HL Deb 05 May 1960 vol 223 cc415-30

2.34 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

LORD STONHAM moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:

Armed trespassers

"For the purpose of section thirty of the Game Act, 1831, it is to be presumed that a person armed with any firearm, pistol or gun who is shown to have trespassed on land, is in search or pursuit of game, or woodcocks, snipes or conies:

Provided that in any proceedings under the said section thirty, the presumption which arises by virtue of this section may be rebutted on proof of the fact that the accused person or persons were not in search or pursuit of game, or woodcocks, snipes or conies."

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Netherthorpe and I strongly support this Bill which, in our view, will remove a number of deficiencies in the present Game Laws. Our purpose in moving this new clause is to strengthen the law regarding armed trespass, which appears to be on the increase and is causing concern, and indeed alarm, to farmers and landowners in a good many parts of the country. Section 30 of the Game Act, 1831 relates to trespassing, the search for or pursuit of game in the daytime, but that particular section of the 1831 Act does not mention the carrying of guns.

If an offence is to be proved under this particular section of the Game Act it is necessary to show that the accused person was searching for or pursuing game; and the courts have decided that if magistrates have any doubt that such was the defendant's intention the case must be dismissed. Thus a very onerous burden of proof is laid on the prosecution, and consequently there are many clear instances of poaching which never reach the courts because of the difficulty of producing clear and indisputable evidence that an armed trespasser was in fact seeking for game. When suspected poachers are prosecuted justice may often be evaded through insufficient evidence—not insufficient evidence of the fact that the man was trespassing on someone else's land and that he was carrying a gun, but insufficient actual evidence of intention to pursue game.

I certainly do not wish to see any major encroachment on the important principle of English law that a man must be presumed innocent of a criminal offence unless he is proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but in certain cases arising under Section 30, it would not, in my view, be unfair to transfer some of the weighty burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. I would remind your Lordships that the proposed new clause deals only with armed trespass, and I suggest that where a person armed with any type of gun can be proved to have been trespassing on private land it should be presumed, for the purposes of prosecution arising under Section 30 of the Game Act, 1831, that he was searching for or pursuing game, unless of course—and this the new clause provides for—the accused can rebut that presumption by proving that such in fact was not the case.

I also appreciate the principle, and its importance, that a person should not be found guilty of performing a criminal act unless it can be shown that his actions were prompted by a wrongful intent. But, again, it seems to me a reasonable assumption that a person carrying a gun who goes on to another man's land without any authority or lawful excuse, does so with an unlawful purpose—he does, in fact, go on that land for the purpose of pursuing game. Therefore, the onus should be on him, if he is innocent, to prove that he is not in fact searching for or out to shoot game. In my view, this Amendment would not create any precedent, because there is a similar position with regard to the evidence of loitering with intent for burglary or housebreaking. I cannot see any essential difference in a man walking on the street outside your house with a jemmy or some instrument in his pocket for breaking into your property, and a fellow who comes on to your property armed with a gun. Therefore I cannot see that there is any hardship at all in asking for the change which this Amendment seeks to bring about.

There are other aspects which will be covered by this Amendment, if it is accepted, which I understand are not covered under the existing Acts, or, indeed, under this Bill, and which are purely concerned with shooting birds other than game birds. For example, I received a letter yesterday morning from a Member of your Lordships' House who unfortunately cannot be here to-day. This is what he says: I like your Amendment to the Game Laws (Amendment) Bill very much indeed, and the following story indicates one of the points which I have in mind. A young fellow came into my woods and shot a mallard in the breeding season, with the result that her brood of duckling; all died. We prosecuted under the Game Laws in order to ensure that his gun was confiscated—the one thing that really mattered to him. Fortunately, I was able to give evidence that there were pheasants in that wood, but everyone will agree that a bird in the breeding season deserves just as much protection as a game bird, and this Amendment will give that protection. A sporting young chap in good employment is willing enough to risk a fine, but the loss of his own gun will really hit him and, what is more, prevent him from repeating the offence. The defendant in the case I have mentioned looked quite happy when the bench announced his fine, but when the confiscation of the gun was announced his face fell a yard. If we had prosecuted him simply for shooting the mallard we could not have had the gun confiscated.

