§ Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
2§ MR. WARTONrose to move that the Bill be considered that day three months. The reason why he objected to such a Bill was that it wandered very far from its Preamble and Title. The ostensible object of the Bill was, so far as they could judge, to give protection to farmers against the ravages of hares and rabbits; but its real object was to strike a blow at the landowners of this country. The ostensible object of the Bill was to put an end to what was admitted on both sides of the House to be an evil— namely, the over-preservation of game. That object could be easily accomplished by giving the farmer compensation in case of his crops being injured by hares and rabbits, or by allowing the landlord and the tenant to enter into such arrangements as they choose with regard to the preservation of game. Such legislation as that, however, would not suit the Radical supporters of the Government, who sought to strike a blow at the landowners by sowing dissension between them and their tenants, and they had accordingly hounded on the Government to introduce this wretched Bill. When the Liberals were advocating the 3 adoption of Free Trade, they were never tired of urging that everybody should be free to make their own contracts; but the moment that the landed interest was involved they had changed their tone, and now they wished to legislate paternally for the protection of the farmer. Such was the political hypocrisy of the present day, that men voted for that which they hated and detested, and were afraid to speak out their minds. That wretched Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, included the Ballot Act; and he thought if hon. Members could vote by Ballot different results would be seen. They had voted for the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill because they knew it would be thrown out in "another place," and he dared say they would vote for this Bill with a similar expectation. The effect of this measure would be to withdraw the country gentleman from his home, to which he had hitherto been attracted by his love of sport. Every person of sane mind, of full age, and who suffered under no legal disability to contract, should be allowed to enter into any contract he chose. He could not see what objection there could be to a landlord entering into an arrangement to compensate his tenant for damage done by game, especially if it were in the tenant's power to set that arrangement aside if he found that he was a loser by the bargain.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Warton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. NEWDEGATEwished to state that when the House was in Committee he opposed the 3rd clause, and he had reason to think that there had been some misunderstanding as to the ground of his opposition—
§ MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was addressing himself to a particular clause, and the Question was, Whether the Bill should be considered now, or three months hence?
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would refer to the matter at a subsequent stage.
§ EARL PERCYwould not recommend the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to take a division on his Amend- 4 ment; because he hoped that, on the third reading of the Bill, there would be discussion and a division upon its main principle. At the same time, if the hon. and learned Member chose to divide, he would certainly support him; because he thought they ought at all the stages of the Bill to protest against its being forced through the House at so late a period of the Session.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Bill, as amended, considered.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved to leave out Clause 7, and to insert the following Clause:—
§ (Exemption from penalties.)
§ "A person acting in accordance with this Act shall not be subject to any proceedings or penalties in pursuance of any law or statute."
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ MR. GIBSONsaid, he would be glad if, before the Bill went to "another place," there was a Schedule added showing what Acts would be repealed. That would be of use to magistrates in dealing with cases which came before them.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought the suggestion deserved attention. The reason why no Schedule had been prepared was that this Bill would apply to England, Scotland, and Ireland; and if any one of the numerous statutes affected should be left out of the Schedule great mischief might ensue. But a magistrate could have no difficulty under this Bill. Prosecutions would be based either upon the Common Law, or upon some statute. It would only have to appear that the person was acting in accordance with the Act of 1880 to exempt the person from penalties under any statute or at Common Law.
§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDONpointed out that, under this new clause, persons using guns without a licence would be exempted from any penalty under the Gun Licence Act. If that were not intended, there should be words to that effect.
§ Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. GREGORYmoved the following new Clause;—
§ (Agreement between landlord and tenant in certain cases.)
§ "Provided, That where the occupier of land has, by agreement with his landlord, the unrestricted right of killing hares and rabbits during any months of the year not being less than four in number, the landlord may, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, by agreement with the occupier, reserve the exclusive right of killing hares and rabbits on the land of the occupier during the remainder of the year."
