chesterfield to make inquiries, and being, as he describes himself, a complete stranger to the neighbourhood, wrote to Miss Markham asking her to assist him in his task. He explained that bhe committee for whom he was working was "an unofficial body formed under the auspices of the Government, and composed chiefly of Liberal members of Parliament." Its purpose he stated to be the collection of " reliable and unbiased information which may assist the Government in deciding whether reform is needed in the laws concerning land tenure and the local taxation system." Miss Markham's reply is a model of what an Englishman or English- woman should answer to such an invitation. She declines to have anything whatever to do with an inquiry conducted on such " subterranean methods." As she points out : "An unofficial body appointed under Government auspices is a contradiction in terms." If the Government want reliable and unbiased information they can obtain it by one or other of the methods of public inquiry with which the country is familiar. The Government might appoint a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee. In either event the constitution of the court of inquiry would be known, and its proceedings would be public. In this case nobody knows for certain who are the members of the Lloyd Georgian Committee, but everybody does know that its methods are secret, and that there is no present intention of publishing information collected. Still less is there any chance of the information being submitted to contemporaneous criticism. The witnesses, instead of being liable to public cross-examination, are to be heard in secret, and their names are to be suppressed.
We venture to think that the organization of this secret inquiry, with its distant suggestions of a German Wehingericht, is one of the worst illustrations yet supplied by the Cabinet of the change in the ideals of Liberalism. A generation ago—even ten years ago—such a proceeding would have been impossible. Ninety-nine per cent. of Liberals would have indignantly protested against it. To-day the bulk of the party appears to accept with indifference any manoeuvre, however subterranean in character, which the party leaders choose to authorize. It is left for a few independent characters like Miss Markham to protest. A somewhat similar protest has, of course, been made by Sir Herbert Raphael, but that was directed rather against the general policy of penal land taxation than the particular methods employed by Mr. Lloyd George to make out a case for his next predatory campaign. One ugly aspect of such an inquiry as this arises out of the question of finance. Gentlemen like Mr. Shove do not generally worlr for nothing. Who pays them? Does the money come out of the Secret Service money voted by Parliament, or does it come out of the still more secret funds of the Liberal Party ? Or is it subscribed by enthusiastic but somewhat unbalanced gentlemen like Mr. Fels? These are questions to which an answer is desirable, for, however important it may be to obtain in- formation with regard to conditions of land tenure and to systems of local taxation, it is infinitely more important that the methods of the British Government should continue to be scrupulous. Englishmen do not wish that the public service of their country should be carried on by the methods adopted by a private detective. In this country, more perhaps than in any other country, there has always been a traditional dislike for secret inquiries, even when con- ducted by properly appointed agents of the police acting under strict regulations. There is an even deeper dislike of anything in the nature of an underground inquiry when instituted by private people for their own ends, and con- ducted by private detectives. Yet, so far as this issue is concerned, Mr. Lloyd George and the members of his secret committee are private people. They, by their own confession, are not acting with the authority of the Government ; they are private politicians trying to work up a case for a new campaign, which they think will conduce to their own political advantage. The whole thing is unutterably contemptible, and, whatever the case may be for the reform of land tenure or of local taxation, every honest Liberal ought to condemn the methods adopted by the (le facto leader of the Liberal Party.
To pass from this question of subterranean methods to the subject matter of the inquiry it may fairly be asked, Why is a fresh inquiry needed ? We had, not so very many years ago, a very strong Royal Commission on Local Taxation, which reported at tremendous length and pre- sented to the country several volumes of evidence, much of which is still of great value. Since then we have had a Departmental Committee inquiring again into the ques- tion of local taxation, and still at work upon that inquiry. In addition there have been other inquiries by Select Com- mittees of bhe House of Commons or otherwise into land values taxation, into the housing of the working classes and the question of small holdings. There is therefore a considerable mass of material available for people who wish to study the subject. Perhaps Mr. Lloyd George is not to be included in that eategory. So far as can be ascertained, his object is, not to study this or any other subject, but to work up a case for a particular campaign. Even so, there was no necessity for a second inquiry, for his Departmental Committee on Local Taxation was appointed with the scarcely disguised purpose of making out a case for a new system of land taxation, and it may be that the failure of this committee to find, up to the present, sufficient justification for the penal taxation of land has led to the appointment of the new secret tribunal. However, if the Government as a Government is dis- satisfied with the existing mass of material on this land question, let them institute another and more comprehen- sive inquiry. There are undoubtedly many points of fresh interest which have arisen since the earlier inquiries took place. In particular it would be very interesting to know how the system of County Council small holdings is work- ing out in practice. There is still a great demand for small holdings, but it is not certain how far that demand arises from the exaggerated hopes of people who think that there is a fortune in the land, or how far it is based on solid prospects of obtaining a profit out of small culture. It would also be satisfactory to know how the County Councils are financing the scheme, and what risks the rate- payers are running A still more important subject for investigation is the working-out of the Lloyd Georgian land taxes of 1909. On this subject we have commented so often that we will not again press the point that these taxes are costing about ten times what they bring in ; but it is cer- tainly interesting to note that though the country was promised that the yield from these taxes would be a progressive one, so far as can be made out from the published figuses it is actually retrogressive. The latest statement of the receipts of the Exchequer show that between April 1st and August 17th, 1912, the land value duties yielded £50,000, as compared with £110,000 yielded in the corresponding period of last year. This decline may of course be accidental, but the estimated yield for the whole year of these taxes which were going to pay for Old-Age Pensions and an increased Navy, and almost everything else under the sun, is only £545,000. Of that total by far the greater part is admittedly derived from the double income-tax on mineral rights, a tax which has nothing to do with the general scheme of the Lloyd Georgian land value duties, and was only introduced after Mr. Lloyd George's first proposal for a tax on undeveloped minerals had been laughed out of Parliament. Moreover, it is interesting to notice that, whereas the yield of the Land Value Duties for the current year 1912-13 is esti- mated at £545,000, Mr. Lloyd George's estimate of the yield of the same duties for 1911-12 was put at £700,000, BO that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimates of his own revenue are declining. When last challenged with these facts in the House of Commons Mr. Lloyd George promised to institute an inquiry, but on being pressed he whittled that promise down to an offer to appoint a few experts to deal solely with the methods by which valuations are being made. That is obviously insufficient. What the country wants to know is whether experience has shown that these taxes are just, and whether they serve any purpose which justifies the enormous cost to which the nation is put to collect a microscopic revenue.
Previous page
