COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th August.] (Hansard, 7 August 1883)

§ MR. MONK
said, he had placed some Amendments on the Paper to the Bill, and he should like to ask the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) if he would accept them? If the hon. Member did not intend to do so, he (Mr. Monk) would make some observations in regard to them. He would call attention, in the first place, to the proposed name of the Bill. In the first line of Clause 5 the measure was described as the Cruelty to Animals Prevention Acts Amendment Bill. As the Bill now stood, its object was merely to prevent pigeon-shooting; but he (Mr. Monk) could hardly think that the hon. Gentleman who brought it forward as a Bill for the Amendment of the Cruelty to Animals Acts would object to include in it cruelty to other animals besides pigeons. Otherwise, it would be desirable to change this name to the Cruelty to Pigeons Prevention Act. He intended to move an Amendment to that effect, and he supposed the hon. Member for Glasgow would accept it. It was not necessary for him to take up the time of the Committee by going at length into the subject; and he would, therefore, simply ask the hon. Member whether he would consent to change the name of the Bill as he suggested?

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that, in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Monk), and other hon. Members who had Amendments to the Bill on the Paper, he should like to make an appeal to them not to proceed with their proposals. When the Bill passed the second reading, he had given a pledge that it should be confined strictly to trap-shooting. To that pledge he wished to adhere. That promise had been made to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. Gibson), and to other hon. Members, and he wished to adhere strictly to it. He must, therefore, refuse, so far as he was concerned, to accept the Amendment mentioned by the hon. Member 1961 for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), even although he sympathized with its object, and, under other circumstances, should be extremely glad to widen the scope of the measure. The reason for the refusal was the pledge he had given, and the fear that at that late period of the Session, if they extended the operation of the Bill, its progress would be materially endangered in "another place." He would appeal to hon. Members who were favourably disposed towards the Bill not to move any Amendments at all, for fear of destroying the chance of the Bill in the House of Lords. Some of the Amendments were, perhaps, hostile. For instance, there was that to be moved by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tottenham), which provided for the shooting of pigeons from traps in places specially licensed for the purpose. The hon. Member had not, seemingly, sufficiently considered the nature of his proposal, because that would involve such an invidious class distinction, that it would be a thing which the Committee would hardly be inclined to agree to. As to changing the name of the Bill, it did not appear to him that the name was of much consequence. The Bill was, practically, an amendment of the Cruelty to Animals Acts. Therefore, he should be inclined to adhere to the title as it stood.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Penalties for shooting birds liberated from traps or otherwise).

§ MR. MONK
said, he had an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the word "place," and insert "inclosure," and further Amendments in line 14, consequential, for the purpose of carrying out the object which he would now state. His desire was to put an end to the objectionable system of coursing and hunting trapped hares and rabbits. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh, oh!" but it seemed to him that it was hardly just to have one law with regard to cruelty to pigeons, and another with regard to cruelty to hares and rabbits. He had no doubt many hon. Members of the Committee were aware that a vast number of hares and rabbits were netted or trapped every year, and sent to inclosures constructed for the purpose of coursing. From those inclosures the hares were driven down a narrow passage in the 1962 shape of a funnel by men stationed there for that purpose, and ultimately forced through it. At the end of the funnel was a person with two greyhounds in a slip. As soon as the unfortunate hare passed through the funnel the dogs were slipped after it, and the coursing match, as the sporting phrase went, took place. It seemed to him to be in the highest degree absurd to suppose that the House of Commons would pass a Bill for preventing what was alleged to be cruelty in shooting trapped birds, and, at the same time, refuse to protect unfortunate hares and rabbits, which were kept in confinement simply for the sake of being run down by dogs and cruelly done to death. He need hardly say that the practice to which he was calling attention was very different from coursing in the open. That might be real sport, and, no doubt, it had been considered sport for centuries in this country; but it was quite a novel practice to net hundreds of hares, as they were now netted in Norfolk and Suffolk, and sent up in vast quantities to these inclosures, there to be coursed by dogs. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) to say that he did not wish to alter a word or line of the Bill, and that he considered it a Bill for extending the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The Bill was nothing of the sort. It had no reference whatever to baiting bulls, dog-fighting, and cock-fighting, which formed the subject-matter of the original Act. That Act had nothing whatever to do with pigeon-shooting, its object being to prevent cruelty to animals, whether tame or wild. Therefore, he could not understand how the hon. Member could refuse to accept his Amendment. ["Oh, oh!"] Would any hon. Member, who, by inarticulate sounds, was expressing dissent from what he had said, rise in his place and state that he considered the coursing of these unfortunate hares and rabbits, which were kept in confinement for lengthened periods, was legitimate sport, and should not be dealt with by Parliament? Would any hon. Member say he did not consider that cruelty? If anyone did, then he (Mr. Monk) could not agree with him. The Amendment he now proposed was the first of a series intended to put a stop to this cruel kind of coursing.
1963 Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, leave out "place," and insert "inclosure."—(Mr. Monk.)
Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be loft out stand part of the Clause."

