As amended [ in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause—(Service Of Notices, Etc)
"Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on any person may be served by delivery to that person or by post, and service on the known agent of any person shall be deemed to be service on that person."—[ Mr. Johnston.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is mainly a drafting Amendment designed to make the service of notice clear.Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause—(Making Of Underground Main Drains)
"(1) Where the owner or occupier of any agricultural land is of opinion that such land is being injured or is in danger of being injured through the refusal of the owner of any land to allow underground main drains to be formed through his land it shall be lawful for the owner or occupier of such agricultural land to apply to the sheriff for a warrant authorising him to make such underground main drains through the land of such owner.
(2) If the sheriff is satisfied that the land owned or occupied by the applicant is being or is in danger of being injured by such refusal as aforesaid, and that permission to make such underground main drains is being unreasonably withheld, he may after such inquiry by remit or report, or otherwise, as he may think necessary, grant a warrant authorising the making of such underground main drains, and the person so authorised shall have power to enter on the land where the operations are to be carried out, and to carry out the same. The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such warrant shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage.
(3) Such warrant shall provide (i) for the payment by the person so authorised of compensation for any damage caused to any other person by reason of the making of the underground main drains authorised by such warrant, the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, to be determined by the sheriff after such inquiry as aforesaid; and (ii) for the proper maintenance or renewal of the said drains in the future
at the expense of the owner for the time being of the said agricultural land."—[ Mr. MacRobert.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to re-enact certain essential parts of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1847, which has been repealed in this Measure. It is necessary to re-enact certain beneficiary provisions, and I do so in this Clause which I now move. I do not think that any explanation is required, as the Clause speaks for itself.We are prepared to accept this Clause.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 1—(Maintenance Of Banks And Cleansing Of Channels Of Watercourses)
Amendment made: In page 1, line 10, after the word "cleanse," insert the words, "or scour or to join in cleansing or scouring."—[ Mr. Johnston.]
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "in," to insert the words "or partly in."
This is a drafting Amendment to meet points that were raised in Committee.Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in line 13, to leave out the words "or his agent."
This Amendment is consequential upon the new Clause which we have passed.Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from the word "therein," to the end of the Sub-section.
We propose to leave out these words because they are covered by a later and more comprehensive Amendment.Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, after the word "satisfied" to insert "(a)."
That will be put right in the printing.
Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, leave out the word "owner," and insert instead thereof the word "person."—[ Mr. W. Adamson.]
I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert the words:
This Amendment is designed to implement a pledge given in Committee, whereby the sheriff is authorised to have his orders carried out under the supervision of an experienced person."The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such an order or warrant as aforesaid shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after the word "section," to insert the words:
This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which we have just carried."(including the remuneration of any person under whose supervision the operations are directed to be carried out)."
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
This Amendment is to cover the Sub-section which we have left out."(7) The Court of Session may by Act of Sederunt make rules with regard to the remuneration of persons acting as assessors or as reporters or supervising the carrying out of operations under an order or warrant in pursuance of the provisions of this section, and the remuneration of any person acting as assessor or as reporter shall be treated as expenses in the application unless the sheriff otherwise directs."
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "section," and to insert instead thereof the word "Act,"
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
Clause 2—(Schemes For Drainage Work)
I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out the words "or building."
This Amendment is to ensure that there will be no doubt that the Interpretation Act shall apply. The question was discussed adequately in the Committee stage.Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after the word "to," to insert the words:
This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment relate to a pledge which was given in Committee, whereby no one will be charged more than the benefit that he or she receives as a result of the operations of this Act."the benefit expected to accrue to such lands by reason of the execution of the scheme, and shall not apportion to any lands an amount in excess of the estimated value of the benefit so expected to accrue to such lands, and in estimating the value of such benefit the Department shall take into account."
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 4, line 13, leave out the words "any of such," and insert instead thereof the word "the."
In line 14, leave out the words "any such," and insert instead thereof the word "the."
In line 19, leave out the words "any such," and insert instead thereof the word "the."
