THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMy Lords, I rise to call attention to a memorial lately presented to the Board of Agriculture by sheep farmers in the Highlands of Scotland, with reference to the probable effect of Section 1 subsection (2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906, upon the valuation of sheep stocks; and to ask what measures it is proposed to take to meet their complaints.
1090 The sheep farmers in the Highlands of Scotland, I think I may say almost to a man, have been greatly disturbed on seeing in print Section 1 of the Act of 1906, and they have been advised that it is at least doubtful whether the proper interpretation of subsection (2) does not do away with the system of valuing sheep stock embodied in their leases. Let me, in the first instance, read to your Lordships the subsection in question. Subsection (2) of Section 1 enacts that—
All questions which, under the Agricultural Holdings (England) Acts, 1883 to 1900, or the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 18S3 to 1900, or this Act, or under a contract of tenancy, are referred to arbitration shall, whether the matter to which the arbitration relates arose before or after the passing of this Act, be determined, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, by a single arbitrator.Your Lordships will see that everything which is so mentioned is to be referred to arbitration. There is no special definition of what are to be the subjects of arbitration so as in any way to distinguish definitely between what is to be arbitrated upon and, on the other hand, valuation. Legal language in Scotland, and also the language of Scottish leases is curious in character, and probably would sound strange to many lawyers who live on the south side of the Border. But your Lordships must remember that this Act was originally drawn for England and was extended to Scotland.When that Bill was in this House there were numerous complaints made from these Benches by noble Lords connected with Scotland that, with regard to several matters, great doubt existed as to whether an enactment applicable to England would suit Scotland, and this section was one of those to which attention was called. Your Lordships will remember that the Act does not come into force until 1st January, 1909, and, therefore, no cases have actually arisen; but as soon as it appeared in print Scottish farmers were advised that it would probably interfere with their sheep valuations. Accordingly they held a series of meetings, and they have, I believe, constituted a committee to which they have entrusted the duty of getting rid, as they say, of this obnoxious clause. Meetings have been held in every part of the 1091 country—in Perth, Oban, Inverness, Kirkcudbright, and, I believe, in many other places—and they one and all decided that this is an unwarrantable interference by Parliament with their business.
I could read to your Lordships, if it were desirable, many extracts from the reports of those meetings, which are by no means complimentary to Parliament; but it is quite sufficient, I think, to say that on three things they are unanimous. In the first place, they observe that all existing leases are made subject to this Act. To that they take the very strongest exception. In the second place, they say that the meaning of the word "arbitration" is most doubtful. For the purpose of valuing sheep in Scotland two valuers are appointed, who, in the legal language of that country, are called arbiters, and they appoint an oversman. It is their duty, not only to value sheep, but also to have regard to the nature of the country in which the sheep live, on which their value largely depends. Therefore, it is not a simple valuation of sheep, but the taking into consideration of other circumstances; and farmers are advised, rightly or wrongly, that it is extremely doubtful whether in the circumstances this valuation does not become an arbitration, and thereby subject to the Act. Sheep farmers have, as I have said, held meetings in all parts of the country, and they attended a meeting of the Highland Agricultural Society in Edinburgh, where I have no doubt they hoped to have the opportunity of meeting my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. Luckily for him, he had other things to attend to, but he sent Sir Thomas Elliott, a very able representative of the Board of Agriculture. Sir Thomas Elliott was subjected to a heckling which occupied two or three columns of the newspaper, in which the matters I have just mentioned to your Lordships were very forcibly and plainly brought before him, and I have no doubt he has reported to my noble friend that the utmost dissatisfaction prevails among the sheep farmers of Scotland in regard to this Act.
