Commons Sitting of 8 April 1891

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HARES BILL.—(No. 10.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to say that it should have been unnecessary to give an assurance that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the preservation of rabbits; but, unfortunately, a number of persons who ought to know better have insisted on calling it a Hares and Rabbits Bill, and have thus unjustly created a great deal of opposition to it that would not otherwise have been shown. The object of the Bill is to provide a close time for hares only during the breeding season; and so far from wishing to interfere with the principle of the Ground Game Act, 1880, in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) is interested, the object in bringing in this Bill is to confirm that principle and to secure to the farmers the benefits granted to them by that Act, benefits which are now endangered. The provisions of the present Bill differ in one important particular from previous Bills on the subject. Although there is, and always has been, a large majority in the House in favour of a close time for hares, yet there does exist a strong feeling among a certain section that there should not be one hard and fast close time in all England, Scotland, and Wales. There is considerable force in this objection, because what might be a reasonable close time in Sussex and Dorset would not be equally reasonable for the Counties of Sutherland and Caithness in Scotland. To meet this objection, the present Bill, instead of giving the same close time for England, Scotland, and Wales, gives the County Councils in those countries power to grant a close time in their own respective counties during the breeding season.
  66
  The Bill also is on the same lines as that valuable measure, the Wild Birds Protection Act, but it substitutes County Councils for Justices of Quarter Sessions in fixing a close time. We do not ask the House to fix a particular close time, but that the occupiers of the land may, if they wish, through their representatives on the County Councils, have the power of fixing the close time during the breeding season. If the occupiers do not want the power they need not have it, and if, having obtained it, they find it injurious, the Bill will enable them to repeal it. I venture to say that a measure more free from possibility of abuse has never been submitted to Parliament, and I am not altogether without hope that we may secure the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby himself for the Second Reading. I earnestly hope that this may be so, or I believe that soon there will be no hares left to protect. In many parts of England hares are becoming almost extinct through the barbarous and unnecessary slaughter that is made of them at improper times. The right hon. Gentleman did not agree with me last Session, and as a proof that hares were plentiful in this country he told the House that Lord Durham had in one particular day had 360 killed on his estate. But even supposing that Lord Durham is in the habit of shooting 300 or 400 hares on his estate in one day it would only prove that there are a few great landowners who are able to afford the expense of keeping up a large supply of game. I have taken pains to ascertain the views of the trade in this matter, and have consulted many of the leading salesmen of the London game markets. They have informed me that there has been a marked decrease in the number of English hares since the Act of 1880 was passed, and that also after the beginning of March a very large number of the hares that are killed are with young or in milk. Very few buck hares come into the market after the end of February, and the slaughter of doe hares is simply barbarous. Nor is there any excuse for it, because there is an ample supply of foreign hares brought frozen into the market that are killed before the breeding season, and are therefore in a fit and proper condition. All the game salesmen agree

  67
  that if some steps are not taken to prevent the present destruction the utter extermination of our whole stock of English hares is only a matter of time. This is the fifth Session that this Bill has been brought forward, and until this day we have not had the opportunity of a Debate on the Second Reading. Last year we succeeded in getting the Bill into Committee, when the right hon. Member for Derby stated his objections to it, and it is in order to satisfy and to remove those objections that the present Bill has been brought forward to-day in its altered form. I wish briefly to refer to some of the objections urged by the right hon. Gentleman. The first was that the Bill contravenes the principle of the Ground Game Act. This, however, is not the case, and the Bill simply seeks to put a stop to the senseless and indiscriminate slaughter that is now going on. Hares have a habit of wandering from one farm to another, and a farmer naturally says, " What is the use of my preserving hares that they may be shot by my next neighbour? " The result is, that the wretched hares are shot both in season and out of season to prevent any chance of escape. This Bill will prevent anything of the kind, be cause, if