In line 21, leave out the words "the owner of any such lands," and insert instead thereof the words "such owner."
In line 25, leave out from the word "works" to the end of the Sub-section.—[ Mr. W. Adamson.]
I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out the word "Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "Land Court,"
An important question of principle arises on this Amendment. I am a warm supporter of the Bill and I fully recognise the way the Government have met the views of hon. Members on these benches. They have accepted some Amendments to which we attach importance, and I hope they will accept this proposal as well. It provides that where there is a dispute as to how the cost of these schemes shall be allocated as between owners and occupiers, they should be able to appeal to the Land Court instead of being left to the mercy of the Department. In the Committee upstairs the Under-Secretary of State said that the Land Court was overworked. I have made inquiries and I have discovered that they are not so overworked as the Department of Agriculture; and it would be quite easy to appoint an additional member to the Land Court if it was necessary in order to undertake this work. I should like the Land Court brought in in two or three other places in the Bill, but I accept the decision of the Committee on these points. The Under-Secretary said that it would make a political agreement impossible if the Land Court was brought in. I do not think hon. Members above the Gangway would oppose the Land Court being brought in in this case, and it would be a real assistance to the Bill. Further, it would recommend it to the acceptance of the people of Scotland if they felt that they had a right to go to the Land Court, an impartial body, instead of being left to the mercy of the Department. I do not think the Department enjoys that implicit trust and confidence of the people of Scotland which the Under-Secretary seems to think. There is one other important point. If the Amendment is not accepted it means that the Department will be the sole judge in allocating the cost of schemes as between owners and occupiers in regard to 720,000 acres of land in Scotland. The Department of Agriculture actually own 400,000 acres, but they are closely linked with the Forestry Commission, the War Department and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. In all these cases the tenants will have no appeal against the decision of their landlord unless you bring in the Land Court. All these Departments are closely linked together and they are all linked up with the Treasury. We know that orders very often go out when the Budget is coming along for expenses to be cut down. I say that the people in Scotland will not have confidence in this part of the Bill, in the allocation of the cost of schemes as between owner and occupier, unless they are able to appeal to the Land Court; and this especially applies to those who are the tenants of the Department of Agriculture. They will have no appeal from the decision of their land- lord to the Land Court. This is a reasonable proposal and can be given without incurring those political disadvantages which the Under-Secretary of State fears. It is one which would make for the smooth running of the Bill and would commend it to the people of Scotland.I beg to second the Amendment.
The matter of the apportionment of these expenses as between landowner and occupier should be in the hands of a judicial body. Under the Bill the Department will be the judge in its own court. The Land Court is not enjoying a, leisurely existence. It is doing good and hard work, but it is not overworked, and it could quite well cope with the additional work suggested by the Amendment. May I also point out that at present there is a vacancy in the Land Court which, if necessary, could be filled.I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press this Amendment. He has stated the case very persuasively, and, if it were possible for the Government to accept it, my right hon. Friend would not hesitate for a moment. Let me put the point of view which, perhaps, I stated rather indifferently during the Committee stage. I beg the hon. and gallant Member to believe that we made inquiries from every possible source, and, with the object of getting the maximum degree of agreement to the scheme, we did not seek to impose the Land Court. There are serious objections to the Land Court. There are large areas of land, perhaps the vast majority of land, which will be covered by these drainage schemes where the Land Court does not function at all. It must be remembered also that the Department will have drawn up the schemes and carried out the works, and fixed, subject to an appeal to the arbiter, the amount to be allocated as between the landowner and occupier. In our opinion it is the body best fitted to judge as to the proper allocation of expenses. It has had all the details through its hands. Its agents have been on the ground. It has drawn up the scheme and knows everything about it from A to Z. We can see no reason for dragging in another body to fix the allocation of costs as between owner and tenant.
