SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 February 1884)

§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY
Sir, the circumstances under which this Bill has been introduced, without a word being said in its favour, at this late hour (5 p.m.) on a "Wednesday afternoon, reduces the opportunity for its discussion practically to nothing. I took no part in the debate or Division on this Bill last year, for the reason that I believed public opinion had had but little opportunity to pronounce upon the question. Since that time, however, I have been made aware in a most unmistakable manner that the arguments with respect to this Bill are not so entirely on one side of the question as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) and others who think with him are apt to suppose. The reason I say so is, that it has been brought home to my mind that the proposals contained in the Bill will have the effect practically of putting a stop to sports which are the only sports of that kind accessible to poor men, whereas it leaves entirely untouched the sports of that kind which are the sports of the rich. To put it into the plain language of a working man who wrote to me from my own constituency—"What is the 52 poor man to do with his gun if this Bill should pass?" Well, Sir, I think if the hon. Member for Glasgow is going to propose the total abolition of all sporting with a gun such as is calculated to inflict injury on winged creatures he had better honestly say so. If he would do so, then we should know how to deal with him and his measures; but he appears to pursue the more timid course of trying to influence a sentimental minority, and he confines himself to the abolition of sports for those who he imagines are not able to make their objections heard in this House. I believe he has reckoned on this occasion without his host. I am unwilling to allude to the extremely questionable manner in which this measure was recommended to this House last year, and to the questionable invocation of names that should never be used, and under such circumstances as appeared to be entirely unwarrantable. If there is any ground for this Bill it must be the ground that the sports which it proposes to put an end to are sports which are necessarily accompanied with cruelty. But are these sports accompanied with any greater cruelty than that which necessarily attends every sport? If the hon. Gentleman would prove that they were, then he would have done a great deal to ensure the passing of his Bill. But it is not the case that there is any greater cruelty. Information received since the question was first mooted has now conclusively established that in all the better sort of, at all events, clubs and places where sports of this kind are carried on, cruelty is practically rare. If the hon. Gentleman means to confine the measure to poorer clubs, let him honestly say so. If he proposes to exempt Hurlingham or the Gun Club, and other places where it is known that cruelties are not practised, from the operation of the Bill, I will promise a curious reception from his constituents when he asks them for a vote of confidence. The charge of wholesale cruelty cannot be supported. Is it not, therefore, possible for all such cruelty as may arise to be dealt with by the present law restraining cruelty to animals? That is a question which, to my mind, is not yet exhausted. Every facility has been given to the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to discover anything of the kind. I believe it is fully possible for 53 cruelties in these sports to be dealt with at least to as full an extent as any similar offence by the existing law, and the small number that might escape the operation of the law do not exceed that necessary residue of crime which is inseparable from the infirmity of human laws. Compare that small residue with the amount of interference proposed to be made by the Bill, and it will be admitted that this proposal cannot recommend itself either to the common sense of the country or of the House, but is out of the realm of comparison altogether. The Home Secretary may be pleased enough to laugh when I mention that I have received letters from working men on the subject of the Bill. I hope that in the short time allowed for the discussion of the Bill we may be allowed to hear some expressions of opinion from the Home Secretary. I should be curious to see whether the Government are able to say there has been an increase in the number of public meetings in favour of this Bill passing into law, and whether the Home Secretary will suggest to the House that because working men shoot pigeons and other birds from traps, that is of itself a bad reason why the Bill should be opposed. I will conclude by saying that after the way the Bill was recommended to the House, and that not on one occasion only, including the fact that it was forced through one of its stages on a Saturday afternoon under circumstances, to say the least questionable—for that, if for no other reason, I must oppose this Bill.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
Sir, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stuar-Wortley) has referred to me in the course of his speech, I may at once say, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that they will support the Bill, and for the same reasons as they did last year. I believe that the opinion of the House, which was pronounced by a very large majority last year in favour of the Bill, is totally unchanged, and under these circumstances I think I have said enough.