§ If he were told that it was contrary to the principle of the Bill for a landlord and tenant to enter into any agreement at all, he would ask where that principle was to stop? It might apply to rent, it might apply to crops, and it might apply to the mode of cultivation. He put it to any tenant, whether four months was not sufficient time to enable him to destroy the ground game, and this would be secured to him? But if he required more there was nothing in the clause which would prevent his obtaining it by agreement with his landlord.
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the clause was exactly the same as that which had been introduced in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants(Mr.Sclater-Booth); and he thought it would be wasting the time of the House to argue a question which had been discussed over and over again, and upon which many divisions had been taken.
SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSdenied that this was the same clause as his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had moved in Committee; but, even if it were, the hon. Member for East Sussex had a perfect right to move it over again on the consideration of the Report. It appeared to him that the new policy of the Liberal Government was to abridge the individual liberty of the subject, and he should have thought that they would seek to increase that liberty. This seemed to be the policy of the Government looking at the Bills before the House. He did not know anyone who had insisted more strongly than the Postmaster General, before the present Government came into Office, on the justice of leaving parties to make 6 their own contracts in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that farmers were to be put on a level with women and children working in factories, and were to be legislated for accordingly, he congratulated him and his Colleagues on his compliment to the tenant farmers of England. It seemed to him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that the Bill went a great deal further than was necessary for its object; because if the tenant farmer had power to kill ground game during certain seasons of the year, he would be quite able to protect the crops; but if he had absolute power to go over the land at all times of the year and shoot the game, he would be encouraged to keep up the ground game for purposes of sport, and the right of the landlord to shoot over his own property would be interfered with. The landlord would be unable to secure quietness for the sake of winged game, and would be unable to enjoy sport with his friends. The right hon. Gentleman repeated his congratulations to the Home Secretary on his treating the farmers like women and children.
§ MR. GURDON,as one representing and living in a game county, contended that four months in the year would not be nearly enough to meet the requirements of the occupiers in many cases. He wished to refer to one remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The hon. and learned Member had passed a gratuitous insult upon some landlords in the House. He had insinuated—nay, stated openly— that some of them had supported this Bill against their belief in it. He (Mr. Gurdon) repudiated that accusation, and said it was because they had sympathy with the occupiers of the land that some of them had been returned to that House for the first time; and he thought this Bill would prove their sympathy, because he believed it would prevent the excessive preservation of ground game, while it could not possibly do harm to a good sportsman or a good landlord.
§ EARL PERCYsaid the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who was a competent judge in such matters, had spoken approvingly of four months, and considered that period quite sufficient; but if the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Gurdon) was dissatisfied with the time named in the proposed new clause, he could move an Amend- 7 ment to extend that time, as he did not understand his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to be bound to any particular period.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 92: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
§ MR. WHITLEYmoved the following Clause:—
§ (Legal proceedings against unauthorised persons.)
§ "From and after the passing of this Act it shall he lawful for either the occupier or the owner of any lands having a concurrent right to kill or take game thereon, to take legal proceedings against any unauthorised person or persons trespassing in pursuit of game, hares, or rabbits."
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that the clause was unnecessary, as any party aggrieved would be able to commence legal proceedings.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause withdrawn.
§ MR. GREGORYmoved, in Clause 1, page 2, to leave out sub-section 3, and insert—
No person having a right of killing ground game under this Act or otherwise shall use any lire-arms for the purpose of killing ground game between the first hour after sunset and the last hour before sunrise; and no such person shall, for the purpose of killing ground game, employ spring traps above ground or poison; and any person acting in contravention of this section shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding two pounds.