the majority of the farmers wish to have a close time, they will, through their representatives on the County Councils, be able to secure it. Another objection of the right hon. Gentleman was that this is a sportsman's Bill, and is brought forward in the interests of sportsmen. Well, I admit that if there were no hares there would be no coursing, and tens of thousands of the working classes, among others, in Lancashire and Yorkshire would be deprived of a sport in which they now participate, and which they enjoy just as much as the right hon. Gentleman himself does the Goodwood and Ascot races. For my own part, I should be extremely sorry to see any of the old English sports abolished, although, if the right hon. Gentleman will bring in a Bill to put a stop to such coursing as takes place at Kempton Park, I will willingly support it; but I say emphatically that this is not a sporting Bill. Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a Bill which would create a new Game Law, and that it would warrant the gamekeepers in
  68
  being always on the land of the occupiers. But if the tenant does not like the arrangement he would be able to take effectual steps to put a stop to it, because up to the period at which close time begins he could kill every hare in his district. Whatever the result of the Bill may be, I do not think it will add to the game preserves of this country. It is a Bill for preventing the extermination of a valuable animal. I desire to point out that by inadvertence I have omitted to insert a clause—which, however, I will move in Committee— expressly providing that the Bill is not to apply in cases where a hare or leveret has been killed, wounded, or taken inside a nursery or other garden. There is an almost unanimous feeling in the country in favour of the measure. Almost every Farmers' Club and Chamber of Agriculture has passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. Two years ago 2,000 Petitions were presented, containing 30,000 signatures in favour of it, and only one against it; and Mr. Rowlandson, who contested the North Riding of York in 1883, spoke in the Central Chamber of Agriculture strongly in support of it. No. measure was ever more universally supported by all classes. Even the Society of Advocates at Aberdeen have petitioned in favour of it, and the names on the back of the Bill represent every single section of this House. Hon. Members for Ireland, besides having backed the Bill, have given a still more practical proof of their opinion upon the matter, because an Act fixing a close time for hares in Ireland was passed in 1879. Consequently, Irish hares already enjoy the blessing of Home Rule, and the present Bill will extend the blessing to their less fortunate fellow-creatures in England, Scotland, and Wales. I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby will refuse them this small mercy. On what principle of justice should a Donegal hare enjoy the blessing of paternal government, while the Derbyshire hare remains without the pale, an alien and an outcast? Before I sit down I must again emphatically repeat that we do not wish to curtail or interfere with the existing rights of anyone. If the farmers really wish to exterminate the hares, they will, under the present Bill, have ample opportunities of doing

  69
  so. But the supporters of the measure protest against the hares being barbarously slaughtered at a time when they are unfit for human food, and I appeal to the House to grant this small, but necessary, amendment of the Ground Game Act of 1880. In conclusion, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a second time."—{Colonel Dawnay.)
  MR. BARCLAY: In rising to oppose the Bill, I desire to express a certain amount of sympathy with the object the hon. Member has in view; and if he had confined the measure to the prevention of the selling of hares in close time, I do not think I should have opposed him. My main objection to the Bill as it stands is that it is a new and an additional Game Act. I think we have already too many Game Acts, and, for my part, I am resolved to oppose any new game legislation until there has been a revision of the Acts now in force. I think the hon. Member has over-stated his case in saying that this will not be an interference with the rights of the farmers under the Ground Game Law, because he must be aware that it would be impossible to fix snares for rabbits in close time without the chance of catching hares in them, and if that should happen the farmer would render himself liable to penalties under this Bill. That would certainly be an infraction of the rights conferred on farmers by the Ground Game Act. Let me remind the House that the Ground Game Act was a compromise. There was an anxious desire on the part of many hon. Members that there should be a close time for hares; but, on the other hand, there was a desire that the rights of the farmer should not be prejudiced, and that consideration prevailed. The hon. Member has said that the farmers are almost unanimously in favour of the Bill. I do not think the hon. Member has had much support from the Scotch . farmers. On the contrary, from everything I have heard, the Scotch farmers are opposed to the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Is the hon. Member who dissents able to refer to any Petition from Scotch farmers in favour of the measure. For my part, I