Lastly, the point was made by the hon. and gallant Member and by the Seconder that the Department of Agriculture would be the judge in its own case, and that there were large areas of land where the Department, being the owner, would at least to some extent be suspect of not allocating fairly the proportions which the tenants and the owners might respectively be called upon to pay. But let me remind those hon. Members that the Department for this purpose is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He stands to be shot at in this House in a way that no other owner or proprietor of land in Scotland can be shot at, and an appeal in every case, if so desired, lies to this House. Every hon. Member can take the necessary steps under a succeeding Clause to bring the grievances of his constituents, if grievances there be, before this House. In order to ensure that the engineering schemes which are already drafted shall be pushed through from beginning to end with the maximum acceleration, the Government trust that the Land Court will not be dragged in, but that the Department will be left, subject to the appeals which are in the Bill to make the allocation as between owner and tenant.I regret that the Under-Secretary of State has not seen fit to accept the Amendment, especially in view of the latter part of his argument. He said that redress is in this House. I am the last man to belittle this House, but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are plenty of complaints now with regard to the relation of the Board of Agriculture and tenants in Scotland, and that we can never find an opportunity of raising them effectively in this House. If there were a Parliament at Edinburgh instead of at Westminster it might be a very different thing, but there is a very strong case for the Land Court in this particular instance.
I have a proposal which is not quite in accordance with the Amendment. I have always maintained in this House and elsewhere that it is not right that Government Departments should be both advocates and judges in their own cause. I think that possibly the Lord Advocate will agree with me when I make the proposition that instead of the Land Court, or the Department of Agriculture, these questions should be brought before the Sheriff.
We must keep to the Amendment.
I bow to your Ruling, but surely in criticising what is put forward in the Amendment we can suggest an alternative?
Discussion is confined to the Amendment before the House, and to the question whether the words shall be the Department or the Land Court.
9.0 p.m.
I cannot see my way to support either, and I thought I might be allowed to state an alternative that would get us out of the difficulty, and that is the appointment of more sheriffs and better paid sheriffs.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 5, line 35, after the word "as," insert the words:
"may be fixed in any agreement made by the parties and confirmed by the Department or, failing such agreement, as."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]
I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, to leave out from the word "by" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Under the Bill as it stands, if an arbiter has to be appointed, the party having the dispute with the Department about the amount of compensation would have to go to Edinburgh and make an application to a Lord Ordinary. I submit that that is very much too cumbersome and expensive a procedure. It would mean that the aggrieved owner or occupier—he might be a very small man, for there has been an immense increase in the number of small occupying owners since the War—who might be in Caithness or Sutherland or any other remote part of Scotland, would not go himself to Edinburgh, but would employ his local agent, that the local agent would have to employ, an agent in Edinburgh, and that the agent in Edinburgh would make the application to the Lord Ordinary for the appointment of an arbiter. The Government have seen to a large extent the force of our argument, and have met us to some extent in the following Amendment in which they suggest a provision that "the nomination of an arbiter shall be made by petition, and that any such petition may be in writing and need not be printed or boxed." That change would lower the expense only to a very small extent. Under my Amendment the reasonable procedure would be that the man could make an application to the Sheriff in person, and that the Sheriff would apply for an arbiter. It would not be the case that a local man would be appointed as arbiter, because under the next Clause the arbiter has to be appointed from the panel of arbiters. The Amendment means merely that instead of the appointment being made by the Lord Ordinary, it would be made by the Sheriff."the Sheriff of the county in which such lands are situated or his substitute."
I beg to second the Amendment.
I am sorry that, for the reasons which we gave in Committee, we cannot possibly accept this Amendment. A considerable number of the schemes which we hope to promote do not lie within a single sheriffdom at all. Some of these schemes to deal with flooding would run through three sheriffdoms, and we do not desire the additional complexity of an appeal being made to one sheriff in respect of troubles which may be alleged to have arisen in the area of another. For that reason alone, we desire that the appeal shall not be made to a sheriff but to the Lord Ordinary. As the Bill was originally framed, there might have been something in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that the method of appeal to the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session would involve unnecessary expense, but we have sought to meet that point, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has indicated, by the next Amendment on the Paper, according to which any application for the nomination of an arbiter is to be made by petition, and such petition may be in writing and need not be printed or boxed. I understand that as a result of that Amendment the legal costs of such an application might be £l or £2.