§ MR. RODWELLtrusted that the Home Secretary would accept the words proposed to be inserted by the hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexpressed a similar hope.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTadmitted that the proposal was a very reasonable one. He had only accepted these limitations with reluctance; but the proposal to place the owner and the occupier on the same footing, with reference to the use of fire-arms and traps, was one to which he had no objection. He thought that the concurrent right 8 of shooting hares and rabbits ought not to be exercised in the dark.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked what use there was in having the word "poison" in this clause?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, not any, as poison was forbidden to be used in such cases, under a heavy penalty, in the Act passed in the reign of William IV., and other Acts since that time. The retention of the word, however, would do no harm.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLobserved, that the statement just made by the Home Secretary only proved the force of a suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)—namely, that there should be a Schedule of the Acts repealed and of the Acts not repealed. In answer to that suggestion, however, the Home Secretary said that magistrates, in dealing with cases brought before them under this Bill, would only have to look to its provisions, and would not be bothered by having to consult any other Act of Parliament. If the magistrates would only have to look to this Act, it was perfectly clear that a person could not be convicted under any former Act.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the noble Lord had omitted to look at the Paper of Amendments. If he would look at the list of Amendments, he would see one, on page 3, in which were the words—
Or by any methods prohibited by any Act of Parliament in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved, in Clause 1, page 2, line 17, after "inclusive," to insert—
But this provision shall not apply to detatched portions of moorlands, or unenclosed lands adjoining arable lands, and less than twenty-five acres in extent.
§ MR. THOMASSONmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after "arable land," "where such detached portions or unenclosed lands are less than twenty-five acres in extent."
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in order to meet an objection which had been previously raised, moved to insert, at the end of Clause 4— 9
Nothing in this Act contained shall exempt any person from the provisions of the Gun Licence Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. BORLASE,in moving the omission of the 5th clause, thought he was justified in making this Motion, because he represented a large agricultural constituency in the West of England who were deeply interested in this particular point. He thought he was justified in this course, also, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in introducing this Bill, stated that he wished to hear what were the real opinions of the English constituencies, and especially the large agricultural constituencies, with regard to this subject as expressed by their Representatives in Parliament. In making this Motion, however, he entirely disclaimed, both on his own part and on the part of those whom he represented, any wish to deprive either the lessee of game or the landlord of any just compensation for disturbance which might be due, not, as in a former Bill, from the owner to the occupier; but, in this case, from the latter to the former. He believed he might argue, with regard to this clause, that it was neither necessary nor admissible. In the first place, it was unnecessary; because, in the construction of Acts of Parliament, vested interests in existing leases, where any valuable consideration was involved, were always respected without a saving clause of this sort, lest some innocent party should receive damage thereby. In the second place, it was inadmissible, upon the authority of Dwarris on Statutes, on the ground that no clause was admissible which overthrew, as he maintained that this one did, the whole purview of the Bill. But he would not argue the ease merely upon legal or technical grounds; but would take it upon the simpler ground of common sense, and would hold that the clause was antagonistic, not only to the Preamble of the Bill, but to the very title of the Bill itself. In order to show this, he must follow the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), and read the Title and Preamble of the Bill. The Title stated that the Bill was for the "better protection of Occupiers of Land against injury to their Crops from Hares and Rabbits;" and the Preamble said that such and 10 such things were to be done "in the interests of good husbandry." "In the interests of good husbandry!" Yes; but when? Now, or in the future? Was it not in consequence of the existing depression in agriculture that these tenant farmers' grievances had been brought before their Representatives, and were now being brought before that House? Upon that ground alone he thought that this clause ought not to be in the Bill. If it was maintained in the Bill, it would be giving scope for stipulations being made which, to use the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who brought in the Bill, would "prevent the crops from growing." It would be giving further scope for agreements with that middle man—the lessee of the game—under whom, admittedly, the greatest evils had arisen. If they retained it, then, under the pretence of protecting existing rights, they would be countenancing existing wrongs. Lastly, they would be saying that the principle of the measure was not of sufficient value to be put into immediate practice. He must say a word on a subject which had been alluded to over and over again during the debates upon the Bill—namely, upon the principle of the Bill—but he would only say that, so far as the principle of the Bill was concerned, he perfectly agreed with what the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) said upon the second reading of the Bill—that they had not been arguing this Bill upon the principle of its Preamble. They went off on a side issue, and they were led into that side issue by an incident raised in the speech of an hon. Member. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) had said that the cause of this Bill was over-preservation. But over-preservation was an indefinite term, and involved in the mind of those who used it a certain indistinctness of thought. Over-preservation was a relative expression. It was relative to the opinion of three distinct persons variously interested in the matter. It was relative to the opinion of the lessee of game; it was relative to the opinion of the landlord; and it was relative to the opinion of the tenant farmer. What was over-preservation to the lessee of game? He could not see what over-preservation could mean to the lessee of game as long as he got his money's worth of pleasure. Over-preservation 11 to the landlord!" Well, what did that mean? The test of it was when his agent came to him and said—"Your rent, sir, will no longer bear the strain of the game." And what was over-preservation to the tenant farmer? They were contending that the preservation of hares and rabbits, in any form, was over-preservation in the opinion of the tenant farmer. As tenant farmers, his constituents were greatly interested in the principle of this Bill; but it had been argued upon an incident, while it was the system at which they wished to strike. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was one which he hoped to see underlying many another measure which might be brought in in the future with regard to land in this country; it was that every acre of land in the United Kingdom, not held in the hands of the owner, should have every artificial restriction taken from it which could prevent its fullest development, which could prevent the tenant farmer from getting from it the fullest remuneration for his labour and his capital expended on the soil. To put this in the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who brought in the Bill, "no stipulation in an agreement should be possible which would prevent crops growing." To put it in a popular form, which the people of this country would understand—Since God had given man the land to till and to keep, man should not be able to make laws to prevent himself from doing so efficiently. If ever a Bill was brought in pro bono publico, this was the Bill; if ever a Bill ought to be without a saving clause, it was this one; if ever a Bill ought to come into immediate operation, this was the one. They, on the Government side of the House, owed a debt of gratitude to hon. Gentlemen opposite for the unselfish way in which they had come forward and supported this Bill. Perhaps, there were never fewer landlords in the House of Commons than there were at that present moment; but, perhaps, there never were so many good ones. He could not, indeed, for his part, see how there could be a single bad landlord under the present system of voting, especially if he sat on the Conservative Benches opposite. He entreated hon. Gentlemen to join with him in bringing upon themselves one more obligation from the tenant farmers by asking the right hon. and learned Gen- 12 tleman the Home Secretary to do what he felt sure he had it in his heart to do—to make the Bill as perfect as possible by bringing it into immediate operation, and by granting this further measure of justice and right.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from the word "Where," to the word "Act," in page 3, line 14, both inclusive.—(Mr. Borlase.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Where at the date of the passing of this Act' stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsupported the Motion to omit the clause. He rose, however, to call attention to one particular point. They were sometimes told that Petitions were not very trustworthy; but although the House of Commons did not pay so much attention to them as it might do, still they were thought a great deal of out-of-doors, as shown by the long list of them the daily papers thought it worth while to publish. He knew there had been six Petitions against the Bill; but in favour of the Bill absolutely there were 33 Petitions; and, what was an important point, there were 77 Petitions presented in support of the Bill, but demanding alterations, and these Petitions had nearly 8,000 signatures. He had examined the Petitions from Scotland. They were nearly all alike in their prayer. One presented by the Home Secretary, from the tenant farmers of the County of Edinburgh, pointed out that, so far as Scotland was concerned, if the Bill passed in its present form the position of a great many tenant farmers, instead of being benefited, would be made seriously worse by the insertion of the 5th clause. They also pointed out that when former changes in the law were made—when the Corn Laws were repealed, when foreign cattle were admitted to this country, when poor rates were imposed, and, still more recently, when education rates were imposed— these Acts came into immediate operation. Leases were not taken into consideration, and no abatement and no compensation were allowed to farmers. If the Bill passed in its present form it would be for many years in Scotland a dead letter. It must be 10 years before it came into operation on the average. Had this clause not existed in the Bill, 13 had the Bill come into immediate operation, with due compensation and arrangements for obtaining compensation, he believed that, as far as the tenant farmers were concerned, the Game Question would have been finally settled. As it was, if the Home Secretary declined to entertain this Amendment, he was afraid that that would not be the case in Scotland. And he would remind the House that, though the Bill dealt with the question of game as between the landlord and tenant, there was a large class interested in the reform of the Game Laws, and that a large number of those who were deeply interested would shortly have a potential voice in the settlement of this question. He felt certain that those who were in favour of maintaining the Game Laws, at least in a modified form, would do well to get rid of the hostility which at present existed among the tenant farmers of Scotland.
