CONSIDERATION. (Hansard, 7 August 1879)

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
objected most strongly to the Bill being considered at that time. As he understood, the Bill was to be made to apply to England as well as to Scotland. It certainly was bad enough to have one law for Scotland and another for England; but he thought that before a law which was intended for Scotland should be applied to England they ought to consider whether it was a right or a proper law. He did not think that, at that time in the morning, such an important matter should be considered. The Bill deserved very serious consideration, and as his attention had only recently been called to it he strongly objected to its being taken.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
observed, that the Bill had been discussed again and again in that House, and he was surprised to hear the lion, and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex state that his attention had never been called to it. The question as to poaching was discussed upon the Scotch Bill; and it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the provisions of the Bill should also be extended to England. The Bill contained reasonable and merciful provisions, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)
said, that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion it had been agreed that the law in Scotland 476 and in England should be the same. The Bill proposed to give powers to a Judge who tried a case of night-poaching to inflict something less than imprisonment with hard labour in certain eases. The law with regard to poaching differed according as the offence was committed by night or by day, and the law with respect to night-poaching was very much more severe than in regard to day-poaching. When offences were committed between day and night, or between night and morning, it was very difficult for an ordinary man to know whether he was, in effect, offending against the law for night or day-poaching. It was provided by the Bill before the House that where a man was out alone, and not acting in concert with another poacher, and where he had no arms or net, then the Judge, in his discretion, might inflict a fine instead of sending the man to prison. In one case, which had been brought under the notice of the House by means of a Question, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had thought fit to discharge a man from prison, where he had been sent by a Judge, under the precise circumstances in which the Bill gave a Judge power to inflict a fine instead of imprisonment.

§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN
said, that a certain number of Amendments were to be inserted; but it was not certain how far they would go. He wished to ask the reason for the insertion of the Amendment-—"Having in his possession any net."

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the point raised by the hon. Member could not properly then be brought forward. The Question was that the Bill be now considered.

§ SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN
repeated his question with respect to the reason for inserting the words—" Or having in his possession any not."

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)
said, the case that led to the introduction of the Bill was the case of a farmer, who was not charged or suspected of any complicity with poachers, but only went out and set a snare to catch rabbits on his own grounds. The words were introduced for the purpose of distinguishing between the case which the Bill was intended to meet and the case 477 of men acting in concert as wholesale plunderers.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTHLOT
asked why England was included in the operation of the Bill?

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)
observed, that when the Bill came before the Committee Clause 1 ran thus—"This Act shall only apply to Scotland." After a discussion, it was agreed that it should be applied to England also, and one of the very first Amendments inserted in Committee on the Bill was a provision extending the operation of the Bill to England as well as to Scotland. That was the only explanation he could give.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
begged to move to leave out the word "England."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
wished to say one word with regard to the matter. The only question really was whether the clause could be made agreeable to a Bill already passed. The present Bill was made to apply to England, and the Amendment was for the purpose of making Clause 2 agree with the rest of the Bill. The question raised by the Bill was whether certain powers should be given to magistrates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate had said that the powers were limited to cases where a man was bonâ fide believed not to be a poacher. Nothing would induce him (Mr. Assheton Cross) to ask the House to modify the law with respect to the habitual poacher. The Bill, in effect, gave the magistrates power, in cases where a man had, by a short interval, brought himself within the offence of night-poaching, to try the case as if it had happened just within the day. The law with respect to night and day-poaching very much resembled that of burglary and house-breaking. Burglary was a superior offence to house-breaking, and the essential in burglary was that the act had to be done by night. A man was not bound to be charged with burglary; but he might be charged with house-breaking, whether the offence was committed by night or by day. But in the case of night-poaching the matter was regulated by a hard-and-fast line, and it was not in the lower of the magistrate to try the offence as of the lesser character; and this Bill was for the purpose of vesting such a discretion in the magistrate. He 478 might add that nothing was further from his intention than to limit the punishment upon the habitual poacher.

MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON
remarked that it did not appear from the Schedule of the Bill that it was limited in the way which had been mentioned.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
replied that the Amendments were made in Committee.

MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON
said, that there was no mention in the Bill as to going with nets to catch game.

§ MR. CALLAN
remarked that it was rather refreshing to see hon. Members on the Government side of the House, who attacked obstruction, persistently obstructing the Public Business of the country at that hour of the morning. Hon. Members were opposing a measure brought forward by one of the Law Officers of the Government of which they were supporters. He thought that they should now allow the Business to go on.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)
wished to state that the Bill was amended in Committee, and the discretion of the magistrates was limited to the one case he had stated—namely, where the person accused had been alone, and not in concert with any other person, and not armed, and not possessed of or using any net.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, that the explanation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate was that the Bill had been considerably amended; but they had not the Amendments there before them. It was not only hard, but also most unusual, to ask the House to consider a Bill without having the Amendments before it.