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, that if the hon. Member (Mr. Monk) was in favour of this Bill, as he (Sir William Harcourt) believed he was, he trusted that he would not press his Amendment. No doubt, there were cruelties of other descriptions, besides those at which the Bill was aimed, which might be properly considered; but if this particular measure was to be dealt with this Session, it was impossible to amend it. As everybody perfectly understood, the Bill was proposed with a limited object, and with that object a large majority of hon. Members of the House had expressed their sympathy by their votes. He trusted the hon. Member would not persist in his Amendment, unless he wished to bring about the defeat of the Bill.
Question put, and negatived.

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, in line 14, after "elsewhere," to insert "except as hereinafter provided;" and, later on, another Amendment to insert the following Proviso:— Provided, nevertheless, That bird shooting from traps shall be permitted in places specially licensed for the purpose, under the supervision of an official to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department; the salary of such official to be fixed by the Secretary of State, and to be paid out of the funds of the club, or other establishment so licensed. Any conviction for cruelty under this Act, or default in payment of such salary by the person to whom the licence is issued, to cause forfeiture of licence. He did not desire to move those Amendments, after the expression of opinion which they had heard in the House on the last Amendment. Indeed, it would be useless for him to persevere.

§ LORD BURGHLEY
said, he had an Amendment to propose which was not on the Paper. He had not been able to get it printed that night; but what he wished to call the attention of the Committee to was the fact that the Bill was for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to animals. Hon. Members would, therefore, agree with him that the 1964 cruelty in the case of pigeons did not consist in merely shooting them, but in cruelties practised upon the birds shot at. He had, therefore, drawn up an Amendment for the consideration of the Committee which would deal with the cruelties, without interfering with the shooting. It was in these words. In page 1, line 14, to leave out from the word "elsewhere" down to the Word "or," in line 15, and to insert— Liberate or be privy to the liberation from any trap or other contrivance, or from the hand, of any mained or injured bird for the purpose of being shot at. He believed the Amendment would strongly appeal to the feelings of the Committee, and he trusted it would be adopted.
Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, to leave out all the words after "elsewhere" down to "or," in line 15, in order to insert "liberate or be privy to the liberation from any trap, or other contrivance, or from the hand, of any maimed or injured bird for the purpose of being shot at." — (Lord Burghley.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, as he had refused to accept an Amendment which would have the effect of extending the scope of the Bill, he was equally unable to agree to any limitation; and he should, therefore, oppose the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Anderson.)

§ MR. TOTTENHAM
said, that, looking at the way in which the Bill had been taken on Saturday night last, against the opinion of the majority of hon. Members, he did not think it right to assent to the third reading being taken at that Sitting.

§ MR. WARTON
said, he must oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), on the ground that the previous stages of the Bill had 1965 been hurried on in such a way as to deprive hon. Members who took an interest in the subject, and were opposed to the Bill in its present form, from expressing their opinions upon it.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," in order to insert the words "upon Thursday," — (Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.