We have to recognise that we are no longer dealing with the old type of poacher who went with a gun on to somebody else's ground for pleasure, or for profit because he got a living in that way. We are dealing with a new type of marauder who does not even begin to observe the kind of rules which at one time were observed by people who committed armed trespass on someone's land. It may be thought that the Amendment I am seeking to make—this shift of the burden of proof—goes somewhat beyond the province of the Game Laws. In my view it is not only relevant that it should be in the Bill, but, frankly, I should warmly welcome any legislative proposal aimed at the current problem of armed trespass which is causing serious concern to the farming community. It is not purely a game aspect or a poaching aspect but a matter that is becoming of increasing concern everywhere.

As your Lordships will probably be aware, at the last annual general meeting of the National Farmers' Union in January last a considerable debate took place on this subject, and great concern was shown. The debate became very heated, and many delegates spoke to a resolution asking for an amendment of the law so as to make unauthorised entry on to private land with a gun a criminal offence. Alarming cases of armed trespass on farm land were reported. For example, instances were quoted from Monmouthshire of expeditions into the countryside by young hooligans from urban areas, usually in gangs, who had caused a great deal of wanton damage to farm stock and other property, and who had even threatened farmers with violence. It is not funny when a single unarmed farmer comes across a gang of youths of that kind, armed with guns, with only the protection of his own authority, his own words and presence, and no Act whereby he can summon a constable and say: "These people are on my land for a certain purpose which is criminal." This Amendment would enable him to say that, and it would then be up to the trespassers to prove that the facts were otherwise, and that they were not on his land committing armed trespass in search of or in pursuit of game. In fact, the conference of the National Farmers' Union was so concerned at the number and nature of the examples of damage and threats of this kind by armed hooligans that a resolution concerning this was carried unanimously.

This new clause, if accepted, would provide further much-needed strengthening of the Game Laws and at the same time, alleviate, in some degree at least, the problem of armed hooliganism in the countryside. I readily concede—as noble Lords will no doubt point out—that many of the cases have in mind are already covered by other sections of the criminal law; but in dealing with a problem of this kind the main difficulties are to apprehend the offender and prove the offence. In other words, we cannot really do that unless we catch him absolutely red-handed. Acceptance of this clause, in my view and in the view of members of the National Farmers' Union, would ease these difficulties and, coupled with the additional powers conferred upon the police by Clause 2 of the Bill, which we welcome, would provide a useful and necessary addition to the Bill and to the criminal law aspect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD DERWENT

May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the kind words he has said about the Bill in general. I have great sympathy with the case underlying this Amendment. I have little doubt in my own mind that it will be found necessary in the very near future to have some legislation which will control the use of firearms in the countryside; but that is not quite such a simple problem as perhaps the noble Lord has indicated. It involves all kinds of things—air guns and so on. Is this the type of Bill in which to make considerable alterations in the law, particularly in something which is not covered by the existing Game Acts?

This is a perfectly modest and simple Private Member's Bill dealing with no new principle of law but amending the existing Game Laws in two main respects only. One is that it gives additional power to a police constable when dealing with poachers. The other is that it increases the penalties for poaching offences. This Bill, as it stands, does nothing more than that. The basic principle of all Game Laws, at any rate since 1828, is that to obtain a conviction for poaching one has to prove trespass in pursuit of game. At first sight, this Amendment is somewhat startling because what it says, in effect, is: "We have not the evidence to prove trespass in pursuit of game, so we will find other evidence of something quite different from trespass in pursuit of game and will say to the court that this evidence (which is actually the carrying of a gun) is sufficient to show, if there is no other evidence, that the man must have been trespassing in pursuit of game, unless he can prove otherwise". In certain circumstances I see considerable difficulty over a man's proving that he was not in pursuit of game even when, in fact, he was not.