  70
  have not seen any; but even if it were the case, and a large number of sporting farmers were in favour of a close time for hares, I do not think that would be any justification for this Bill, or that a majority of the farmers should be allowed to preserve animals to eat up the crops of the minority. For it must be borne in mind that before the hares of the majority can eat the crops of the minority they must first trespass upon the land of the minority. It is not, however, a question between the majority and the minority, but a question whether a highly rented farmer is to be called upon to maintain in addition his neighbour's hares. This Bill proposes to disturb the compromise already arrived at, and to curtail the rights now enjoyed. If the hon. Member had brought forward a measure simply to prevent the selling of hares in close time, or if he had proposed that the farmers should have more liberty in dealing with hares and rabbits outside the close time, I should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. But under the circumstances, although I sympathise to some extent with the views of the hon. Member, I feel called upon, in the performance of my duty to my constituents, to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."—{Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
  MR. COBBwho seconded the Amendment, said: I have been in communication with a large number of tenant farmers in regard to this Bill, and it is obvious that it is a measure upon which a considerable diversity of interests arises. Indeed, it seems to me that in discussing any question of game it is impossible that a diversity of interests should not arise between the game preservers and the tenant farmers, whose crops feed the game. The present Bill is very largely a rich man's Bill. It is clearly a Bill in the interests of game preservers, and opposed to the interests of the tenant farmers. Tenant farmers did not always get their way, but after many years of fighting they obtained the boon which was con-

  71
  ferred by the Act of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. There is no tenant farmer in the country who will say that that Act has not been of great service to him. There is not an argument which has been used to-day by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Dawnay) in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill which was not used against the Second Reading of the Ground Game Act. I cannot understand on what principle the hon. and gallant Gentleman assumes that this Bill will not interfere with the Ground Game Act. This Bill is in direct opposition to the principle of that Act. The principle of the Ground Game Act is that a tenant farmer may do what he likes with the hares and rabbits on his land at all times. This Bill will prevent him doing what he likes with hares at a certain time of the year. It seems to me that tenant farmers would be foolish to give up the right which has been given them. Far too few rights have been granted to English tenant farmers; they are beginning to learn by experience, and they have not the same confidence in the landowning and game-preserving class they had 20 years ago. I imagine that no one wishes hares to become extinct, no one wishes to deprive those who enjoy sport with harriers and greyhounds of their sport; but as to the matter of food supply, I am satisfied that the damage done by hares in England vastly exceeds any amount of food which hares afford. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of how very fairly tenant farmers had acted in carrying out the Ground Game Act. I ask him to trust them in the future. He says that he does, but his Bill seems to show that he does not. I am quite sure tenant farmers will not unnecessarily kill hares in close time. Of course, it may be absolutely necessary in the interest of his farming operations that a farmer should kill hares in the close time, but this Bill will prevent him doing so. It seems to me the people we really want to get at are the people who make a profit by the sale of hares in the close time. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Mr. Barclay) that if the hon. and gallant Member would confine his Bill to prohibiting the sale of hares and the exposing hares for sale during certain times we might well withdraw our opposition. I understood
  72
  the hon. and gallant Gentleman to-say he only knew of one solitary instance of a tenant farmer being against the Bill. I have the honour to represent an agricultural constituency, and I have made it my business to ascertain the opinions of the tenant farmers in regard to this measure. About a year ago I was present when this matter was discussed by four gentlemen in Warwickshire. Two of the gentlemen were well-known Conservative farmers and one was-a Radical doctor, who, I think, knew as much about hares as the Conservative farmers. The Radical doctor was at first strongly in favour of the Bill of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but at the end of the discussion I made a note of what was agreed.