In a case in which the Department made the application for the nomination of an arbiter, no cost whatever would fall upon the claimant, and, while I am referring to that matter, may I take the opportunity of pointing out that tenants of Departmental land will not be in for one penny of expenses at all in this matter and cannot possibly be, because all charges are borne by the proprietor, and the proprietor in that case is the Department. A collective application could be made to the Lord Ordinary if there was a large number of claimants, and, under the Amendment which comes next on the Paper, that application need not involve more than a nominal charge, but it is necessary that there should be some central legal authority covering a wider area than a sheriff can cover to select these arbiters. For these reasons we are compelled to ask the House to reject the Amendment.In supporting the Amendment I may possibly incur the wrath of my brother lawyers in Edinburgh because the procedure under the Bill as it stands will undoubtedly add to their profits. I cannot see an Edinburgh lawyer putting through this procedure for a £1 note as suggested by the Under-Secretary. If I know anything about their charges it is not likely to be done under a £5 note—though hon. Members opposite must understand that that is not all profit and that there are outlays, such as dues, to be paid on the process. It is quite true that counsel may have no interest in the procedure, because an agent may present the petition, but the argument that it is necessary to have a central authority ought not to carry weight. The Under-Secretary suggests that two or three sheriffs might be involved in one of these schemes, but nothing could be simpler than to provide that one of the sheriffs whose areas are concerned should nominate the arbiter. If expedition is what the Government desire they can have it by leaving the appointment in the hands of the local sheriff.
On this occasion I feel bound to support the Government, though for reasons different from those of the Under-Secretary. I feel that these matters could be far more economically and promptly dealt with by the sheriffs, but the sheriffs of Scotland—a very remarkable body—are rather overworked and until the Government see fit to appoint more sheriffs and to pay them better, the general public will have to put up with the additional fees and more costly processes involved in going before the Lord Ordinary. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to give his opinion on that matter.
Amendment negatived.
I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
This Amendment is designed to meet the point submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). It ensures that the expenses of the procedure in the Court of Session for the appointment of an arbiter shall be kept as low as possible, and I assure the House that the Government are as anxious as anyone to keep down those costs."Any application for the nomination of an arbiter shall be made by petition and any such petition may be in writing and need not be printed or boxed."
We recognise the intention of the Government in moving this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman says is designed to meet the point raised by us, but we consider that the Amendment just misses the point. By following the procedure envisaged in this Amendment, the expenses will be greater than they would have been had our previous Amendment been accepted.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5—(Crown Rights)
I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
If this Clause is passed, it means that all the land owned by the Crown and by Government Departments' will be outside the purview of the Measure. As I have already said, there are no fewer than 720,000 acres so held—the largest landed estate in Scotland. Under Clause 2, the Government will make contributions towards large schemes of drainage throughout Scotland. Therefore, of course, we do not want the Crown specifically forced under this Clause to make such contributions unless it is the Government policy to do it, but, in addition to that, there is the question of the maintenance of these works once they are made, and we say that the Crown and the Government Departments should be under the same obligations as other owners and occupiers of land in Scotland to maintain works once they are made. It is not fair that owners and occupiers all over Scotland should have to maintain these drainage works, but that the Crown and Government Departments should be exempt from that obligation. Under Clause 1 of the Bill any owner or occupier whose land is being flooded with water coming from the land of another owner or occupier, because that other owner or occupier refuses to scour out some canal or clean some drain, is able to go to the sheriff and to get a decree from him compelling that other owner or occupier to carry out that work and prevent his lands from being flooded. But if this Clause 5 remains in the Bill, any owner or occupier of land who is suffering from the failure of any Government Department or of the Commissioners of Crown Lands to scour their