HL Deb 09 May 1884 vol 287 cc1814-26

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

LORD BALFOUR

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its main object was to put an end to the cruel pastime of shooting birds from traps. The circumstances under which it had been brought before the House, and which he should like to recall, were these. Last year a similar Bill was introduced in "another place," and its second reading was carried by 195 to 40. It was late in the Session, when that Bill was brought up to their Lordships' House, and its second reading was put down for a day far on in the month of August. There were not many of their Lordships present when it came on, and after a short discussion, upon a small Division being taken, it was rejected by a majority of 30 to 17. That was hardly a judgment of their Lordships' House which the supporters of the Bill could be expected to regard as final; and, therefore, the Bill had been brought in again, in the sanguine hope—in which he heartily joined—that their Lordships would reverse their decision of last year, and pass the present Bill by a considerable majority. With the view of meeting some of the objections that had been urged to the Bill of last year, he had modified it in some respects; but its essential features were the same as those of the Bill of last year, and its object, briefly described, was to suppress the practice of pigeon-shooting, which, certainly, under no circumstances could be legitimately described as sport. He knew that that character was sometimes claimed for it; but he would like some of its defenders to get up arid state the grounds on which they put forward that claim. He was not going to venture on an attempt to define what was, and what was not, sport; but sport, to be legitimate, ought to provide healthy recreation for the mind and body, and, in some respects, test the strength and ability of men, and, it might be, also, of trained dogs, against the instincts of animals more or less in their native haunts. If that was to be the canon by which to decide what was, and what was not, sport, it would be very difficult for the advocates of pigeon-shooting to bring it within that definition. He did not think he went too far, when he said that pigeon-shooting had its origin, and owed its continuance, to the fact that it was a medium for gambling for bets and stakes subscribed by the competitors. He did not ask their Lordships to condemn betting and gambling. He did not think the Legislature could properly be asked to do that; but something could be done for the purpose of checking, as at present practised, this essentially revolting practice, in which animals were put to death for the main, if not the only, purpose of affording a means for amusement and gambling. He would like those who advocated the practice to face the question whether or not it was frequently attended with serious cruelties? As regarded himself, he had no doubt upon the subject. He divided the cruelties into two classes—firstly, those which were wilful injuries, such as where it had been proved, as it bad in many cases, that birds had been mutilated, or otherwise cruelly injured, by having their bills twisted, their bodies bruised, and their feathers plucked out by the attendants, before they had been put in the trap, for the purpose of giving one competitor an advantage over another; the other class of cruelties was one that, he contended, was almost inseparable from the continuance of the practice—namely, the sufferings which the birds underwent on their way to the place where they were to be shot. It was said in a Paper, which he held in his hand, and which had been extensively circulated amongst their Lordships, that the practice was not attended with cruelty. That Paper purported to give reasons against the second reading of the Bill, and apparently had been distributed by some of its opponents. It said that— Not a single case of cruelty had occurred in connection with pigeon-shooting; and that if it did occur the law, as it stood at present, would be quite able to deal with the offenders. He ventured to say that was not the case. He (Lord Balfour) would admit that pigeon-shooting might not be accompanied with cruelty in well-regulated clubs; but the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals informed him that that Body had obtained convictions in 25 cases; and he added the significant sentence that many more could be obtained, but for the fact that the officers of the Society could not gain admission to private grounds. By private grounds, he meant public-house grounds and other similar places. When the officers of the Society became known, on their attempting to enter these places, they were warned off, and not allowed to get near enough to see what was going on. To bring the law into operation it was necessary—and very properly necessary—to prove a specific act of cruelty committed by a specific person, on a specific bird, at a specific hour, on a specific day. To get all these facts with sufficient exactness, they must have every facility for proper observation; and the difficulty of securing an entry into these private grounds prevented many prosecutions which would otherwise be instituted. So much for that form of cruelty. There was another, and an analogous, kind to which he wished to call attention, and it referred not only to pigeon-shooting, but also to the shooting of starlings and sparrows out of traps. The existing law was hopelessly insufficient to deal with cases of that kind, inasmuch as it only applied to domestic animals, which those birds were not. Not many days ago, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prosecuted a man for having cruelly treated pigeons on their way to a shooting ground; but it was only through accidental circumstances that it was discovered that the pigeons were domestic, and that, therefore, the Act applied. But there was another case on the 19th April, in which the same Society applied for a conviction. It was a case of some sparrows. The Society prosecuted a publican and several other persons under the Wild Birds Act. It appeared that there were 12 dozen sparrows packed in boxes on the top of one another. Many of these birds were so much injured by the manner in which they had been packed, that they were unable to fly. Stones were thrown at them, and if they still refused to fly, they were kicked to death. These birds, however, having been recently caught, were not domestic animals, and the Justices refused to give a conviction. That fact, in itself, was sufficient to show that the existing law did not give sufficient power. Before he left that document which had been issued by the opponents of the Bill he would like to make one or two other comments. In the sentence before the one he had referred to, there was a statement that this Bill would also put down partridge-shooting, a statement which most certainly was not correct. Then the document gave, as a reason for the rejection of the Bill by their Lordships, that the pigeons used at shooting clubs were the source of considerable profit to farmers and dealers, and in support of that they gave the price of the pigeons that were used. He (Lord Balfour) was obliged to them for doing so, because he thought it furnished him with a complete answer to one of their arguments. The lowest price, he found, was 16s. per dozen, the highest, 30s. That, he thought, disposed of the argument that was often used—namely, that they were interfering with the poor man's sport, for he ventured to say there was no man who could properly be described as ''poor" that could afford to pay from 16s. to 30s. a-dozen for targets to shoot at. With regard to the amount of profit gained by those who reared pigeons, these figures could not be held to represent anything like the amount, because pigeons, like other animals, must be fed; and if they were not fed by the owner, they were allowed to travel over the country and feed at other people's expense. Therefore, the figures in. question were no proof of the largeness of the sums made by rearing pigeons. There were other objections to the Bill. Last year it was said that it would be wrong for the Legislature to pass this Bill, because, for the first time, it was making the act of shooting at a bird an offence on account of cruelty, and that it was no more cruelty in shooting at a bird sprung out of a trap than in shooting at one sprung in a turnip-field or a cover. In order to meet this objection, he had made the 2nd clause of the Bill provide that a penalty should be incurred by keeping or using any ground for the purpose of pigeon-shooting; while those who engaged or assisted in such shooting should also be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5. They could not wholly exempt those for whose amusement and edification the whole performance was got up. That, he thought, would be manifestly unjust. The offence which was made punishable was not the shooting at a bird, but the shooting of a bird out of a trap or other contrivance. That was the object of the promoters of the Bill, and he was afraid, if the practice was to be put down, that was the only way to do it. If, however, another and a better one could be suggested, by which the end desired could be attained, he would gladly adopt it. There was this curious feature about the opposition to this measure—that while many noble Lords had told him that they could not support the Bill, on the ground that it partook of the nature of paternal legislation, they always added that they did not wish to be numbered among those who approved pigeon-shooting, which they admitted was a most reprehensible practice. He frankly admitted that the Bill might be open to the charge that it partook of the nature of paternal legislation; and he expected that it would be warmly opposed, on that ground, by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, who was always most anxious to prevent the Legislature from passing measures that were open to that charge. If, however, Parliament were compelled to choose between paternal legislation and the evils of pigeon-shooting, he would venture to say that he should infinitely prefer the former, for the evils of pigeon-shooting were greater than the evils of paternal legislation. It had also been remarked that the Bill would open the door to the prohibition of shooting and of field sports altogether, and that they might as well make the Bill apply to the shooting of pheasants and partridges, for pigeon-shooting was no more cruel than partridge or pheasant-shooting. There was, however, a marked difference between confining a bird in a trap, for the purpose of shooting at it, and seeking it in a wild state. He did not know whether the admission would help, or would hurt, his chance of passing this measure; but he avowed that, if any kind of shooting or of field sport were so conducted as to outrage public feeling, as pigeon-shooting did, then he believed that such shooting or sport would be sent where he now asked their Lordships to send pigeon-shooting by passing this Bill. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." — (The Lord Balfour.)

THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, that, as he had done last Session, he should oppose the Bill, on the ground that it came before the House asking for something under false pretences. He denied altogether that his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) had shown, there was necessarily any cruelty in pigeon-shooting. He (the Earl of Redesdale) contended that there was no cruelty in shooting at a bird for the purpose of killing it, and that the noble Lord had failed to show that there was necessarily more cruelty in letting a bird out of a trap and shooting at it than there was in partridge or pheasant-shooting. What was cruelty? The noble Lord had not ventured to determine the question in this matter. Was it shooting at birds with intent to kill? If this was the meaning of the word, then everyone practised it who went into a turnip-field to shoot partridges, or into a cover to shoot pheasants. The noble Lord said the Bill was for the purpose of putting down, pigeon-shooting. Then, why was it not so called? He (the Earl of Redesdale) would tell their Lordships why it was not, and that was because the noble Lord had not the courage to call it so; and, also, because he knew very well that he would be much more likely to get support from their Lordships for the measure by calling it "Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment Bill." The Bill, however, had nothing whatever to do with cruelty to animals. It was somewhat remarkable that it should have taken some 30 or 40 years to find out that pigeon-shooting was cruelty. If the noble Lord, for the Society he represented, required further powers to detect cruelty if it was perpetrated, let a Bill be introduced for the purpose. Such a measure, however, should be called by its proper name, as he (the Earl of Redesdale) objected altogether to a Bill being called by a name which could not properly belong to it. There was nothing objectionable in a man showing his skill in the use of a gun or any other instrument, and the shooting at a bird with the intent to kill it was necessary to test skill in the use of a fowling-piece as was shooting at a target with a rifle or long-bow There was a class of persons in this country who objected to all kinds of field sports, and who regarded hunting or shooting of any kind as cruelty. He (the Earl of Redesdale), however, called shooting sport, and legitimate sport. He thought there was no ground for the Bill, and, therefore, he moved its rejection.

Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Redesdale.)

LORD ABERDARE

said, that he should give the Bill his best support, on the same ground that he objected to bull-baiting and cock-fighting—because those particular forms of sport tended to brutalize the people. There were thousands of places throughout the country where pigeon and other forms of trap-shooting were carried on amid circumstances of revolting cruelty, as those who had to administer justice well knew. All who had anything to do with the prosecution of these cruelty cases were aware of the difficulties in the way of bringing the offences homo to the offenders. He might instance, as one description of cruelty, the very long periods which some of those birds were confined. When Martin's Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Horses and Asses was brought forward in 1821, it was met by the objection that, if once this line of legislation were allowed to be commenced, there was no knowing where it would stop; and that, perhaps, measures would be brought forward to prevent cruelty to dogs; and, it was added, amid roars of laughter, perhaps even to cats. He was sure the great mass of the public did not object to sport engaged in for the purpose of exercise, which meant roaming through woods and fields, and required a considerable knowledge of the habits and instincts of animals; but, in the present case, the so-called sport was of an inferior, a poor and contemptible character: it did nothing to develop the qualities of strength and activity in the persons who engaged in it and was, moreover, subject to the very grossest abuses on a large scale. Therefore it was that he said pigeon-shooting had a brutalizing tendency. The sufferings of pigeons were very great, and all the practices resorted to at pigeon matches should be put a stop to. Abuses were inevitably connected with this sport, which was not worth protecting. There were other amusements which were subject to abuse—as, for instance, the theatre and the racecourse; but he should be sorry to see either of those amusements put an end to because there were abuses connected with them, because they had redeeming features which could not be claimed for the so-called sport of pigeon-shooting-. Should the Bill pass this stage, it was his intention in Committee to move an Amendment to extend the operation of the Bill from places specially set aside for pigeon-shooting to places occasionally used for that purpose.

EARL COWPER

said, he should oppose the Bill, much against his inclination in many respects; because, in the first place, he thought it might be unfortunate that a Bill which had passed by such a large majority in "another place" should be thrown out by their Lordships; and, in the second, there were people who would say that their Lordships, many of whom were fond of shooting, were afraid of their own arrangements being interfered with. But their Lordships ought to be above such considerations, and to let their votes be guided by considerations of public policy. Like the noble Earl who had moved its rejection (the Earl of Redesdale), he thought there was a great deal of false pretence about the Bill. He maintained that in pigeon-shooting the cruelty at the moment was very little indeed, and not more than that of any other shooting, or any other mode of putting animals to death, and the alleged incidental had not been proved. Speaking for himself, he had given up pigeon-shooting, because he did not like the associations connected with it; but, so far as he could remember, there was less cruelty connected with pigeon-shooting than almost any other kind of sport. On those grounds he must oppose the Bill, because he could not admit that their Lordships had before them sufficient evidence as to the alleged abuses to justify them in passing such a piece of restrictive, exceptional, and highly objectionable legislation as was involved in the present Bill. He thought it his duty, as a Member of that House, to vote straight forwardly against the Bill.