§ DR. FARQUHARSON,as representing a large agricultural constituency in the North of Scotland, said, he would vote in favour of this Amendment. He had presented a Petition from 3,500 occupiers in West Aberdeenshire, praying that this Amendment might be carried out; because it was perfectly evident, as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had shown, that a large portion of Scotland would be cut off from the beneficial operations of the Bill, if some means could not be taken to enable leaseholders, whose leases had years to run, to come within its operation. The only weak point in the Amendment was that it made no provision for compensation. Every communication he had received, either from individuals or by Petition, had invariably stated most particularly that some fair and just compensation should be given.
§ MR. RODWELLsaid, an hon. Member had based his objection to the clause on the ground of common sense; but, for his part, he opposed the rejection of the clause on the ground of common justice. To deal with existing leases would not, in his opinion, be just; and the proposal which had been made by his hon. Friend seemed to be far more objectionable than that of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay)—which the House, however, would not accept—although it provided for compensation. There were cases of farms, let at a very low rent, where the greatest injustice might 14 be done to the landlords. In a case which he knew, the tenant, with his eyes open, had foolishly taken a game farm at a very low rent; but what an injustice it would be to the landlord to at once allow the tenant to remain at an absurdly small rent, and, at the same time, give him the power of keeping the game down. In the county in which he resided many of the tenant farmers suffered largely from the ravages of ground game. At a meeting of their number, one of those present proposed a resolution, very much in the form of the Amendment, for the rejection of this clause. He (Mr. Rodwell) was in the chair, and he took pains to explain what the effect of that resolution would be. He explained its injustice, and the result of that explanation was that the Amendment was withdrawn without any discussion. He believed, indeed, that the tenants did not want that any injustice should be done to the landlord; they only wanted fair play. It would be most unjust, in his opinion, without any compensation, without any provision for compensation, to ask the landlords to do what was proposed.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he felt, as strongly as anyone, the disappointment that would be experienced by a great number of persons, especially in Scotland, under the system of leases, it being excluded from the benefits which the Bill was intended to confer on the occupiers of land; and he should have been extremely glad if he could have seen any ground on which to justify the acceptance of the Amendment to include existing leases in the operation of the Bill. He could not, however, accept that proposal, because it was one he could not defend. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what a lease was. A lease was a mutual insurance between the landlord and the tenant. They agreed for a certain period of time to insure one another the enjoyment of the status quo which was established by the lease. If things became better and prices rose, the tenant got the benefit, because the landlord could not increase the rent. In Scotland, 10 years ago, when the price of wool and sheep rose immensely, the farmers found that they were able to pay their rents simply out of the sheep; but yet the rent remained as before. As regarded the landowner, the lease prevented him from making any alteration in the 15 status quo. As regarded future arrangements, the proposal of the Bill was perfectly just; because, when their contracts had expired, the two parties would make their arrangements on the basis settled by the present Bill. But to apply this process to an existing contract would be open to censure and condemnation, for there was an entire difference between freedom of contract with reference to the future and interference with contract which had actually been made in the past. The two things were as distinct as possible. Gentlemen, indeed, who were in favour of freedom of contract, seemed now prepared to make proposals which were inconsistent with freedom of contract. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), for instance, forbade anyone to make a contract for the exclusive use of game without compensation. If freedom of contract was to be real, why should it be hampered with conditions? The fact was, that there was not a single man who had made a proposal upon this subject who had not more or less proposed to interfere with freedom of contract. That, however, was a totally different thing from altering existing contracts which had been made upon a certain basis. No one was more anxious than the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) to do justice; but, at the same time, he proposed to alter the situation of parties who had entered into contracts without making any compensation. That was not a proposal that was capable of being defended on any principle known to law. His hon. Friend who made the proposal was, fortunately for himself, not responsible for this Bill. That misfortune was his; and he had to consider what would be the result of excluding the 5th clause from the Bill. He suspected that it would be found that the farmers who were benefited under the Act would not thank him for the consequences of omission; and, therefore, he entirely concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell). He did not believe that the state of things which his hon. Friend behind him feared would come about. He did not think they would see for many years one class of farmers possessing the rights given by this Bill, living side by side with persons who, under existing leases, would not have these rights. He had no doubt that, without 16 introducing or attempting to set in motion any elaborate machinery, the operation of the Bill would lead to some form or other of arrangement which would give all tenants an equal right. He felt certain that when this measure had clearly declared it to be the mind and intention of Parliament that the occupiers of land in England, Scotland, and Ireland ought to have the right to which it referred, in order to protect and defend themselves in the exercise of their industry, that mind and intention would prevail, and that the landowners of the country generally would not desire in any way to oppose or to thwart the expressed will of the Legislature.