LORD STONHAM

Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? He said that there would not be evidence that the man was trespassing in pursuit of game, but there would be the evidence of trespass; otherwise the case would not be brought. The point at issue is whether the trespass was for the pursuit of game.

LORD DERWENT

I believe that that is more or less what I said—that the man is committing armed trespass, which at the moment is not an offence. At the present time, provided one has a licence, it is no offence to carry a firearm anywhere and at any time one likes. Speaking rather broadly, I believe that that is the case. The noble Lord is saying that this man should be found guilty of an offence under the Game Laws, by saying that if he is doing something else which is not in itself an offence at all, then we can find him guilty of the offence of which he is being charged. I say that I find that a somewhat startling proposition. But I think it is startling only until one realises the purpose behind this Amendment, and that has been very well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. He virtually said, "My Amendment has nothing to do with poaching at all; it is trying to stop people coming on to your land when they are armed". That may well be true, and one ought to try to stop it. But it is not quite as easy as all that.

I myself before now have been coming off a moor, for instance, and taking a short cut down to a road rather than walk an extra four or five miles, without asking permission of the farmer. Having been brought up properly I unload my gun and go down to the road where my car is. But unless I can prove—and I do not know how I can do it—that I was not poaching, someone may see me drive away, take the number of the car, and I am run in for trespassing in pursuit of game. I think that for a Bill of this nature—this is what I am saying—this Amendment really goes very much too far. I hope, therefore, in view of what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press it. I equally hope that he or some other noble Lord will rapidly introduce a Bill to get some control into the very real problem of the carrying of arms. But I think—I am not using the phrase offensively—that this is an attempt to do something by a back-door method, which I feel in a Bill of this kind should not be done. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press it, because should he press it I should find myself compelled to advise the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

LORD WISE

I just want to detain the Committee for one or two moments to deal with another point which was almost touched on by the noble Lord who has just sat down, and that is the point of the man who is not actually trespassing on land in pursuit of game. In looking at the Bill as it stands, it seems to me that if a police constable finds anybody on land with a gun he can apprehend him. My position is this. In many cases—

LORD DERWENT

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he is wrong. He can challenge him.

LORD WISE

But in Clause 1 the words are "apprehend him". My position is that I often give permission to agricultural workers who are in the area to go into my woods to shoot pigeons or rabbits or anything else of that sort. If a police constable finds them in my woods with a gun and they are shooting they can be apprehended by him under this clause. That is how I read it.

LORD DERWENT

May I interrupt the noble Lord? He is misreading the clause. What in fact it says is that he may challenge him and order him to quit the land and give his name and address and, if he fails to do so, may apprehend him. With a man trespassing in pursuit of game, he may ask for his name and address and, if he refuses to give them, may apprehend him, but not otherwise. He cannot just go up to a man and say, "I apprehend you".

LORD WISE

I have read it the other way and I want to safeguard the men to whom I have given permission to shoot from being taken to court. Whether or not they get anything else besides what they are intended to get, I do not know. I do not shoot myself, and for that reason I give permission to other people to shoot; and I do not want the police constable coming along and asking for their names and all the rest of it.

LORD DERWENT

May I again intervene? It may save time. The man the noble Lord is talking about is fully protected under the Act of 1831, which is not altered in that respect by this Bill.

LORD WISE

If that is so, it is satisfactory to me.

LORD TEVIOT

I am a little puzzled about this, because I am putting myself in the position of one who lives in a county where there are too many pigeons, too many small owls, too many grey squirrels and too many rabbits and rats. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, has touched lightly on the subject of these pests. I have seen many farmers' notices—or have had the information from farmers—stating that they would be glad if somebody would shoot some of these pests; and I am not sure that this Amendment would not make rather a difficulty. For that reason I am afraid that I cannot support it.

LORD STONHAM

If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, if one invited someone to go on to one's land and shoot owls, rats, pigeons or rabbits he would not be trespassing, and therefore would be in no danger under my Amendment.

LORD TEVIOT

But I gather from the Amendment that when I am waiting behind hedges and trees to get some of these pests I am almost liable for trespass under this Amendment. I am not in favour of that at all.