Unquestionably a doubt exists as to what is the meaning of this subsection. Now was it necessary that that doubt should exist? There was no necessity for it whatsoever. When the Bill was in your Lordships' House this point was 1092 called attention to by several noble Lords, and I for one pointed out to my noble friend that if he did not take care, the words as they stood might be taken to extend to sheep valuations; and my noble friend accepted from me, and said he was obliged for the suggestion, words which did away with all possibility of doubt on that matter. The words were—
Provided that nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent any contract or agreement between the landlord or tenant for an outgoing or other valuation.Those words may not satisfy the best of draftsmen, but to the ordinary agriculturist I think they conveyed a very clear, meaning. The Bill was read a third time in your Lordships' House on 19th December, and went down from this House with that proviso in it.When the Bill reached the other House the matter was dealt with by the Solicitor-General for England, and not by the representatives of the Scottish Office. And when I say that I cannot help remembering that from beginning to end the Scottish Office never gave the slightest assistance to my noble friend or to Parliament with regard to anything in the Bill, with this exception, that they introduced two Amendments which were entirely outside the scope of the Bill and were not really taken into consideration. But in the House of Commons Sir William Robson said he considered the proviso unnecessary and irrelevant. He said that the subsection dealt with arbitration and not with valuation, and he thought that if the words were inserted they might create a great deal of confusion. We all know that Sir William Robson is an eminent lawyer, but I feel pretty sure he knows nothing about Scottish sheep farming and. the system of valuation in that country. The words were accordingly struck out, and when the Bill was returned to your Lordships my noble friend asked this House not to adhere to their Amendment. Of course, an Amendment of that description your Lordships would not adhere to, particularly as this was on the 21st of December, and we prorogued on the 22nd. But I took the opportunity of warning my noble friend that before he was two years older he would find himself in considerable trouble. As soon as the Act was in print the agitation commenced, and I think my noble friend 1093 will find that Scottish farmers when once roused are not very easy to quiet again.
Now, what measures is it proposed to take to meet these complaints? I do not know that my noble friend can do anything unless he will amend the Act. I see that the opinion of the Scottish Law Officers and the English Law Officers is being taken. They have been some weeks deliberating, but their opinion has not yet appeared, but when it does appear how can it in any way forward the settlement of this question, or decide what matters are to be referred to arbitration and what are not? Sir Thomas Elliott, with great wisdom, advised the farmers to appoint a committee to confer with him. They did so, but without prejudice to their future proceedings. But what can a committee do? They can do nothing. These words are in an Act of Parliament, and if any Amendment is to be made it must be by an amending clause, or else things will remain in statu quo until some landlord or tenant thinks it to his interest to try and get over his obligation, and appeals to have the sheep stock valued by one arbitrator instead of by three men as at present.
I am bound to say that my noble friend has got into this difficulty without any reason whatsoever. If, instead of consulting the Solicitor-General of England, who knows nothing about agriculture—I am sure he would not make any claim of the kind—my noble friend had consulted Sir Thomas Elliott: and his permanent officials, and had acted on their advice, this agitation in Scotland would never have arisen. I daresay the Government may consider that it may possibly turn out that these valuations are to be treated separately from arbitration; but, even then, you have disquieted the minds of all these people, and you have annoyed them in the prosecution of their business. I notice that at the meeting at Edinburgh an agent of one large estate in Argyle-shire said that no less than eight large sheep farmers had given notice in consequence of this Act. Those of your Lordships who know any thing of Scotland know what the receiving of notice from eight sheep farmers means to a property.
That is the first result of the Act. The difficulty arises from a fault inherent in the Act, which is that Parliament has 1094 set up its own written law against the custom of the country in the matter of contracts. There are a hundred farmers at least who never refer to their lease or their agreement and who are guided by the custom of the country to every one who looks to the Act of Parliament for the management of his affairs. But if Parliament is determined that agricultural business shall be conducted according to Act of Parliament, at least let that Act be drafted in terms which are intelligible to agriculturists and to the people who will have to live or to suffer under that Act. I can assure my noble friend that the feeling in Scotland is very strong indeed. I have had a good deal of correspondence on the matter, and one gentleman, of whose political opinions I am ignorant, writes—
''I notice that the present House of Commons steer clear of every suggestion made by the House of Lords for the amendment of their Bills, but so far as the present and recent agricultural legislation is concerned, most Scottish agriculturists look to the House of Lords for effective criticism and Amendment of the various Bills. We seem to have returned to Parliament representatives who, however anxious they may be to do right, have not sufficient practical knowledge of agriculture to know what is right and what is wrong.I do not think I need add anything to that; but I hope my noble friend will devise some means whereby he can clear up the doubts which at present exist with regard to the construction of this subsection.
