CROWN LANDS BILL (Hansard, 19 January 1943)

§ The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a Bill, the purpose of which will be apparent to everyone at a glance. That purpose is to include the representative of Scotland in the body of Commissioners 103 entrusted with the administration of Crown lands in Great Britain. In order that hon. Members may better understand the circumstances in which this proposal is being put forward at the present time, and more particularly the reasons for making the proposal in the form that has been adopted in this Bill, I think I might perhaps devote a few minutes to giving some historical background. Hon. Members may recall that from the time of King George III arrangements have been in operation whereby at the beginning of each reign the hereditary estates of the Crown are handed over to the executive Government in return for the fixed income secured by the Civil List. When that arrangement was first made the authority entrusted with the administration of the Crown lands were the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues in England and Wales, and in Scotland they were the Scottish Court of Exchequer. In 1832 the Office of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues was amalgamated with the Office of His Majesty's Surveyor-General of Works and Buildings, and a body of three Commissioners was constituted, one of whom, one only, was to be entitled to sit in the House of Commons. At the same time opportunity was taken to transfer from the Scottish Court of Exchequer to the new body of Commissioners the administration of Crown lands in Scotland.
That arrangement continued from 1832 to 1851, but about that time a feeling began to grow up that Crown lands were becoming too much the instrument of Government policy, and in particular that the authority for Crown lands was being used in such a way as to evade the control of the House of Commons. Lord John Russell went so far as to say that a very considerable public evil was arising in that way, and it was accordingly decided to transfer the control of Crown lands to a body of two non-political Commissioners, neither of whom was entitled to sit in the House of Commons. That arrangement went on until 1906, by which time, as often happens in these cases, the pendulum had swung in the other direction, and complaint was then made that the administration of the Crown lands was too remote from public policy and, in particular, from agricultural policy. As the 104 spokesman of the Government at that time put it, there was a desire to secure a more progressive and enlightened administration, and with that object in view the Commissioners were again reconstituted. This time the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was made ex officio a Commissioner and became answerable in the House of Commons for the Office of Woods and Forests, as it was then called. Hence the present difficulty after nearly 40 years, because in 1906, when the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, or the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries as he then was, was made a Commissioner, his official jurisdiction extended throughout Great Britain. It was not until 1911 that a separate Department of Agriculture for Scotland was established.
The point might have been taken at that time that there was an obvious anomaly in leaving the English Minister of Agriculture still the Commissioner of Crown Lands for England and Scotland. That point, however, was not taken. It was not until the anomaly came into prominence as the result of the Commissioners having acquired a substantial area of agricultural land in Scotland by purchase, in the form of the Richmond and Gordon estate, that the existing arrangement was called in question. It is clear that the undoubted anomaly has only to be brought into prominence for it to call for adjustment. We have decided in this Bill to meet the case, and we think we do meet it, by the very simple device of adding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose responsibilities include agriculture in Scotland, to the Board of Commissioners. He will have a seat on the Board, like his English colleague.

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
Does that mean the Secretary of State personally; and that he will not be able to delegate the duties to somebody else?

§ Sir J. Anderson
The Secretary of State personally. The responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland will not be extended at all. It will be served by the organisation of the Crown Lands Office. It might be, and was in fact, I believe, suggested that an alternative would be to divide up the administration and to have a separate office for Crown Lands in Scotland. We came to 105 the conclusion, although that suggestion had superficial attractions to Scotsmen, that any attempt to identify the administration of Crown Lands with the administration of agricultural policy directly, either in Scotland or in England and Wales, would be wrong. This is a trust, and the trustees have definite obligations. The adding of the Secretary of State was designed to ensure that an enlightened policy would be followed by the Commissioners, in their proper capacity as Commissioners. It was not designed to subordinate the administration of the Crown Lands to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. The Secretary of State will come upon the Commission in his personal capacity.

§ Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)
I notice that the first Clause says that nothing in the Bill shall authorise the payment of salaries to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is there anything which authorises the payment of a salary to the Minister of Agriculture as a member of the Board?

§ Sir J. Anderson
No. This puts the Secretary of State for Scotland in exactly the same position as the Minister of Agriculture in England.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
They are doing something for nothing.

§ Sir J. Anderson
Yes, this is in accordance with the highest traditions of public affairs. Technically, the Commissioners are a body corporate, and everything done by them will be done in the name of the Commissioners as a body, but I have no doubt that questions which have a special interest to Scotland will in a special degree attract the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in his capacity as a Commissioner.

§ Major McCallum (Argyll)
My constituents have particular reason to appreciate this Bill, in view of the announcement last week of the gift to the nation of a large area in the North of Argyll, a very beautiful part of my constituency. We feel that it is the right procedure for the Secretary of State for Scotland, or some representative of Scotland, to be added as one of the Commissioners. For that reason, the Bill will give great satisfaction in my constituency.

§ Mr. Neil Maclean (Govan)
I also welcome the Bill, because it brings under partial Scottish control something which should be under complete Scottish control, but I was not altogether satisfied with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I consider there were too many safeguards, too many precautionary measures, too many things to hold back the Secretary of State for Scotland from exercising the intuitions—not of the kind that Hitler has—which I consider he possesses, and also from using his energy in developing the Crown lands in Scotland in such a manner as the Scottish people would desire. I understand, from the Minister's explanation, that we are merely adding a Scottish Commissioner; in other words the Crown lands are not actually passing under the control of a Scottish Secretary. They will continue under the control of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but there will be an extra Commissioner from Scotland. I am certain that that is not what the Scottish people want; and I am disappointed. Control remains in England, but one voice is added to the Commissioners to protest against anything which they want to do in Scotland. However, we welcome the fact that we are getting such a voice, and I am certain that while the present Secretary of State holds office he will not remain silent if anything is done to which he objects, and that it will take a majority vote to prevent him getting what he desires. There is another matter which comes closely akin to this matter, and which affects the Scottish people. The Forestry Commission is run in the same manner.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown)
We are not discussing all the affairs of Scotland now.

§ Mr. Maclean
No; I should think my country a very poor one if all its affairs were enclosed within the operations of the Commissioners of Crown Lands and of the Forestry Commission. But the work of the Forestry Commission is akin to that of the Crown Lands Commission.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Forestry Commission is not part of the Crown Lands Commission.

§ Mr. Maclean
No, but I can show how these Crown lands are going to be run with the Forestry Commission. Practically 50 per cent. of the land owned and run 107 by the Forestry Commission lies in Scotland. There are three Members of Parliament representing this House on the Forestry Commission, and not one is a Scotsman. Only a few weeks ago two new Members were appointed, and neither was a Scotsman. I want to know why it is that when bodies are appointed to control institutions for the entire country it is only by dint of pressure on the part of Scottish Members here that we get the smallest concession. The Forestry Com-missioners are in a different atmosphere and on a different plane altogether from the Crown Lands of Scotland, but I want to insist here and now that we should either have a Forestry Commission for Scotland upon which should sit only Scotsmen, or there should be better representation for Scotland on the Forestry Commission. I welcome the Bill as far as it goes.

§ Lieut.-Commander Hutchison (Edinburgh, West)
Some months ago the Scottish Unionist Members appointed a small committee to inquire into the present responsibility for the Crown lands in Scotland, and as I happen to be the only Member of that committee able to be here today, in the interval one of the Members having become Governor-designate of Bombay, and the other being abroad on a Parliamentary Commission, I should like to thank the Government for accepting the recommendation made by the committee. It meets with the general assent of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as I understand that hon. Members opposite had a similar committee which made a somewhat similar recommendation. Prior to 1832, as the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President mentioned, the Scottish Court of Exchequer was charged with the duty of administering the Crown lands in Scotland, and it is in accord with the prevailing sentiment in Scotland to-day that the original concept of local responsibility in administering these lands should be restored in modern form by adding the Secretary of State to the Board of Commissioners. Quite apart from the fact that something like one-third of the area of the Crown lands is in fact located in Scotland, which would alone have justified this Measure, we have to remember that there are important differences between the legal systems in Scotland and England, and also, from the practical point of view of 108 administration, a very important difference in climatic conditions. Therefore, this small Measure is a wise step in the shape of making for better administration, and I trust that it will pass through the House without any opposition.

§ Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)
I have no very great enthusiasm for this Bill, but, like my colleagues in Scotland, I am willing that it should pass. I have heard it said that it was better to have half a loaf than no bread, but I do hot think that this represents half a loaf. It is a very tiny crumb. The Secretary of State for Scotland is evidently going to take some interest in this matter. The Lord President said it had been considered whether it would not be better to make a division, and that superficially that seemed the proper way to deal with it. He did not develop the argument. He said it had been decided that that was only a superficial way of dealing with it. I do not know. It appears to me that not only superficially but materially this would have been the best way of dealing with Crown lands. I wondered, when the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) was speaking, whether the estate which has been gifted to Scotland to which he referred will become part of the Crown lands. It is just as well to be clear on these matters.
I frankly do not know very much about the administration of Crown lands, but I would like to be told who are the other two Commissioners, what salaries they are paid, and when they were appointed. Can the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Minister of Agriculture tell us how many employees there are on these Crown lands for which the Secretary of State for Scotland will have some responsibility of administration in the days to come? Perhaps the most important thing about this Measure is that it is a very small indication of how things are moving, and I hope that this small cloud in the sky, no bigger than a man's hand, will give some indication that at no distant date we in Scotland are going to get a much greater share in the administration of our own country and the development of Scottish life in accordance with Scottish ideals.

§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)
I do not welcome this Bill one bit, and I 109 do not think it will be of any use to Scotland. I view this move with suspicion. A number of moves with which we are going to be saddled in Scotland are being made at the moment that are going to treble our activities as Socialists. Our boys are out at the front fighting for Scotland, their native land, although they do not own an inch of it, not as much as will bury them. The spirit is abroad in the land that the day is near when they will have to give some consideration to the land of their fathers being theirs and not the property of the Crown.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is discussing the land question as a whole in Scotland. This Bill relates to Crown lands and Crown lands only, and the hon. Member cannot go into the whole question of land in Scotland.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
I do not wish to cross swords with you, Sir, but I want to put it to you in this way. You could not have Crown lands in Scotland without having Scottish land. It is part of the whole. I do not want any lands in Scotland to belong to the Crown any more than to private landlords. That is the Socialist position here, and we should see to it that we do not do anything that would make it more difficult. I believe that the day is not far distant when the people of Scotland will demand that Scotland be theirs. The very fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) said that this Measure had unanimous support was enough to bring me to my feet at once. It was too funny for words.

§ Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison
Why?

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Because the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view is diametrically opposed to mine. He is in favour of Scotland continuing under the hellish conditions which have existed there up to the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "As a result of noble families."] Yes, that is it, and nobody is a better exponent of that doctrine than the present Secretary of State for Scotland. He has an opportunity of putting into operation the ideas he has propagated year in and year out. I was one of his most enthusiastic supporters. I would be still, if he was treading the same path to-day. I am not following him now. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), 110 I would never stand on a Tory platform and advise people to vote Conservative. This is the same principle. I am not supporting anything connected with Crown lands in Scotland being handed away in this fashion. The Secretary of State for Scotland is a representative of the King in Scotland, and he has great power. If he would exercise that power along the lines he has put forward many a time, and which he said he would do if he ever had control, it would be a good thing. The land in Scotland should be controlled for the benefit of the working folk in Scotland, instead of asking us to pass this titivating Measure which is before us to-day. We are doing this at a time when we are fighting for our lives. It is not as if there was something good about this Bill. No. We heard the Leader of our party standing at that Box to-day. How many listened to him? There was no enthusiasm at all. How can I tell my boy who is at the front that he must go on fighting for his country and the men who are here when we are taking no interest in such men? Fancy saying that all is right in the Highlands, that there is no poverty there and that people are well off. It is just a lot of nonsense.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself more to what is in the Bill.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
I suppose I must bow to your Ruling, Sir, but I want to register my protest against the moves that are being made by certain individuals. It is because I know these individuals that I am suspicious of what is being done for Scotland. These electro-hydro boards and other boards will be put up against us. We shall have to fight. My voice will go to Scotland, and I warn them not to be "kidded." There is the case of the MacBrayne ships. I am telling the truth, and this is the place to tell it. I will also tell it in the constituencies. We have MacBrayne's boats. It is all very well to smile—

§ Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire)
Surely my hon. Friend does not expect me to cry? In any case I was not laughing. It is not a laughing matter; it is a case more for tears.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
Well I will not carry that further, except to register again my protest in this House about what is going on in Scotland to-day.

§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)
Like Members on both sides of the House, I give a welcome to this Bill. I am glad that we have it before us to-day, because I put a Question on the subject on 10th September. This is a United Kingdom Bill; it cannot be otherwise by the facts of the case. Crown lands are not divisible between the different countries that form the United Kingdom. That was the difficulty, if I may so put it, that made it impossible to grant a full measure of devolution of the functions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands when this matter was first raised in September. The origin of my Question was that the Minister of Agriculture at that time had paid a visit to Scotland in his capacity as Commissioner of Crown Lands. Certain Press comments were made upon that, and there was rather adverse criticism of the fact that an English Minister with no other responsibility in Scotland could go into Scotland and talk to farmers and others on the land about its development. That, however, is inherent in the position. He was entitled to do that because the functions of the Commissioners of Crown Lands are to maintain and develop estates that come under their charge. They are charged also with deciding the use of the net revenue. That is why on the back of this small Bill there appears the name of a representative of the Treasury. That is why it is not purely a Scottish matter and why the Second Reading was moved by the Lord President of the Council who, although a Scotsman, and, therefore, from a legislative point of view appropriate to "first-foot" this House at the beginning of the year, is not a Scottish Minister.
I received from the Prime Minister on 10th September an answer to my Question in which he made reference to the past history of things, taking us back especially to 1906. He said that since the question had been raised he would gladly look into it. The result of the consideration that was promised by the Prime Minister is the Bill now before us. I cannot see any other way of dealing with this problem than as a United Kingdom matter, and I cannot see any happier solution of the position that I explained on 10th September than the method followed in this Bill. I am sure that what is being done here should not be looked upon, as it was looked upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), as a cloud no bigger than a 112 man's hand. It should be looked upon as a gleam of sunshine—

§ Mr. Stephen
My hon. Friend will remember that the cloud no bigger than a man's hand was the harbinger of the refreshing rain that was needed in time of drought. I was thinking of it in the same way as the harbinger of the better time that will come in Scotland when we shall have the refreshing rain which will give as a Scottish administration.

§ Mr. Mathers
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and in the country where that simile was used rain was a very great refresher and a very great blessing, but from our point of view it seems to me that the simile of sunshine would be more appropriate to gladness, goodwill, good wishes and good progress for the future. The Bill has come forward as a result of efforts to remedy an anomaly. I am glad that the Minister concerned, who is having, it would appear, his power diminished in part, is one of the sponsors of the Bill, and I am glad my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is given a standing, which previously he had not got, to act for Scotland in respect of these Crown lands which are situated all over Great Britain. It is true that he is added to the General Commission, but I am certain his particular care will be applied to the use of the Scottish Crown lands. If the criticism is levelled against this Bill that it is such a small thing that we should not be dealing with it in time of war, I suggest it is a good thing that we can, without unduly taking up time, even during war time deal with an anomaly which has appeared and which required legislation to remedy it. I am sorry that it did require legislation, for it would have been more appropriate if it could have been done quietly and administratively, but since it did require legislation I am glad the legislation has been brought forward, even during war time, and I am certain that the Bill, when properly understood by those people who are interested in it in Scotland, will be looked upon as a concession to Scottish sentiment, and we will look for more coming in that direction in the future.