  "That the present rights of tenants under the Hares and Rabbits Act, as to killing hares and rabbits at any time, ought not in any way to be encroached upon, but that hares ought not to be sold or exposed for sale out of season, so that their wanton destruction for profit might be stopped,"
  I firmly believe that represents the very general opinion amongst tenant farmers. Last Saturday there was a meeting of the Warwickshire Chamber of Agriculture. The Chamber discussed this Bill, and the Vice Chairman moved—
  "That a close time for hares is not desirable in the interest of agriculture,"
  and he pointed out that, so far as tenant farmers were concerned, this would be a retrograde movement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Macmillan, one of Lord Leigh's largest tenants, and a gentleman very well known in Warwickshire. He said the Bill would make the position of the tenant farmer worse than it now was. Another well-known tenant farmer said that all farmers seemed to be against killing hares during the close time, and he thought they might be trusted without an Act being passed. That is exactly my view. I second the rejection of the Bill, firstly, because I believe it to be an invasion upon the rights of the tenant farmers; and, secondly, because I believe the difficulty may be met in the very simple way I have already indicated.
  MR. HERMON - HODGE: As having been a master of harriers in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say a few words. My experience of farmers, and it is naturally a very large one, is diametrically opposed to

  73
  the experience of the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb). Warwickshire is not very far from Oxfordshire, and I venture to suggest as an explanation of the difference of opinion which apparently exists, that Chambers of Agriculture, when discussing questions of this sort, are very apt to catch a certain amount of colour from the Members of Parliament who attend the discussions. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will persevere with the Bill. There are no animals more easily exterminated than hares. There is no question more often asked than when this Bill is going to be passed. The hare provides the only means of sport for thousands of the poor farmers, and there is no better means of promoting good-fellowship than to prevent its extermination. We do not want a large number of hares, because that would ruin sport. We only want two or three hares in a parish, and it is because we think they are going to be exterminated that we ask the House to pass this Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My chief objection to the Bill is that it will extend the Game Laws, and that I think in itself will be a great evil. I know that opinion is not held by everybody. There never yet has been a time when an owner of land could not kill hares on his own property for the protection of his crops. This Bill will for the first time restrict that right. In old days the right could not be exercised without a game licence; but about 20 years ago it was considered proper to remove that restriction. Then, in 1880, the occupier of lands was given an inalienable right to destroy hares for the protection of his property. The hon. and gallant Member opposite has said that everyone is in favour of a close time for hares; but that view is not borne out by the Debates of 1880, when the question was fully discussed. In that year a gentleman well known for his acquaintance with, and interest in, agriculture—Mr. Ruggles-Brise—and who sat on the Conservative Benches, moved an Amendment to the Ground Game Bill confirming the right of the occupier to kill hares in the months of February, March, and April; so that the time, according to Mr. Ruggles-Brise, when occupiers ought to be allowed to kill
  74
  hares is exactly the time you would prevent them doing so. Mr. Ruggles-Brise said he agreed with the Home Secretary that a close time for hares was not necessary, and added that it would be an uncalled-for interference with the rights of farmers, who ought to be allowed to kill leverets as an article of food. Ultimately the Amendment was withdrawn. I remember that an objection I took at that time to a close time, was that it would have an injurious effect upon small holders. The present Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) whom I am surprised not to see in his place to-day, took part in the discussion. It was in the days of the right hon. Gentleman's unregenerate condition, before he had sat at the feet of the Gamaliel of Bordesley; but even in those days he declared that, in connection with market gardens, there ought to be unlimited power to kill hares at all times. Mr. Hunter Rod well, a very considerable authority, both upon sport and the feelings of tenant farmers in Cambridgeshire, was opposed to a close time for hares. Eventually, a definite Amendment was moved on the subject. It ran as follows:—
  "No person shall kill or take hares between April 1 and August 1 in England and Scotland, and between April 20 and August 20 in Ireland."