LORD STONHAM

I am quite sure that that is not the case. In any case, the noble Lord will always be able to give anybody ten yards start in a hundred and catch him.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Will the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill tell us this? Has Section 31 of the Game Act, 1831, always operated quite satisfactorily? Have there been a number of apprehensions under it without any difficulty?

LORD DERWENT

A number of what?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

The section cited in Clause 1 of the Bill is Section 31 of the Game Act, 1831, which is operative. Has that always worked satisfactorily, and have there been a number of apprehensions under it?

LORD DERWENT

It has operated as satisfactorily as I imagine any Act of Parliament can work. There have been amendments and now there are amendments under the present Bill.

2.58 p.m.

EARL BATHURST

I think it would be fair to the Committee if I were to cover some of the ground which has already been gone over by the Committee about this Amendment, to make quite clear the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, the effect of his Amendment would be that if proceedings are taken against a person who has been trespassing on land, whether in search of pests, as my noble friend Lord Teviot said, or as a poacher, which I think is the more likely, and that person is in possession of a firearm, pistol or gun, he will be presumed to be in pursuit of game and therefore will be liable to the increased penalties which are the main purpose of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Derwent.

This Bill is concerned with protection of game and protection of gaming rights, and the violation of these is, of course, a criminal offence. Trespassing is a civil offence. The noble Lord opposite and his friends would wish to make it a criminal offence to trespass on land for any purpose when armed; and I know well what are his reasons, and his friends' reasons, for that view. Indeed, he and others of your Lordships have explained them. His Amendment is aimed not so much against the type of trespasser, if I may so call him, as my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is apparently in the habit of crossing other people's land with an unloaded gun or a loaded gun. Incidentally, I know people who might take a very different view of such a habit. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and his friends are out to get those armed bands of truculent hooligans who roam across the countryside with the purpose of shooting anything that moves, whether bird or animals, game, pest or any other sort of animal—even, I believe, farm animals.

Nevertheless, just because an accused person is trespassing, and is armed, as my noble friend Lord Derwent has said, it cannot be necessarily proved in law that he is in pursuit of game. This Amendment could not possibly stand up in law, I am informed, and I have no doubt that the noble and learned Law Lords, of whom there are not very many present this afternoon, would support me in saying that. Especially there is the objection that the burden of proof of innocence is put upon the accused. There are exceptions—for instance, in connection with the possession of housebreaking instruments—but Parliament is, quite properly, very careful of the rights of an accused person; and I cannot advise your Lordships that these rights should be curtailed by an Amendment to what my noble friend has, after all, described as a modest Private Member's Bill, this Game Laws (Amendment) Bill.

I am most sympathetic towards the purpose of this Amendment, which the noble Lord opposite and his friends have put down, but this Bill is not the vehicle to deal with the mischief they have in mind. However, my right honourable friend is prepared to examine this point most carefully, in the light of what has been said to-day in your Lordships' House, and he will consider whether anything can be done other than in the context of this Bill. Your Lordships could perhaps assist my right honourable friend in his examination of these problems by sending him any information or evidence which you may have which is relevant to this nuisance: and I may add that my right honourable friend has already seen the memorandum from the National Farmers' Union, which they were kind enough to send to him. I cannot, of course, commit Her Majesty's Government, but from what I have said I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and others of your Lordships, will see that I hope to satisfy the noble Lord, and that due weight will be given to the arguments that have been put forward to-day.

EARL WINTERTON

I am sure that many of your Lordships will be very glad, as I am, to hear what the noble Earl has just said. There is no doubt that these roving bands of people whom he described are becoming a menance to the countryside. I hope that when the Home Secretary examines the matter he will examine the question of boys with air pistols who shoot at anything they see, sometimes wounding them and leaving them to die; and that he will go into the whole matter, which is becoming a menace in many parts of the country.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for what he has said, and for the felicitous way in which he has said it. As I understood him, his right honourable friend the Home Secretary says that this Amendment of mine will not stand up in law; that it does not belong to this Bill; but that nevertheless he agrees with it.