*LORD LOVATMy Lords, I would like to associate myself with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Camperdown. This matter was one of considerable importance in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands. A considerable proportion of the seven million sheep in Scotland are held under leases which contain the principle of valuation, and it does not require very much calculation to show that the substitution of arbitration for valuation might leave a man who had farmed successfully over a series of years a distinct loser on going out of his lease. More particularly would this be the case if the arbitrator was not cognisant of the character of the stock, the local conditions, and such like matters. On a farm with a rental of £200 it would be no unusual thing to find sheep stock of the value of £4,000. Therefore a question of a few shillings difference in the valuation of 1095 sheep would mean a profit or loss over a considerable period.
My noble friend who has raised this question to-day deserves the best thanks of agriculturists in Scotland for the steps he has taken in their interests. When the Scottish Peers left this House in the latter end of December it was generally understood that Lord Camper-down's proviso had been accepted by His Majesty's Government, and many noble Lords who would certainly have pressed this matter to an issue did not do so on account of that understanding. Events have clearly proved how much at fault the English legal representative of the Government has been in the advice he gave, for throughout the length and breadth of Scotland agriculturists are thoroughly alarmed at the position of affairs. The point most commented upon at the meetings which have been held throughout the country is why this legislation was attempted at all. There was no demand for it. No class in Scotland wished for this new system.
I hope the noble Earl opposite will explain why this legislation was attempted, and whether its object was to do away altogether with the valuation principle of giving compensation on taking over what is called acclimatized stock. I admit that sheep farming in some districts had become more of a gamble than it should be, but was the object of the Government to abolish the principle of valuation altogether? At the present moment the difference in the actual value of sheep reaches as high as 13s. between market value and valuation price. If the noble Earl means to cut away at one blow the principle of valuation, who is to be the loser—the present tenant or his successor? I hope the noble Earl will be able to answer that question as well as those which have been placed on the Paper by my noble friend.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)My Lords, it is very evident from the speeches of the two noble Lords, that to a certain extent the heather is on fire in Scotland in more places than one, but I hope I shall be able to prove that the conflagration in this respect is not a very serious one. I gather from Lord Camperdown's speech that Scottish farmers have somehow got 1096 into their heads an idea that an incompetent and ignorant English Government had, in its stupidity, passed an Act which would enable unscrupulous landlords to take advantage of their tenants by enforcing a new law which would enable them, at the end of a lease, to take the stock at market value instead of the acclimatisation value. I can assure the noble Earl that that is hardly the case.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI am sorry the noble Earl does not accept it. That was the idea his speech gave me. With regard to the question asked by Lord Lovat, I may say at once that in passing the Land Tenure Act of last year there was not the least intention or desire in any way to interfere or to do away with the valuation of sheep in Scotland as it at present exists. As a convinced Home Ruler, I am somewhat in sympathy with the complaint of the noble Earl. When I assumed the office which I have the honour to hold I found that I was not only Minister of Agriculture for England but also for Scotland, and I had a very courteous invitation last year to go down and meet the Scottish Agricultural Society. I am bound to say I was received with every kindness, and I had a very pleasant time. I said to the Scottish farmers, "So long as you wish it I am your most obedient and humble servant. I will do the best I can in every way to serve you; but if, as I have a reason to understand, there is a great, if not a universal, wish in Scotland that Scottish people should manage Scottish affairs, I will bow to that decision and send in my cap and jacket at once." I am not absolutely certain that there is a desire that the English rule in. agriculture should be perpetuated in Scotland, as I read a speech delivered by Mr. Norman Reid at a meeting at Inverness two or three days ago, in which he said—
They had a Minister of Agriculture backed up by a Board who had been a curse to them. What good did they do? And now they were going to be employed to rob them.There is a great difference of opinion in Scotland on the merits or the demerits of the case as to whether an English 1097 Minister should be Minister of Agriculture for that country, and this difference of opinion, I noted with great interest, was described by the next speaker at the meeting in question as very moderate and very temperate. Now what is the question at issue?