EARL FORTESCUE

, in opposing the Bill, said, he never remembered a more remarkable speech made by an ex-Cabinet Minister—indeed, an ex-Home Secretary—than the one which had just been delivered, carefully informing the roughs of what cruelties they could now perpetrate with impunity. He (Earl Fortescue) objected to the Bill, although he had no sympathy whatever in this so-called sport. It was a matter of opinion, certainly, how far the practice partook of the character of sport; but if this Bill was to pass, he would like to know where this proposed legislation to restrict cruelty to animals was to stop? A good deal had been said in reference to the cruelty of conveying pigeons from the places where they were bred to those where they were to be shot at; but the same noble Lords who made this objection, supported the carriage of animals from foreign countries at the cost of immense suffering to them, in order that they might be killed for food in this country, instead of beieg imported in the shape of dead meat. What that suffering must be might be judged from the fact that in one year over 14,000 had died of the passage, most of thorn thrown overboard, the rest landed dying and useless. He regretted those sufferings, and he equally objected to the recently-revived cruel fashion, now prevalent, of docking horses' tails'; but he was not prepared to give effect by prohibitory legislation to his opinions on those points. There was a risk of too much legislation on questions of that kind. Were they in future to do nothing without appealing to Parliament? He felt jealous of the honour of the British Parliament, and he hoped— though he was afraid that was past praying for—its high character and position would be maintained. The reputation of that Parliament, which, with all its imperfections had been for centuries the envy and admiration of all lovers of liberty abroad, was now being lowered in the eyes of foreign nations both by what was done and what was not done in it. There were important measures which the time of Parliament might be usefully employed upon; but he protested against the time and labour of the Legislature being wasted upon a proposal of this kind. Nero fiddled while Home was burning, and they were legislating for pigeons when affairs at home and abroad were calling urgently for attention.

LORD WAVENEY

said, he should support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, because he considered it was a duty they owed to the lower animals, when killing them, to see that they had at least a fair chance. All birds should be placed upon an equality; but no pigeon let loose from a trap had an equal chance of his life with a partridge put up in a turnip-field, or as birds sought for in the high hills or on the Rocky Mountains.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

, in opposing the second reading, said, that for some time he had been engaged in the practice of pigeon-shooting: but he had not done so for many years, because he did not think it a sporting operation, and because it was an expensive one. He did not give it up because he considered the sport was cruel. He was not an admirer of the large battues that took place; and he thought if they were to stop the shooting of pigeons from traps, those ought also to be stopped, for there was nothing more cruel in pigeon-shooting than in destroying pheasants, where they were driven huddled up into a corner, and shot by hundreds. Last year, he read that out of six guns, in one week of six days, those six guns had killed 8,358 head of game, which gave an average of 230 to 240 for each gun each day. He should not have mentioned this, did he not think it came very ill from the noble Lord, who, it might surprise their Lordships to hear, was one of this party of sis guns, to come forward and move the second reading of this Bill. The Bill was introduced under false pretences, for no serious attempt had been made to prove that pigeon-shooting was attended with unnecessary cruelty.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, he considered he should be wanting in proper regard for the duties of his Office if he did not say one word in support of the Bill, and he could not admit that the measure had come into the House under false pretences. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Lord Balfour) did not impute any cruelty to the skilled pigeon-shooter, but he wished to put down a great mass of cruelty connected with the shooting. As the noble Lord had said, he was quite willing to accept any other means of putting down this cruelty, if it could be done; but he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) did not believe that it could be done by any other means. This did not belong to that class of sport which was so dear to Englishmen, but it was one which was passing out of usage— that old class of so-called sport which preyed on the sufferings of confined animals. This was not a case where a man delivered a shot, and the bird's life was taken in a moment. It was that old system of inflicting punishment on confined creatures to which he objected. There could be no doubt about the fact that acts of cruelty were committed. He had been informed by persons living in the neighbourhood of these grounds, that they constantly picked up injured birds, which lived a considerable time, some of them with one eye gouged out, some with beaks twisted across, and otherwise mutilated in a shocking manner, in order to make them fly in a particular direction. These things, of course, were not to be attributed to the shooters, but were done in the interests of the large number of depraved persons who assembled in these places to gamble. It had been suggested by his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) that such legislation was unworthy of the dignity of that House; but he could not agree that anything was unworthy of their Lordships' dignity which in any way tended to remove one pang of suffering; and if there was any doubt as to the suffering that was caused, it could easily be set at rest by inquiry. But the acts of cruelty, it was urged, were the work of a brutalized mob. No doubt the mob that collected on these occasions was a brutalized one; but he thought they were being helped to be further brutalized by the sanction of such proceedings as these. They were, in fact, a source of terror and annoyance—he did not like the word danger—to the neighbourhood. As regarded them, he would not call them "dangerous classes," for he thought there were very few who could be so described; but he thought none were more dangerous than the utterly unemployed class of loafers who went about all day with a gun in their hand ready to shoot or to pick up birds wherever they fell, totally regardless of boundaries, fences, and all rights of property. He thought it a great argument in favour of the Bill that it met with help from those who maintained true sport. He cordially supported the second reading, and trusted the House would not sanction a system which brutalized the population. If sport ever were to be attacked as sport, it would be because some of its votaries upheld as sport a practice which wholly tended to brutalize so many, as well as to inflict incredible suffering on thousands of innocent creatures.