canals or clean their drains, will have no redress. It is my submission that this House should see that those people should have redress, that if they are being damaged by flood water coming from property belonging to a Government Department they should have just the same right of going to the sheriff and getting a decree making that Department join with them in putting that flooding right as they would Have if that land were owned by a private individual. In refusing to accept one of my other Amendments, the Under-Secretary made use of an argument which he may make use of against this Amendment, and I would venture, therefore, to forestall it. He will say, "It is true there is no appeal to the sheriff, but they will appeal to this House." Every Member of this House knows that, although we try our best to see that injustices of this kind are stopped, and that Members of whatever party will stand up for the rights of their constituents against the heads of Government Departments, even on their own side of the House, they know equally well that it is very difficult indeed to get redress, particularly in small cases, where it may be the flooding of the land of a small occupying owner of 40 or 50 acres of land. Is any Member going to be able to get the opportunity of having that discussed and a Division taken on it in this House? If we go to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we shall be most courteously received, and he will look into our complaint and discuss it with his officials. From the head official in Whitehall, it goes to a second official in Edinburgh, and from him to an area commissioner for several counties of Scotland, and from him it goes to the sub-commissioner for the particular county affected. Then a report is sent, and when it comes back through all those various channels to the Scottish Office, and the Secretary of State finds that these officials have reported to him that there is really no case, do hon. Members really suppose that these occupiers or owners of land have any effective appeal whatsoever? The only effective appeal they can have is if they are given this right of going to the sheriff, and if the sheriff considers that that Government Department, be it the Department of Agriculture, or the Commissioners of Crown Lands, or the Forestry Commissioners, should be made to join with the other owner or occupier in putting that drainage right, that sheriff's decree should run against that Department. It is only if we insist on that being done that we shall have effectively stood up for the rights of our constituents.I beg to second the Amendment.
The history of the preservation of Crown rights and the immunities of the Crown is a very long and interesting one, and I do not propose to go into it now, but I submit that it is a matter to which this House might very well devote some attention. On one of the occasions when a private Member is fortunate in the ballot, it would be an excellent matter to put down for discussion, because in the course of time, conditions have changed—very rapidly of late years—so that what might have been necessary some hundreds of years ago, to-day becomes somewhat ridiculous. On the present occasion we are dealing with the Crown as a common landlord, and because the particular lands in question may belong to the Department of Agriculture, the Department is to be treated as though it was a King of 300 years ago, and no one can do anything except bow down to the Department, whose consent has to be obtained before anything can be done. The effect of this Clause in Scotland has been so admirably put by my hon. and gallant Friend, that I do not propose to say anything more in seconding this Amendment.With some of the observations that have fallen from the hon. Members opposite, we have no disagreement whatever. The question of the immunity of Crown land generally is a subject that might profitably be discussed in this House, but I would point out to both the hon. Members that this is hardly a case upon which to raise it, inasmuch as we have already provided in the Bill that no human being shall be charged more than the benefit which he or she receives. Whether a man be a tenant of Crown lands or not is immaterial; no one will be charged more than the benefit which he or she receives as a result of the operations of the Act.
The hon. Member is only referring to schemes dealt with under Clause 2; he is not referring to Clause 1.
I am dealing with the case where the Department is an owner and where the Department's lands are affected by a flooding scheme. Where a scheme is drawn up, no tenants on the Department's land can be adversely affected to the extent of one halfpenny by anything in this Bill. It is indeed expressly provided—and I think hon. Members on all sides of the Committee upstairs insisted upon making it clear in the Bill—that no one was to be called upon to pay more than the benefits which he or she received. There is no point whatever in seeking to make out a case against the Crown because of any possible harsh or unfair treatment which it may mete out, either to a tenant upon Crown estates or to anyone else.
What about Clause 1?