§ EARL CARRINGTONIt is an extremely difficult and complex question. I am told that about 100 years ago it was known that there would be a great loss if acclimatised sheep were sold at the market value, and therefore all leases insisted that due regard should be had to the circumstances referred to when sheep stock were handed over to the landlord. The valuers of these sheep were drawn from the farming class, and naturally the tendency was to keep up prices, and what might be called a fictitious value was perhaps established. I believe landlords recognised this, for those who can afford it have tried to put an end to the system. What they do is this. When a tenant leaves his sheep farm they take over all the sheep and cut the loss, which is computed at something like £1 a head, and then they relet the farm to the new tenant plus 10 per cent. for acclimatisation.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI believe it is something perfectly appalling. A noble friend of mine told me that some years ago he had a farm thrown on his hands and had to pay £20,000 or £30,000. No doubt this Scottish custom is a very pleasant one for one side, and when I was chairman of the Welsh Commission several of the Welsh farmers urged that the Scottish system should be introduced into Wales. I resolutely put my foot down, and so did the other members of the Commission, against this innovation. It is a somewhat complicated arrangement, and I believe the sheep of the greatest value is a ewe with its lambs. In some agreements a ewe and a lamb are counted as one animal; but in other parts of the country the ewe is one animal and the lamb another, the lamb being valued at the price it would be worth when separated from its mother. 1098 That is a very difficult question, in the decision of which it is necessary to have local knowledge. Then, of course, there are the stock on the hill, the wether stock, the two-year-olds and the one-year-olds, and the tups; and naturally the whole thing is very complicated. Lord Breadalbane's advice is that sheep ought to be brought back on the farm by the first week in April. But some sharp people feed their sheep on turnips and send them up two or three days before 28th May, the day when these valuations are taken. The consequence is that an enormous value is paid for these sheep, which naturally deteriorate on the hillside and have to be sold at a great loss. The system of valuing sheep in Scotland is not very different from that in other parts of the United Kingdom. There are two people called arbiters. The incoming tenant generally offers half of what he will give and the outgoing tenant asks for double what he will take, and if the arbiters cannot agree, after haggling, a gentleman called the oversman is brought in and he is the umpire or single arbitrator mentioned in subsection (3).
§ EARL CARRINGTONWhy not?
§ EARL CARRINGTONIf the two arbiters cannot agree, they call in an oversman, and this man is the umpire or arbitrator. The oversman represents what in other countries would be called the umpire or the single arbitrator, the man who comes in and settles the thing.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI do not know whether the noble Earl really wishes to have explained to him the reason why the oversman is not merely a single arbitrator. The arbiters have to take into consideration not only the sheep but the nature of the land and the climate, and they know all about the country. The chances, therefore, are that in the first instance they do not differ very much on matters of that sort, and it is merely when it comes to a question of price that the oversman decides between them. The Scottish farmers, for reasons which are sufficiently 1099 good to them, attach the very greatest importance to having in the first instance two arbiters both of whom know the locality.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThere is nothing under the Act which stops that, nothing whatever.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe noble Earl has given his case away. There is nothing in the Act to change that arrangement. If the arbiters cannot agree, they choose another man, and he is the sole abitrator whose decision is final. There is no doubt about that.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe two arbiters appoint an oversman, and if the arbiters cannot agree on an oversman, then under the Scottish law the appointment is made by the sheriff or sheriff's substitute, and the decision of the oversman so appointed is absolute and final. That is the state of the law as it is at the present moment. The question is whether there is any difference between valuation and arbitration under the new Act. If the Courts hold that valuation is not arbitration, there will be no change of any kind. If they hold that valuation is arbitration, the only difference will be that the oversman will be appointed by the Board of Agriculture instead of by the sheriff or the sheriff's substitute. That is the only difference brought about by the subsection referred to. My noble friend Lord Breadalbane, in a long memorandum he has written on the subject, suggests that sworn valuators should be appointed in Scotland, and if that were done the matter would, of course, be very simple. I agree that it is necessary that in these complicated cases the men should have a certain amount of local knowledge and be acquainted with the customs of the country. Some Scottish farmers have complained—and I am bound to say not without reason—that some years ago, in my predecessor's time, an old Army man was sent down from Edinburgh to make a valuation. But I have gone to the bottom of that, and I find that it was an 1100 agricultural valuation and not a sheep valuation. I can only say that during my term of office no old Army man will be sent down for this work. The Board will, of course, send proper men to make these valuations. I might be permitted to read an extract from a letter that was written a few days ago by a gentleman in Argyleshire. He writes—
