§ Sections 25 and 27 of the Game Act, 1831 (which relate to sales of game by and purchases of game from persons other than licensed dealers), and so much of Section 4 of the same Act as makes it an offence for any person to buy or sell or have in his house, possession, or control birds of after game the dates therein specified, shall not apply where the game is live game, and the person buying, selling, or having in his house, possession, or control the game, or the person from whom or by whom the game is bought or sold, is keeping or intending to keep the game solely for the purpose of breeding or for sale alive.
§ The Amendments made by this section shall have effect in the Game Act, 1831, as applied by any subsequent enactment as well as in that Act as, originally enacted.
§ Mr. HOLTI beg to move to leave out the words "birds of after game" ["to buy or sell or have in his house, possession, or control, birds of after game"], and to insert instead thereof the words "birds of game after." This Amendment is necessary in order to correct a ridiculous printer's error.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Sir F. BANBURYPerhaps the Solicitor-General will give some explanation why this Amendment is necessary.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI quite agree that the words as they stand are ridiculous, and that the Clause ought to be put right in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend. The necessity for the Clause arises out of 1518 a judgment which was recently given as to the legality of a private person on his own property having game birds in or upon an enclosure for the purpose of breeding, even if he has no intention of selling or of dealing in them in any way. I shall be willing to give a further explanation if it is necessary to do so. If the Committee agree to the Amendment they will obviate the difficulty in which persons are placed who have game birds in their possession, and who are not intentionally breaking the law.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHMay I suggest that it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should define what he means by "birds of game"?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt will read like this: "control of birds of game after".
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHThat only adds to the confusion. There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would like the right hon. Gentleman to define for us what he means by a game bird.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe whole of this Clause is an Amendment of the Game Act of 1831, in which, under Sections 14, 25, and 27 there are all sorts of provisions which were originally intended to apply to dead game, and which have now been decided to apply to live game. In order to get rid of that difficulty this Clause is moved. I shall be very glad to go into a full explanation, but I do not think it is required.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI do not think a discussion on the Clause can be taken on an Amendment of the drafting.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
1519§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSMay I point out that the word "of," which is inserted here is not wanted. If you will read it carefully you will find that it is not wanted.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs you have already put the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, it is impossible to amend it. It cannot now be a draftsman's error. It must be an error of the Government. Under these circumstances, having made this error, the Clause will be unintelligible.
§ Earl WINTERTONMight I suggest as a way out of the difficulty we have got into owing to the slackness of the Government, that the Clerk at the Table should be directed now to read out the Clause.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe question before the Committee is that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Earl WINTERTONI heard you put the question, but the question is—what is the Clause? As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), there is still a draftsman's error in the Clause as it stands. In order to elucidate the proceedings in Committee, I would suggest that the Clerk at the Table should be asked to read out the Clause as amended.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThere is no necessity for amending words. Clause 6 will run in this way: "as makes it an offence for any person to buy or sell or have in his house possession or control birds," etc. I have consulted the Deputy-Chairman, and that is the way in which he put the Amendment, and that is the way in which the Clause now runs. The Noble Lord was quite right in wishing to have the error rectified.
§ Earl WINTERTONI do not object to the Clause in the way the right hon. Gentleman read it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI take it that if we have cold storage, and there are live birds—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANLive birds are not taken to cold storage.
§ Mr. J. HOPEThat is exactly my point. My right hon. Friend, in framing his 1520 Amendment to the Game Act, has considered the question of keeping birds shot within the lawful time, and then there is the question of cold storage and of birds kept within the ten days.—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is not in order.
§ Mr. SANDERSI want to protest against the idea of keeping live game inside the house.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWe do not deprive any person of that privilege.