On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"

Their Lordships divided: — Contents 48; Not-Contents 78: Majority 30.

CONTENTS.
Canterbury, L. Archp. Kimberley, E.
Leven and Melville, E.
Bedford, D. Mount Edgcumbe, E.
Saint Albans, D. Shaftesbury, E.
Strafford, E.
Ailesbury, M. Sydney, E.
Northampton, M.
Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)
Belmore, E.
Camperdown, E. Powerscourt, V.
De La Warr, E. Sherbrooke, V.
Derby, E.
Ducie, E. Bangor, L Bp.
Granville, E. Bath and Wells, L. Bp.
Chichester, L. Bp. Cloncurry, L.
Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp. Coleridge, L.
Cottesloe, L.
Rochester, L. Bp. Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
St. Albans, L. Bp. FitzGerald, L.
Greville, L.
Aberdare, L. [Teller.] Hatherton, L.
Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.] Hothfield, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Carew, L.
Carrington, L. Robartes, L.
Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Strafford, L. (V. En field.)
Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)
Thurlow, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Truro, L.
Waveney, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Portland, D. Chelmsford, L.
Rutland, D. Churston, L.
Somerset, D. Colchester, L.
Westminster, D. Colville of Culross, L.
Dacre, L.
Abergavenny, M. de Clifford, L.
De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
Cadogan, E.
Caledon, E. de Ros, L.
Clonmell, E. Egerton, L.
Cowper, E. Ellenborough, L.
Fortescue, E. Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)
Hardwicke, E.
Harewood, E. Houghton, L.
Howe, E. Hylton, L.
Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.) Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Jersey, E. Kintore, L. (E. kintore.)
Lucan, E. Leconfield, L.
Macclesfield, E. Lovat, L.
Manvers, E. Lyveden, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. Meldrum, L. (Mr. Huntley.)
Milltown, E.
Onslow, E. Monson, L.
Ravensworth, E. North, L.
Redesdale, E. Oranmore and Browne, L.
Rosslyn, E.
Saint Germans, E. Penzance, L.
Stanhope, E. Poltimore, L.
Zetland, E. Ribblesdale, L.
Bolingbroke and st. John, V. Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Gough, V. Sandys, L.
Hawarden, V. Sherborne, L.
Hood, V. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)
Silchester, L. (E. Longfond.)
Alcester, L. Stanley of Alderley, L.
Amherst, L. (V. Holmsdale.)
Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]
Ashfor'd, L. (V. Bury)
Auckland, L.
Borthwick, L. Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)
Tweedmouth, L.
Calthorpe, L. Walsingham, L.
Camoys, L, Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)
Westbury, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative.

Bill to be read 2a this day six month.