EARL BATHURST

He agrees with the object of it, if I may put that quite straight to the noble Lord opposite. He agrees with the idea behind it, shall I say.

LORD STONHAM

I am sorry if my paraphrase was not quite clear, but that was the impression that I got. In any case, the Home Secretary is most sympathetic to the objective we have in mind—and I concede that what I had in mind has been achieved by securing the most valuable assurance, although without any commitment, given by the noble Earl, I am quite sure that noble Lords will accept the invitation, as will the National Farmers' Union, to send information of this kind. It may well be that, if the Government cannot find time to take the necessary steps, we may be able to assist in that direction; and in that event I hope that we shall have the agreement of all noble Lords in this House. In that hope, I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 [Power of police to enter on land]:

3.4 p.m.

EARL BATHURST moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "This section shall not apply" and to insert The power of entry conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercisable in relation". The noble Earl said: I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name upon the Order Paper. Clause 1 gives the police a power of arrest in the circumstances prescribed in that clause, and Clause 2 gives the police a power of entry on to land. These two clauses apply to all private land and, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, to the Crown lands. Now, for the purpose of security, subsection (3) of Clause 2 withdraws the right of entry of police on to security land which is held by the Service Departments. It could therefore be held that the police do not have the power, conferred on them by Clause 1, to arrest a poacher when he is on security land for the purposes dealt with in this Bill. This is not the intention. The Amendment therefore allows the police to make an arrest on security land, but they must be invited on to the land by the authority concerned. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the local police concerned from having a standing invitation to that effect from the particular authority. This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but it makes the position quite clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 9, leave out ("This section shall not apply") and insert the said new words.—(Earl Bathurst.)

LORD DERWENT

May I thank Her Majesty's Government for putting right by this Amendment a small matter, but one which ought to be put right? I am glad that, to a large extent, it meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who I regret is not here to-day, on Second Reading. I am very willing to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Amendment of Poaching Prevention Act, 1862]:

EARL BATHURST moved to add to the clause: (5) In this section the word 'game' has the same meaning as in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862. The noble Earl said: This and the other Amendments which stand in my name deal with the definition of "rabbit" for the purpose of this Bill, and can cause considerable misunderstanding. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships (and, with your permission, I should like to do so) for me first of all to speak on Amendment No. 8—because that is the key Amendment to this series of Amendments—and then to come back to Amendment No. 3. Then your Lordships may possibly wish to pass the whole lot en bloc.

Subsection (5) of Clause 4 defines "game" for the purposes of the seizure and forfeiture from poachers under Clause 4. As the Bill stands, the rabbit has crept into this definition. One of the first books that probably any of your Lordships read was, Peter Rabbit, and probably one of our first hates was Mr. McGregor. I have been lent a copy of that delightful book, Peter Rabbit, by a young friend, and, with great apology, I must compare my noble friend who is responsible for the Ministry of Agriculture with Mr. McGregor. You will remember that Peter Rabbit, gorged with vegetables, went off to look for some parsley when suddenly—and I quote: round the edge of a cucumber frame whom should he meet but Mr. McGregor! Mr. McGregor was very angry and he jumped up and ran after Peter, waving a rake and calling out 'stop thief'! He chased Peter around the garden and almost caught him in a sieve"— and possibly your Lordships will remember the relief when it was only "'almost caught him in a sieve". My noble friend was very angry to find that Peter Rabbit had been included in the definition of "game" in my noble friend's Bill. In fact, he said that in this Bill the rabbit acquires too high a status. Peter Rabbit's status may be very high among some people, and among your Lordships, but the status was not very high for my noble friend Lord Sot-hers when this was discussed on Second Reading.

