HC Deb 17 June 1874 vol 220 cc61-4

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. PELL

, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was in the main a declaratory Bill, and referred only to the pursuit or trespass on land for rabbits during the day time, and did not at all meddle with night poaching. The Amendment he proposed would bestow as severe a punishment on the poacher as any awarded by the old law, and the owner of cultivated lands would be at least in as good a position as he was before. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent the setting aside of grounds suitable for the breeding of these creatures if it was the desire of the owner; and if he did so, he would receive a protection of a higher order, accompanied with penalties for breach of the law of a more serious character than any contained in the Game Laws proper, and those laws he let alone. He had introduced this Bill as an honest endeavour to get rid of a difficult question, and if it were carried it would at once dispose of that question. It would take the rabbits out of the Game Laws, create a law of trespass to protect the owner from persons who went in pursuit of these animals, and it would do that without interfering with the law of contract between landlord and tenant. When the Bill got into Committee he would propose that the penalties for trespass in pursuit of rabbits during the clay should be increased from 5s., as named in the Bill, to 10s. for the first offence, and 40s. for second offences. The fines would be recoverable by the occupier of the land. The provisions of the Bill followed the recommendations of the Select Committee, and his great object in proposing it, as he had said, was to disentangle the game question of rabbits altogether, and to enact a law of trespass sufficient to protect the occupiers of land from injury arising from the pursuit of rabbits. The question of game might afterwards be more easily dealt with in a separate measure. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Pell)

MR. M'COMBIE

I beg to move the rejection of the Bill. As I have been sent to this House to speak for the tenant-farmers, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words as to this Bill. Speaking for them, I must say that this is the most extraordinary, the most childish, the most insignificant, the most insulting to tenant-farmers of any Bill that has ever been introduced to this House. The former Government left our grievances as they found them, and if this is a specimen of what we may expect from the other side of the House, we will undergo the same fate by the present Government. The tenant-farmers have never been represented in this House, nor will they be ever represented so long as they send the sons of Dukes, the sons of Lords, and large landed proprietors who wish to keep the power in their own hands, and have represented their own interests and not the interests of the tenant-farmers. If this should be denied, will any hon. Member point out any measure that has passed this House but what has been for the advantage of the proprietor, and not for the advantage of the tenant? I do not object to the sons of Dukes and Lords or large landed proprietors sitting in this House, if they would represent the interests of their constituents, but they have represented their own interests. I do not object to the return of my young and noble Friend the Member for Morayshire. I rejoice at it; and why? because he has nailed his colours to the mast to redress the grievances of the tenant-farmers. Why do the tenant-farmers send Members here who misrepresent them? Because they are afraid their proprietors may not renew their leases. But if tenant-farmers would only throw off the yoke of bondage as we have done in Aberdeenshire, there would be no fear of getting a renewal of our leases. Why, Sir, the proprietors can have no choice; they must renew the leases, and to the very men who voted contrary, perhaps, to their political views, otherwise they would have no tenants at all. I trust the tenant-farmers in other counties will follow the example of Aberdeenshire, Forfarshire, Kincardineshire, Linlithgowshire, and Morayshire, and then, and not till then, will their grievances be redressed. No doubt, the late Government left our grievances as they found them, but we are now offered from the other side of the House this now famous Rabbit Bill—the only Bill. But will tenant-farmers accept it? I most emphatically, speaking for the tenant-farmers, say no. We can kill as many rabbits as we please at present, in spite of our landlords. We will have nothing to do with it. We throw it and all such insulting Bills to the four winds of heaven. I am not surprised at the result of the late elections in the counties in Scotland. I am only surprised that the Liberals have retained so many of them. There is one consolation to the tenant-farmers, that the present Government cannot do less for them than the former. They left the Game Laws as they found them; they left the Law of Hypothec as they found it; they gave us no assistance with the Labourers' Cottage Bill; but they saddled us with the gun tax, the shepherd's dog tax, the horse tax in driving materials to our roads, and even taxed the carts driving the old and infirm to Church. To that must be entirely attributed the defection of the Scotch counties, and not to the organization of the Tories. The poor tenant-farmers were sold by the late, and I fear will undergo the same fate with the present, Government. I often told Members of the late Government of the feeling of the Scotch farmers against them; but they were deaf to my remonstrances. If they had listened to my advice, they would not have been sitting on the Opposition benches here to-day. If I could presume to tender advice to the present Government, if they wish to remain in office, I would say, totally abolish the Game Laws, do away with the Law of Hypothec, entail and primogeniture, gun tax, shepherd's dog tax, give security to the tenant for unexhausted manures, improvements, and necessary farm buildings. If our grievances are redressed, we do not care so much from what quarter it may come.

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. M'Combie.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he also opposed the Bill, because it could not be accepted by the tenant-farmers of Scotland. They had long complained of their grievances, and as a Liberal he deeply regretted that the late Government did not attempt to deal with them. He was anxious to see the game grievance which the tenant-farmers of Scotland had so long, so earnestly, and with such fairness tried to remove, set at rest. It created ill-will between those who ought to be on friendly terms. It caused heart-burnings to all wealthy landlords selling game reared on the crops of farmers.

And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.