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
said, that, although not a pigeon-shooter himself, he did not believe that in opposing the Bill he was less humane and less opposed to cruelty than the hon. Gentleman opposite. He regarded the Bill as a measure that would interfere unwarrantably with legitimate sport. It would also interfere 54 with the interest of certain trades and with the interests of a very large number of persons engaged in farming. Last year statements were made in support of the measure, many of which were very highly coloured, if not devoid of foundation, and names were used by the hon. Member and his Friends in a manner which was wholly unwarrantable. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals thought that the Bill was uncalled for, and looked upon it as one which they were not disposed to support. The Returns of the Society showed that during the last 10 years there had been only 25 prosecutions for cruelty to pigeons, &c, on grounds set apart for purposes of sport. This was in itself the strongest evidence that the existing law was more than sufficiently powerful to check any malpractices that might occasionally be discovered. The sport of pigeon-shooting had existed for more than a century, and shooting matches were events which were looked forward to with the greatest delight by the inhabitants of many towns and villages, and which brought together in friendly competition those who could not hope to enjoy other kinds of sport. He failed to see the difference between shooting a pigeon freed from a trap and shooting a pheasant that rose from a furze bush. If one practice was condemned the other should be condemned also. The fact was that this was a mere question of sentiment. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Frederick Milbank), whose name was on the back of the Bill, spoke last year of having seen birds that were not dead brought back by the men or the dog. But surely he did not consider this was done on purpose, because he must know that the same thing frequently occurred at the corner of every cover where the game was collected at the end of the beat. He had seen that over and over again. He would take leave to tell the hon. Baronet that this was not in consequence of a want of humanity, but in consequence of bad shooting. It was idle, therefore, for him to trifle with the subject by giving such puerile illustrations of cruelty as this. Knowing, however, the sporting proclivities of the hon. Baronet, he had had the curiosity to look into his public performances as detailed in the Press and elsewhere, and as showing the interest he had taken in a 55 sport which he now condemned. He was for several years on the committee of one of the leading Clubs formed for the purpose of this sport, and during that time, and also subsequently, he took part in the matches that occurred in those years. Even so late as 1877 he shot in the match between that House and the other House of Parliament; and, being a good shot, he found that in 1871 the hon. Baronet was placed at 27½ yards rise. The result now was that after competing with his friends for so many years he suddenly turned round upon them and said that they did not play fair, and he became a party to a Bill for the purpose of putting a stop to the game altogether. He thought the hon. Baronet might have left that proceeding to others. From certain items of sporting intelligence in the public Press, he found that in 1882 the hon. Baronet was the principal actor in the slaughter of no less than 4,833 grouse on his own moors in Yorkshire, 1,161 birds falling to his own gun. In other years the hon. Baronet's bags were not quite so large as this one, but he generally found that the hon. Baronet had more than his fair proportion of the sport. It was the invariable practice for a sportsman to give his friends the best place at these gatherings, but he found that the hon. Baronet was so keen for blood that he usually took the first place himself. The number of birds killed in 1876 out of a total of six guns was 2,934, of which number the hon. Baronet killed 683. In another year the number was 1,406, of which number the hon. Baronet killed 373. On the occasion when the larger slaughter of birds took place 123 birds were picked up the following days, and these were presumably not the birds which the hon. Baronet said last year had been all killed dead, but those which had escaped his retrievers and wandered away to die. Would he seriously tell the House that there was not more suffering inflicted by himself on any one of those days than by the whole assembly that took part in any one of those pigeon matches which he attended? He might mention a circumstance which occurred the other day. He happened to be in a poulterer's yard in London, and his attention was attracted by a number of hampers that were standing in one corner. He 56 asked what the hampers contained. He was informed that they contained live pheasants to the number of 50. His curiosity being excited, he examined the hampers more closely, and found that they were addressed to "Sir Frederick Milbank, Yorkshire." The hon. Baronet did not seem to think there was any cruelty, at all events, in transferring live birds long distances by rail or otherwise. Perhaps the hon. Baronet would explain to the House what less cruelty he saw in pheasants going from London to Yorkshire than in pigeons coming from Yorkshire to be shot in London. Perhaps his own imagination was too obtuse to appreciate the subtle distinction. There was another very important point to be remembered by many of those who posed as the farmers' friend. It was the effect this Bill would have on a very considerable element of profit in the farmers' receipts in many Northern and Eastern counties. Were hon. Members aware that a very large number of pigeons were annually reared for the purposes of sport, and that a large amount of money was annually paid by those Gun Clubs to the farmers, dealers, and others for the birds which were shot at? He had a return of 15 of the principal Gun Clubs in the Kingdom, and from it it appeared that in the last five years these Clubs alonehad purchased for sporting purposes no less than 897,000 birds, at a cost of over £80,000. It was estimated that in Lincolnshire alone the sum of £30,000 was paid annually for the birds reared, and sold for this purpose. Within the past few days he had received upwards of 80 letters from persons unknown to him with reference to the prejudicial effect this Bill would have on the trades of the gunsmith, the gun-maker, the silversmith, the dealer, farmer, and others. These showed that farmers were making from £20 to £50 a-year by their birds, and in the present state of depression in the farming business they could not afford to lose this sum. The writer of one of the letters anticipated that, if the Bill passed, the promoters would next have a shot at fox-hunting, and would compel us to dive for fish, for, of course, they would not allow us to be so cruel as to hook them. He had also received letters from gunmakers and silversmiths complaining of the injury which would be done to their trade. A gunsmith said— 57 What with the Ground Game Act and gun licences, it takes us all our time to carry on; and if this Act he passed it will put an end to the country gun trade altogether. A silversmith said— Our firm for the last few years has supplied cups to the average amount of £500 a-year for pigeon-shooting prizes; and the secretary of a Gun Club wrote that his Club alone had expended £1,300 during the year in the purchase of prizes. A dealer from Kirton Lindsay said— I buy something like £1,000 worth of pigeons a-year for London shooting, and if this Bill passes, instead of pigeons making 2s. each, they will make about 4d., which will be a serious loss to the farmers. A salesman in London said the Act would make a sad hole in the profits of Yorkshire. The secretary of the Gun Club said that the average sum spent in prizes by that Club was £1,320. The dealers in the birds protested against interference with their trade. The secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said that in 10 years there had been 25 prosecutions for the mutilation of pigeons, and that was a small number considering the number of Gun Clubs. In the face of all this testimony, were the professed farmers' friends going to do away with one of the sources of income which accrued to them in these times when help from any source was needed by the sorely-tried agriculturist? Were they going to do away with what was undoubtedly a cheap supply of food for the masses, who could not afford to pay the price they would have to pay for game or birds of that description? Were they going to forbid those who could not afford to enjoy the sport of shooting at game from having the only substitute which was within their reach? Were they going to interfere in the legitimate source of profit, not only of the gun-makers, silversmiths, dealers, salesmen, and farmers, but also the owner of the grounds, who in many cases had been put to heavy expense in making grounds for this special purpose, and this purpose alone? If this sort of legislation of the grand-maternal kind were to be carried out, where were they going to stop? Where were they going to draw the line? What was to be the next thing? Were they going to legislate forfox-hunting, shooting game, coursing, 58 fishing—in fact, all sport of that kind in which animal life was involved? This Bill was only the thin end of the wedge, and we should have an outcry against each one of these sports in turn. If it were necessary to have a more complete supervision of these kind of amusements, in order to prevent malpractices being carried on, by all means let us have them, and he had himself proposed Amendments to that effect last year; but let us not fall into a state of maudlin sentimentality, which was neither logical nor expedient, and which was neither justified by the circumstances nor evidence.

§ SIR PREDERICK MILBANK
said, when he entered the House he was not aware that he should be attacked as he had been by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, for supporting the Bill of last year. The hon. Gentleman seemed to know little, if anything, about sport. He accused him of sending hampers of live pheasants down to Yorkshire for the purpose of shooting; but he assured the House that he never sent down any pheasants to be shot in Yorkshire. The pheasants were sent down for the purpose of breeding. The hon. Gentleman also attacked him for having shot numbers of grouse in Yorkshire; but then grouse were wild birds. They were not birds which were handled, put into small hampers, and sent great distances, and they were not artificially raised. They were birds which were bred on the wild, free hills, and whose food was intended for the public good. They were just as good food as beef or mutton. Pigeons were shot from the 1st of February to the beginning of August, at the very time the birds were breeding, and if any one would go into a pigeon cote after a hundred birds had been taken out, he would see the young birds starving in their nests. That was a fact. The hon. Gentleman opposite had probably heard a good deal from the secretary of the Hurlingham Club, from whom he had received letters, some of which were of an extraordinary kind; but 59 all that he had to say was that he left the Club on account, as he considered, of the cruelty that was practised. That was the sole reason why he left it. The very men who kept these pigeons would run out of their way to complain if they saw five or six hares run across their property. It was all very well to say there were £30,000 worth of birds; but he would tell them another fact, that whore one farmer kept 1,000 pigeons and his neighbours kept none, those pigeons ate up one-half of the neighbours' crops. If all the farmers in Lincolnshire or Yorkshire would put their heads together and say they would keep pigeon-cotes, it would be all very well, but it would not do to allow 10 farmers to keep them, and others of their neighbours to suffer. The hon. Gentleman said nothing about the betting that went on in these matches. In the North and West Sidings of Yorkshire, and in nearly every other place these pigeon-shootings were got up by publicans for the betting and also for the sake of the drinking afterwards. As to his own share in the matches alluded to, he shot fairly, and as to his making larger bags than others, he did not know how it was, but he was never beaten.
It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.