To meet the point of my noble friend, therefore, by an Amendment at page 3, line 27 (that is, Amendment No. 8) we propose to remove the rabbit from the definition of "game" in this clause. Nevertheless—and now I work backwards through the Amendments—to achieve the aims of the Bill we must add "or rabbits" (the wording of my other Amendments) in order that a poacher caught with a rabbit may suffer the penalties prescribed under Clause 4. Then, again working backwards, for the same reason we want the poacher caught with a rabbit to suffer the penalties that are prescribed in Clause 3. Therefore, this Amendment, which I shall move to your Lordships in a moment—Amendment No. 3, which is on page 2, line 43, at the end—defines "game" in Clause 3 by quoting the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, in the definition of which the rabbit is included. I am afraid it is somewhat like Alice Through the Looking Glass, but that is the underlying reason for these Amendments. They are really drafting Amendments in order to put right a complaint by my noble friend. If it is your Lordships' wish, I could move them all en bloc.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to debate all these Amendments together, but I can put them only one at a time.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Bathurst.)

LORD DERWENT

The most important thing in this series of Amendments is that they will enable my noble cousin to sleep peacefully at night. They do no harm to the Bill. I agree with the noble Earl that we cannot call rabbits game; they are pests. These Amendments have the effect of making rabbits game when you want them to be game and pests when you want them to be pests.

LORD STONHAM

These Amendments will not deprive me of any sleep, nor will they have that effect on any poacher. But they seem to me to make a contradiction of the Bill. The noble Earl wishes to see that the word "game" has the same meaning as in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862. The appropriate section on the first page of that Act says: The Word 'Game' in this Act shall for the Purposes of this Act be deemed to include any One or more Hares. Pheasants, Partridges … Woodcocks, Snipes, Rabbits, Grouse, Black or Moor Game,… In other words, rabbits are included in "game". In Clause 4 (5) of this Bill, we are now asked to take out rabbits to make perfectly clear that "game" does not include rabbits. That may give joy to the Minister—and he is entitled to all the joy he can get nowadays—but it does not make for clarity. I really cannot understand how one can say in one subsection of a clause that the word "game" includes rabbits and in a later subsection of the same clause that it does not. It seems like nonsense to me.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

I wonder if I may say a word about Amendment No. 8, as I feel that "game" ought nowadays to include capercailzie? I fully realise that the Bill applies only to England, where there are no capercailzie, but since being reintroduced into Scotland, they have spread swiftly, and with the growth of Forestry Commission plantations in Northumberland it is only a matter of time before the capercailzie establishes itself in England. The reason why it is not in this Bill is, I believe, because the definition of "game" was copied from the Act of 1862; and, of course, at that time there were no capercailzie either in England or in Scotland. They had died out and were reintroduced into Scotland only thirty or forty years ago. I wonder whether the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill would consider including capercailzie, so that in ten years' time, when they have established themselves in England, he will not have to ask for another Game Laws (Amendment) Bill to include them. And if we had a Bill for Scotland on the same lines, it would make it neat and tidy if the definitions of "game" were the same.

LORD DERWENT

This is a Bill to amend two matters in the Game Laws and we do not want to alter any other part of them. We do not want to add things or take them away, except in the two respects I have mentioned. Capercailzie were not mentioned in the earlier Acts and I should regret including them now. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, wants me to answer his question, but I think I had better leave it to the noble Earl to whom it was addressed.

EARL BATHURST

As I mentioned, there is something of Alice Through The Looking Glass in this. In Clause 3 we want rabbits, and the definition in the 1862 Act is required, but we do not want rabbits included in the definition of "game" in Clause 4, and therefore we propose to exclude them from the definition in that clause and to add the words "or rabbits" where appropriate. I hope that I have explained myself to the noble Lord.

LORD STONHAM

Would it be fair to say that if a poacher is charged under the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862, you want rabbits to be included as game, and if a poacher is charged under the Night Poaching Act, 1828, you do not want rabbits to be included as game? Is that the only difference?

EARL BATHURST

Clauses 3 and 4 raise different principles; that is the reason.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Further provisions as to seizure and forfeiture]:

EARL BATHURST

With your Lordships' permission, I beg to move the rest of my Amendments en bloc.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 5, after ("game") insert ("or rabbits").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, after ("game") insert ("or rabbits").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, after ("game") insert ("or rabbit").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, after ("game") insert ("rabbit").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out ("rabbits").—(Earl Bathurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.