Mr. McNeil (Greenock)
I say earnestly that I did not mean to speak in this Debate and did not want to do so, but the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) 113 has driven me to my feet. This Bill is a minor Measure about which there should have been no discussion, and no clapping of hands. If my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow wants to make a speech and wants much clapping of hands, I think he ought to tell the House and to tell such a stupid Scottish person as me what the Bill is about.

§ Mr. Mathers
May I say to my hon. Friend that a very competent and illuminating historical review was given by the Lord President of the Council when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. That review was very informative. If my hon. Friend was not present in the House when the speech was made, he will find profit and benefit from reading it in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

Mr. McNeil
If the great warmth which the hon. Member expects to find radiating throughout Scotland because of this concession to sentiment is to be based on the Lord President's magnificent historical researches, I am afraid my hon. Friend will be a little disappointed. My hon. Friend showed us two results that will follow from the Bill, and he made them pretty clear. He said there would be a change in the status of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State has had many compliments paid to him and I am always prepared to pay my quota of compliment in respect of his efforts on behalf of Scotland, but I do not think this Measure contributes to his status and certainly it does not contribute to his powers. The other point made by my hon. Friend, who has made this particular Bill his foster child, was that the Minister of Agriculture trespassed in Scotland last year and that he will no longer be allowed to trespass. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend did not use the word "trespass." He said that the Minister of Agriculture could not come across the Border. The word "trespass" may be rather a free translation, but that was the point which my hon. Friend was trying to make. The Minister of Agriculture could not come officially.

§ Mr. Mathers
If I inadvertently used an expression of that kind, it is wrong. The Minister of Agriculture in England will, as one of the Crown Lands Commissioners, still be able to enter Scotland. I hope I did not fall into the error of saying that he was barred from appearing in Scotland as one of the Commissioners.

Mr. McNeil
The hon. Member's explanation makes the mystery even more mysterious. He told us that this has occurred because last year the Minister of Agriculture, as a Crown Commissioner, came to survey Crown lands in Scotland. I rather stupidly inferred that the point of making the Secretary of State for Scotland a Crown Commissioner was that he would attend to the Crown lands in Scotland so far as they needed visits. If that is not the purpose of the Bill, the Bill seems to me to be futile. I am no authority on the state of the Crown lands in Scotland, but I think—and I am sure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will agree with me—that if a Hottentot could improve the housing conditions in the hon. Member's constituency and in my constituency, we would gladly welcome the Hottentot.

§ Mr. Kirkwood
In preference to the Secretary of State?

Mr. McNeil
I am sorry if I disappoint the hon. Member, but I cannot subscribe to that. The Secretary of State has persistently addressed himself to this problem. I am merely pointing out that I cannot see any advantage in excluding anyone who has anything to contribute to Scottish problems. I shall not oppose the Bill. Scottish opinion will be inserted into the deliberations of the Crown Commissioners and some good may proceed from that but the Secretary of State has no new powers as a result of the Bill and no authority is added to the Secretary of State as a result of the Bill. I cannot see, as a Socialist, that there is any hope of any difference being made to the condition and treatment of land in Scotland as a result of the Bill, and certainly I agree with the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs that, in the increasing anxiety about Scottish affairs that we see around us in Scotland at the present time, this Bill will neither give pleasure nor do anything to allay the anxiety.

§ Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)
I feel that the hon. Member has been a little ungenerous about this Measure. It is certainly not a matter of shattering importance, but it is a change in our administrative machinery rendered necessary largely by the research of members of the Conservative Party who have been addressing their minds to the matter for some time. It was they who gathered 115 together the historical threads of the argument and presented it to some of their colleagues, and I was glad to co-operate with them in making their petition to the Government. The change brought about at last gives the Scottish Secretary some immediate voice in the management of the Crown lands, and, while technically the hon. Member may be right in saying that no added power is given him, I am certain that in practice he will exercise a very considerable influence upon the use of those lands and, to the extent that he does that and places in the hands of the Scottish people the control of some Scottish assets, the Bill is a good one and should be welcomed. As one of the signatories to the document asking for the Bill, I say "Thank you" for it.

§ Mr. McKinlay (Dumbarton)
I should like to ask one or two questions about this Measure. It may have been stated how many Commissioners there are. If there are only three, the Secretary of State, I presume, will be in a permanent minority, but I do not think that matters very much. I should like to know whether he will possess, or whether at the moment he possesses, the same power of direction over the Crown lands as he has over lands owned and worked by others. For instance, should I be right in saying that he has the same power in dealing with Crown lands as in dealing with others? Could he, as Secretary of State for Scotland and responsible for agriculture, exercise any authority to determine the uses to be made of the Crown lands by those who are working them, and can we have an assurance that in the proposed hydroelectric development in the highlands, steps will be taken to see that the Crown lands are safeguarded and will not be utilised for the purpose of adding to the revenues of private electricity undertakings? The Bill goes back for reference purposes to the Crown Lands Act, 1829. I am satisfied that, like all other Acts of Parliament, it can be made to look exceedingly difficult and that simple propositions, when they get into the hands of the Law Officers, become exceedingly difficult. Will my right hon. Friend have to apply to the Home Secretary for permission, for instance, to use poison in dealing with the extermination of foxes? I learn from the Press that an application has been made to the Home 116 Secretary, or that he has condescended to give permission to agriculturists to use strychnine in order to get rid of foxes.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State far Scotland (Mr. Allan Chapman)
There is no general permission to use strychnine.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I would remind the House that we are not discussing the destruction of foxes.

§ Mr. McKinlay
We are dealing with the powers that are being vested in the Secretary of State as an additional commissioner. If he has power to direct the uses to be made of Crown lands, I certainly think he ought to have power to give directions as to the destruction of vermin. If it is the desire of those who work the land to destroy vermin, has my right hon. Friend authority to grant such permission or must he go to the Home Secretary to get permission to do something which agriculturists say is absolutely essential to be done? I think my right hon. Friend realises the point. If he does not, I am satisfied that he will have the opportunity of giving an answer in the very near future, not from Dumbarton but from a bigger constituency in Scotland.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston)
I cannot say who is responsible for the strychnine required for the destruction of foxes and other vermin, but I will endeavour to find out and will let my hon. Friend know. After the Bill is passed, the number of Commissioners in Great Britain will be three, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State and a civil servant, who will receive the salary of his grade in the Civil Service. The other two Commissioners are and will continue to be unpaid. The purpose of the Bill is to add to the Commissioners for the administration of Crown lands the Secretary of State for Scotland for the time being. The anomaly that has arisen was stated clearly by the Lord President of the Council. It had arisen in this way, that the Richmond and Gordon estates had fallen to the Crown Lands Commissioners, and the anomaly appeared that the English Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was compelled, by the fact that he was a Commissioner and the Secretary of State for Scotland was not, to be left in administration of these estates. The answer to the question whether the Bill makes any 117 change regarding the directions which the Secretary of State, as Minister of Agriculture in Scotland, can give through the agricultural executive committees is "No." His powers remain absolutely as they are now; he can give directions through the agricultural executive committees as to the proper agricultural use to which land can be put.

§ Mr. Stephen
The right hon. Gentleman did not give us any idea of the number of employees of the Crown Lands Commission.

§ Mr. Johnston
I am afraid I could not give that without notice. I should like to add that the overwhelming proportion of the revenues of the Crown lands are not derivable from agricultural land at all.