We are quite satisfied that the Board of Agriculture will appoint competent men to conduct these valuations should the appointment fall to the Board.So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly ready to give a distinct pledge to your Lordships, and through Scottish Peers to the Scottish farmers, that if unfortunately it should be my duty to have to appoint oversmen I will do the best I possibly can to choose men from the class which has given such satisfaction hitherto. I should be under a great obligation if the sheriffs and sheriffs' substitutes would be good enough to send in the names of some of the men who have served the lairds and the farmers to their common satisfaction. The noble Earl Lord Camperdown told us that the farmers had been advised that this subsection would interfere with the valuation of sheep.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI said they had been advised that it might interfere with the present system.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe noble Earl did not tell us who the advising gentleman was; but I hope I have been able to dissipate some of the, perhaps not unnatural, fears which have been spread far and wide on this subject. I trust that the farmers of Scotland will be reassured by what I have said, and that on consideration they will think there has been a great cry about very little wool.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I really despair of attempting to do justice to the speech we have just heard from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. It was extremely interesting and covered a great variety of subjects, but until quite the last words, I venture to say, he did not come at all near the very simple question asked by my noble friend Lord Camper-down. The question of my noble friend 1101 had reference to the measures it is proposed to take to meet certain complaints, and the essence of the question was to find out whether the Board of Agriculture have now, after this lapse of time, made up their minds, on proper legal advice, as to what the effect will be of the Act which was passed last year. All we want to know is, Have the Board of Agriculture taken an opinion on the subject, and, if they have, are they prepared to say what it is? Or are they going to leave the question to be settled by litigation?
The noble Earl dealt with a great variety of subjects. He said he thought the heather was on fire. We then had an interesting account of his first visit to Scotland, of which he gave us very much the same version once or twice last year. I can assure my noble friend that he is personally very popular in Scotland. He made a most favourable impression, and I am not in the least one of those who desire to see anyone else substituted as the head of the agricultural authority for Scotland. The noble Earl then said that if he was not well received he would have been glad to send in his cap and jacket. He next had the usual hit at unscrupulous landlords, and then he seemed to come near to the point, and I thought we were going to get an answer to the question. But having said that this was a difficult and complicated subject he branched off again, and quoted the opinion of a certain Mr. Norman Reid. Then he alluded to the exaggerated value paid under the existing system for sheep. This was followed by some reminiscences of the Welsh Commission, and an extremely interesting discussion as to whether a ewe and a lamb were one animal or two, and at what period they became two. We next had a description of the system of valuation of sheep in Scotland, and then we again came near the question.
Over and over again the noble Earl said it was not their intention in the Act to alter the law of valuation. We like our system of more or less friendly valuation, with the appointment of a third man as oversman; and the simple question at issue is this, Did a partticular subsection in the Act of last year make the continuance of that system in the future impossible or not? That is the question on the Paper, 1102 and to that question the noble Earl has given no answer at all. He said he would be very sorry if it were proved that the Act had altered the law, and that he would do his best to make the inconvenience caused by the refusal of the House of Commons to accept our words as light as possible. But the inference I am entitled to draw from the noble Earl's statement is that he has a good deal more than a little fear that the law has been altered. The noble Earl shakes his head, and I am very glad to note it. I hope he will be able to give us more definite information as to what he has been advised by those in his Department or by the Law Officers whom he has consulted.
If the existing custom has been swept away by the Act of last year we should accept with great pleasure anything the noble Lord could do to reduce the inconvenience which would then be caused; but the suggestion that sheriffs and sheriffs substitutes should send up names of fit persons to the Board of Agriculture would not meet the case. At present two neighbours meet to value the sheep stock; if they do not agree they call in a third person; and that is done with a minimum of expense and trouble. No individual sent down by the Board of Agriculture and no statutory provision can do anything to minimise the inconvenience that will be caused if that system is done away with. But, if it has been done away with, it is striking testimony to the treatment this House received last year, because we foresaw the danger and amended the Bill; but the Amendment, which was absolutely inoffensive, was rejected in another place on the advice of an English Law Officer. That circumstance ought to be a severe lesson to this House not to be so complaisant in future in accepting the rejection of Amendments inserted on practical knowledge and from a real fear of inconvenience arising. I hope the unrest existing on this question in Scotland will be taken into consideration by the Board of Agriculture, and if they can get legal opinion to the effect that the law has not been altered, I hope they will publish it with as little delay as possible.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)My Lords, we have had a great deal of talk 1103 about a very small point. I quite agree that this question of sheep valuation in Scotland is a very important one, and deserves a great deal of consideration; but the Act of last year really does not alter the position at all. There are appointed two arbiters to discuss the matter in the first instance. What generally occurs is that these two arbiters, before they begin their work, settle on an oversman, who is to be brought in if necessary. That will go on under the Act just as in the past. If no oversman is appointed and there is a difference between the two arbiters, the old custom was for an oversman to be appointed by the sheriff or the sheriff substitute; under the new system it is proposed that the Board of Agriculture should make the appointment, as they are well able to do.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I am sure he wishes that we should be agreed as to the facts. He said a moment ago that if there was a difference between the arbiters the oversman would be appointed by the sheriff or the sheriff-substitute, and that the place of those officials would now be taken by the Board of Agriculture. But that is not the sole point. The noble Lord left out of consideration the case in which these two arbiters are originally appointed and in which they appoint the oversman. It is to that the sheep farmers attach all the importance—to the oversman being appointed by the arbiters they themselves have named.