Let me put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Clause 1 operates where a proprietor does not in fact keep his property in proper condition. The State may conceivably not keep its property in proper condition. I put it no higher than that, but that does not arise on this question. The question the House is now discussing is whether or not the Crown can be sued and pressed for payment. If the Department of Agriculture or any other Crown Department is not looking after its property, there are other remedies open to compel the Department to see to it that its property is put into proper repair. That is the remedy, and this is not the time or place to raise the question of the immunity of the Crown from prosecution or from attachment in the courts. That raises many serious issues which ought not to be raised here. I want again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the provisions of the Bill no one can be charged more than the benefits he has received, and in these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
I rise to support the Amendment. It may be true that we touch here upon the very much larger question of the liability of the Crown in regard to private citizens, but that is no reason why when the Crown comes into a question of this sort we should continue on what is admittedly the wrong road. The old road will some day require to be altered, but when we have a certain part of it here before us we ought to take steps to see that the Crown is made liable. I would point out that under Clause 1 the culprit may be a Government Department. The latter part of Clause 5 says:
It might quite well be that the agents or officers of the Department would have no permission to enter land from which damage was being done. The Crown ought to be made liable as private citizens are not only for the costs of carrying out the scheme, but also for the cost of maintenance. It may be said in reply that the Government Department concerned would make a voluntary contribution. This matter ought not to be left on that footing, and I say the Crown should be put in exactly the same position as any other private citizen in this matter."and nothing in this Act shall authorise the use of or interference with any land … belonging to His Majesty."
Amendment negatived.
Clause 7—Interpretation
I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, at the end to insert the words:
I believe that the House desires to have this Amendment."The expression 'agricultural land' shall include any land used for agricultural or pastoral purposes or for the purpose of poultry farming or as a market garden, orchard, allotment, or allotment garden, and any woodlands or land used for the purpose of afforestation."
We have had a very quiet and homely conversation with one another to-night, and before we depart I should like to call attention to this definition. I should rather think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert) has had something to do with this definition.
On the contrary, I proposed the definition before the Committee and it was defeated.
I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved a definition, but if I read the one he proposed in Committee and the one we have here I would think they were Siamese twins, for they have a very strong relationship with each other. This is the old hackneyed definition which will not hold water five minutes in the Law Courts. There are several complaints which could be made about it. The wording could be pulled to pieces in the Law Courts. It is not comprehensive enough. You include poultry farming, market gardening, orchards, allotments, allotment gardens and woodlands, and you might even include graveyards. It is not comprehensive enough. If you wanted to make it so comprehensive that you would include in the definition every function for which land could be put in an agricultural sense, I could well imagine that the definition would run to a full page of the Order Paper. I want to protest against this definition. It comes up regularly in all Bills dealing with land. It came up in the Local Government Bill on the de-rating Clauses. The definition was very much the same, and I want to protest against it. I will not force it to a Division. I shall have to abide by it, but it is high time that someone rose in this House and protested against it.
I would like very much to see this made a test case in the Law Courts. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would knock holes in it in five minutes in the Courts. A definition of agri- cultural land would have to take another line altogether. I have suggested that line before. It should be based on valuation. I am speaking about the definition, not about administrative practice. It should be one which as sensible human beings we know would stand the test of the Law Courts. If you take the definition here, I know of land in the very heart of Glasgow which could be used for poultry farming or market gardening, and could come under the definition of agricultural land. It is in order to point out the ridiculousness of this so-called definition that I have entered this happy evening into a very quiet Scottish Debate. Let me say that I have heard hon. Members opposite complaining about the redress they have against the high-handed authority of the Crown. It is high time that the Scottish Members of the House developed the old temper of the Irish Members. I have seen this House held up over a question of hens being shot, never mind the question of landholdings in Scotland.I listened with great interest to the delightful speech of the hon. Member; there is only one thing that would be more amusing than his speech, and that would be if he tried his hand at a definition.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, after the word "drain," to insert the words "(whether open or closed)."
This would make the definition clearer.The Amendment seems hardly necessary, because the word "watercourse" includes any drain, but there is no strong objection to the words, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that it makes the Bill more explicit, we will accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. T. Kennedy.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes before Ten o'Clock.