  That Amendment was rejected on a Division. Lord Wemyss, who sat in this House then as Lord Elcho, and who certainly was not an enemy of sport, said that, in the interests of sport, it would be reasonable to have a close time; but that if the intention was to promote good husbandry by keeping down game there ought to be no close time. Mr. Beresford Hope, among others, opposed the Amendment on the ground that hares injured plantations by eating the young shoots. The proposal is now made to establish a close time in spite of the decision arrived at in 1880. The promoters of the Bill urge in its favour that it provides for the intervention of the County Councils. For my part, I am not sure that this is a point to which much importance ought to be attached, for in some places the County Councils are very much what the old Quarter Sessions used to be. I hold, also, that it would be a great mistake to entrust the

  75
  County Councils with game legislation. If there is anything that will certainly render them unpopular it will be to give them the power of making new Game Laws. It is urged as a reason for the introduction of this Bill, that hares are becoming extinct. I deny the truth of that statement; it is contrary to the evidence of my own senses. In the county in which I live, where there are no large estates and no special preservation, there certainly is no paucity of hares. The week before last a master of harriers in my neighbourhood found in one morning three or four hares, and a friend of mine in this House has told me that on an estate in Yorkshire 400 hares were recently killed in one day. For a moderate man surely that is enough. On another estate in the same county—not an estate of great dimensions — I understand that 250 hares were killed in a day. Therefore, there does not appear to be any paucity of hares in the county from which the hon. and gallant Member opposite comes. No doubt there are not as many hares now as there used to be, and I am glad of it. I remember the days when it was a common thing to see carts full of hares coming away from the coverts. The farmers all over the country very justly complained; and now, where there was great abuse in the preservation of hares, hares have been killed down. Then it is said the farmers universally desire this Bill, but I do not believe that. I have had a good many letters on the subject as well as my hon. Friend. I suppose we see the opposite sides of the shield, his correspondents approve of the Bill, mine disapprove of it. The hon. Member for Warwick has given us some valuable testimony as to the views of the farmers, in whom my hon. Friend believes. The argument of my hon. Friend is that farmers want protection against themselves, and against each other, and he used what seemed to me a rather amusing expression, that a man kills on his own land not only his own hares but other people's hares. But, how are they other people's hares when a man finds the animals on his own land eating his crops? Those are a man's hares which he finds on his own land. If I see a hare eating my carnations I do not ask whose hare it is, I destroy him, if I choose, because he is on my land
  76
  eating my flowers; and the distinction my hon. Friend draws between a man's own hares and the hares of other people is one I do not understand. My hon. Friend seems to imagine that hares are domestic animals, forgetting, for the moment, his own remark that hares are great travellers. The rabbit may be considered a domestic animal, he does not go far from his burrow, his range is limited, but the hare travels far afield. This argument comes strangely from the Benches opposite. Whenever it is proposed to put down a public house, because it is unnecessary, and a temptation to the people around, then the remonstrance is raised that this is an interference with liberty and the right of property, but I wonder what the Property Defence Association say to a Bill of this kind, which undoubtedly is an interference with liberty and rights of property, for it declares that a man shall not kill his own hare—as I call it—on his own land when the animal is destroying his own property. But though gentlemen opposite are continually denouncing and attacking the principle of interference with the rights of property in reference to public houses, or Trades Unions, or anything else, because it may be an advantage to somebody else, all these fine principles disappear the moment you come to the question of game; then liberty and rights of property disappear, and there is no principle they are not ready to invade. If it were true that all farmers are in favour of the Bill, I, for one, should be extremely glad to hear it. I should be extremely glad to hear that farmers are so well off that the only thing they really need at the present time is more hares. That would relieve us from many terrible apprehensions of agricultural distress of which we have heard so much, and perhaps we shall have no more demands for Imperial subsidies in relief of local rates—especially after the admission by the Minister for Agriculture that the whole of such relief goes ultimately into the pockets of the landowners. This intimation that the farmers of England are in favour of more hares seems to me to indicate a sort of superabundance of wealth, a plethora of prosperity such as we hardly expected the class to possess. So far, no doubt, the statement is very

  77