§ MR. WARTONwished to call attention to the inconsistency between the two paragraphs of the clause. The two paragraphs went on a perfectly distinct principle. The principle of the 1st paragraph was to maintain existing contracts; while the principle of the 2nd paragraph was, in the most arbitrary manner, to set aside the real contract between the parties—namely, a tenancy from year to year. That, to him, seemed a capricious way of dealing with the question.
§ MR. D. M'LARENsaid, the position of the farmers in Scotland who had petitioned against the clause was completely misunderstood in the speeches that had been made against the Motion for leaving out this 5th clause. The arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rodwell), and of the Home Secretary had, in substance, been that leases were sacred things, and that they ought not to be interfered with; that it was a bargain between the landlord and tenant that should be observed; and, especially, if any alteration was made, compensation should be allowed. Well, he had had the honour of voting with his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) who had proposed compensation; but the Government had not acceded to that proposal; and it seemed to him, therefore, that they could not now argue upon that ground. Having gone with his hon. Friend on the just ground of giving compensation, and that having been rejected, he was entitled now to take any other ground. The 5th clause altered the spirit and substance of all the leases in Scotland against the farmer; because as soon as a long lease expired, the effect of the tenant having 17 rights to shoot down the ground game would be to drive the game on to the farm of his next neighbour. When another lease expired, there would be another force to drive the ground game on to the same farm, and a similar effect would follow the termination of a third lease; and, after a number of years, the remaining farmer with an unexpired lease would have the whole ground game on his farm which naturally belonged to all the farms in his neighbourhood. The instinct of the animals would carry them to the protected farm. He held that the Bill had altered all the leases in this respect—altered them materially to the disadvantage of the farmers—and that the farmers were entitled to have redress under the circumstances. He had had a letter from a distinguished agriculturist in Haddingtonshire, Mr. J. C. Shepherd, on this subject. He stated that if the 5th clause was allowed to stand, as at present, it would make matters with the great majority of the Scotch farmers worse than at present. Each tenant who acquired rights under the Bill would necessarily protect his crops and drive the ground game over to other farms. This new source of evil would increase for many years in the case of long leases. Surely, the Legislature could not intend to introduce this new cause of annoyance and loss to the farmer. The hon. Member assumed that 500 leases might expire every year in Scotland, and the leases were nearly all for 19 years. In that case, 500 leases would expire this year. The tenants would be freed from restrictions, and they would either kill off the game, or drive it on to their neighbours farms. Next year another 500 leases would expire, and the following year another 500 would expire, and the same process of driving off the game to their neighbours' farms would go on. It was hard that this change should be made in the position of farmers with leases to run, 15, or 19, or 10 years; and he thought it was the duty of the House to give redress. It was the duty of the Government to point out a way, by proposing a new clause on the third reading, to obviate this new grievance which would be imposed on the farmers of Scotland.