§ LORD TWEEDMOUTHBut under the Act the two arbiters can appoint the oversman exactly as they could in the past; it is only when they fail to appoint one that the necessity arises for somebody else to appoint him. My contention is that the Board of Agriculture is perfectly able to find an oversman who is acquainted with the conditions of the particular district. My noble friend says that the Board of Agriculture will be very glad to take the view of the local people as to the men to be appointed. I think that is a very good offer. With regard to the measures which it is proposed to take to meet these complaints, I may say that an inquiry has been held, but the Report has not yet been received. The Act does not come into operation till 1909, so 1104 we have two years in which to consider whether any little adjustment can be made. All I can say is that the desire of the Government is that these things should be satisfactorily and fairly settled and in a way that will be pleasant to the people of Scotland.
§ EARL CAWDORMy Lords, we have at last arrived at something which would have been more convenient if it had been told us by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture—namely, that an inquiry has been held into this subject, and after the Report has been looked into some statement, I assume, will be made on the subject. I hope we shall have that statement at as early a date as possible. I think the noble Earl, in professing to answer the question, might have told us that some inquiry had been held. As a matter of fact, the noble Earl entirely failed to answer the question. The point, I venture to suggest, is not a small one, but one of vital importance to the farmers of Scotland who are interested in sheep valuations. Last year my noble friend Lord Camper-down, and other noble Lords who understand this question from a practical point of view, suggested that if the clause passed as it was then drawn there was great risk that the existing system of valuation would be thought to be upset, and the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted an Amendment on the point from Lord Camperdown and declared it. to be a valuable addition to the Bill. But when the Bill reached the other House, Scottish opinion seems to have been set aside, with the result that the clause was put back in its old form. The consequence is that there is a strong feeling of doubt in Scotland whether the old system of valuation has not been done away with. The First Lord of the Admiralty says the law has not been altered. Will the noble Lord tell me that that is the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown?
§ EARL CARRINGTONThey have not yet reported.
§ EARL CAWDORThen it is unknown whether the law has been altered or not. I do think we are entitled to a definite statement on that subject, and I would ask whether whether when the noble 1105 Earl gets the Report he will lay it on the Table.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI promised that.
§ EARL CAWDORI did not hear the noble Earl say so. I now understand that he has promised your Lordships that he will lay the opinion of the Law Officers on this point before the House.
§ THE EARL OF CREWENo, no.
§ EARL CAWDORI understood the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture to say a moment ago that he would lay it.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThe best of us make mistakes sometimes, and I made one then.
§ EARL CAWDORWell, what is to be our position in this matter? If the Government know what the law is, can there be any earthly objection to the farmers of Scotland knowing whore they stand? The noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty said he hoped this matter would be entirely cleared up and that the minds of Scottish farmers would shortly be relieved. But that cannot be done unless we are told what the opinion of the Law Officers is. It was to elicit that information that the Question was placed on the Paper. We want to know what the law is, and I press again that we should have absolute and definite information on the point.
§ THE EARL OF CREWEMy Lords, I think there is some little misunderstanding as to what my noble friend did intend to convey and what he did not intend to convey. I have no personal knowledge of this subject, but I understand he is prepared to lay a Report embodying the opinion of his legal advisors, but he is not prepared to lay the opinion of the Law Officers, because that is a practice which we never follow.