§ MR. BORLASEsaid, that after what had been stated by the Home Secretary he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He could only say that if 18 his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) had heard the opening sentences of his speech, he could not accuse him of wishing to deal unfairly with landlords, or, indeed, with any other parties affected by the Bill.
§ EARL PERCYexpressed the great satisfaction with which he had heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) say that, while the landlord could not increase the rent when there were high prices and the tenant had a lease, the tenant should be also bound by his agreement when there happened to be a bad harvest. That was a principle which, he confessed, he was surprised to find the Home Secretary speaking so strongly on; and he deeply sympathized with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the position he must have been placed in a minority of the Cabinet, when the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill was under consideration.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, the following words were added to Clause 5:—
Or during the currency of any contract made before the passing of this Act whereby any other person is entitled to take and kill ground game on the land.
§ MR. WARTONmoved the omission from Clause 5 of the 2nd paragraph, to which he had previously taken objection. Tenancy from year to year was a favourite form of tenancy in this country, and one which often went on from generation to generation; and he asked why they were to enact that a tenancy should be deemed to determine when it really did not determine?
§ [The Motion, not being seconded, could not be put.]
§
On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, the following words were added at the end of Clause 5:—
Nothing in this Act shall affect any special right of killing or taking ground game to which any person other than the landlord, lessee, or occupier may have become entitled before the passing of this Act by virtue of any franchise, charter, or Act of Parliament.
§ Clause 7 (Repeal of Acts) struck out.
§ MR. H. ALLENmoved, in Clause 8, page 3, line 20, at beginning, to insert— 19
No person shall kill or take in England or Wales or Scotland any hare or leveret during the time between the thirty-first day of March and the twelfth day of August; and.He did not see why a law which, only 12 months since, it was thought necessary to introduce into Ireland in order to prevent the extinction of hares in that country, should not be applied to Great Britain; and he thought the House would approve the idea that these animals should not be killed during the breeding season, when their slaughter would be cruel, and their flesh unwholesome.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, this question had been discussed four or five times, and twice there had been a large majority against the proposal for a close time. The only difference in his hon. Friend's proposal was that he proposed a much longer close time. He held it was undesirable that a farmer should not be allowed to shoot down hares which were destroying his garden or crops during the time mentioned. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmoved, in page 3, line 20, to leave out all after "taking," and insert—
Of ground game on any days or seasons, or by any methods, prohibited by any Act of Parliament in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ An hon. MEMBER called the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that the Game Act prohibited the killing of game on Sundays, and that, as rabbits were not game under the Act, their destruction was, consequently, not so prohibited. It might, therefore, be necessary to prohibit the killing of rabbits on Sunday.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not mean to introduce any such prohibition.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEwished to clear himself of a misapprehension which prevailed in respect to a Motion of his for the omission of the 3rd clause, which he considered was a most arbitary provision, and he wished to give Notice of the following Clause, to be substituted for the clause in question:—
§ (Power to let right to kill ground game.)
§ "It shall be lawful at any time, or from time to time, for the occupier to let or to lease the right of killing and taking ground game by this Act vested in him, or otherwise appertaining to him, for a valuable consideration to the owner of the land he occupies, or to any other person having a concurrent right to kill and take ground game thereon: Provided always, That such letting or lease of his right to kill and take ground game to be granted by such occupier shall be in writing, and shall be stamped, and shall in all respects be held to be distinct and separate from the terms or conditions, whether in writing, by custom, by common law, or otherwise, under which such occupier holds his occupation, and that such letting or lease of the right of the occupier to kill and take ground game shall in all cases absolutely cease and determine at the expiration of a year from the date thereof."
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Speaker, whether the hon. Gentleman would be in Order in moving the new clause of which he had given Notice on the third reading of the Bill?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no Amendments other than verbal could be moved on the third reading. The only way in which the hon. Member could bring forward his Amendment would be to move the re-committal of the Bill?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it was understood that the Home Secretary would bring forward an Amendment with respect to the retrospective character of the Bill in regard to shooting leases.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that could be done on the third reading.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREreplied that it would then be too late.
§ Bill to be read the third time upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 318.]