  satisfactory. But I confess to being a little sceptical on this subject, this unanimity in favour of the Bill. If it were only the big men I should care very little about it. I think the big farmers are quite able to take care of themselves, and will take care of themselves. But they will probably not be affected by the Bill, and I will say a word or two on another class of agriculturists directly. Then there is the great argument, the " food of the people," and this, I find, is put into the Preamble of this Bill. I hope my hon. Friend will not be offended if I say there is a slightly insincere Preamble to his Bill. I find there is another proposal for legislation before the House this Session, there is a " Possession of Game" Bill which is to prevent the importation of certain kinds of game from abroad, and that seems hardly consistent with this great anxiety about the "food of the people." But I do not find, nor does my hon. Friend even assert that there is any scarcity of hares in the market. I listened very carefully to what he said as to the evidence of salesmen, which entirely confirms the information I have. He said there was a diminution in the supply of English hares, and 1 am glad of it, but there is an increase in the importation of foreign hares, and, consequently, no decrease in this form of food for the people. There are hares which feed on the produce of English farms, and a very good thing for the food of the people that is. As I was driving from the station yesterday, I passed a poulterer's shop, in which was exhibited a placard " Hares are cheap to-day." That does not support the " food for the people " argument. But while on this point of food for the people I would ask, what are you going to do about leverets. We most of us know that in the " gameous months " of June and July the only game to be had is leverets. Is no leveret to be allowed to be killed during the months of May, June, and July? Really, I must again say that this argument of food for the people is insincere. Food for the people! Why, how much food do hares destroy? What do you think is the effect of half a dozen hares in a field of turnips in such a winter as we have had? We know when pieces are bitten out of the sides of turnips, and we have such
  78
  frosts as we have had this winter, that these turnips are destroyed. How much food for sheep is in this way destroyed? To increase the number of hares on the ground of increasing the supply of food for the people is all nonsense; indeed, it tends to diminish the supply of food for the people. Then there is another favourite argument in favour of this Bill, which I may call the cruelty argument. Now, I confess I cannot help calling that with all respect to those who use it a hypocritical argument. I should like to know whether those tender-hearted gentlemen who are so indisposed to kill hares during the breeding season are going to cherish them as the poet Cowper did his hare when he watched the animal's gambols in his orchard. I do not think there is any such object in the preservation. No, these hares about which hon. Gentleman are so solicitous, are intended to perish by the mouth of chokebore or greyhound. The argument on the ground of humanity is carried almost to the limit of absurdity. I have in my time been fond of shooting, but I have always thought that it is a great drawback to hare shooting and extremely painful to a man of sensitive feelings to hear the scream of the wounded hare in the cover when the dog seizes it. I have never thought hare shooting the highest form of sport. I think we had better get rid of cant in these " food of the people " and " humanity " arguments, for these arguments do not concern the real object of this Bill. My hon. Friend objects to my calling it a Bill for the promotion of sport. Now in a legitimate way I am as little against sport as my hon. Friend is, but I am against that old abuse of game preserving which, I hope, has been put an end to by the Act of 1880. We have got rid of that enormous stock of hares kept up at that time, and I hope we shall not be allowed to return to that state of things under this or any other measure. I am extremely glad to hear what my hon. Friend has said in regard to coursing, and certainly not f6r such a purpose should we keep up the stock of hares in the country. I have no hostility whatever to keeping up a fair head of game, either of hares or any other kind of game, so long as this is done under conditions not injurious to the farming interest on small holdings,

  79
  but I do object to a man being deprived of the rights—of what was made an inalienable right by the Act of 1880—of doing what he likes on his own land for the protection of his own crops. It is because this Bill invades that principle that I am hostile to it. Now, I will say a word or two upon the operation of the Bill as affecting small landholders. I do not care about the large farmers, though I am glad to hear they are so prosperous that they do not care how many hares there are on their land. I am not concerned about such farmers as he in the story who, having had three days' hunting and two days' coursing, did not know how to occupy the sixth day. Not for the large farmers am I at all solicitous. We live in days when everybody is or professes to be in favour of the increase of the number of small holdings, even the Minister for Agriculture is now in favour of this principle. And how is this Bill going to operate as regards small holdings? I do not see the hon. Member for the Bordesley division present, who should be ready to protect the right of the small holder to protect his crops. We all hope or profess to hope that there will be a large increase in the class of petit cultivateurs, who will rear little crops of cabbages, carrots, cauliflowers, peas, and other produce by which they will turn a few shillings to aid them in the struggle for existence. Suppose a hare or two should get among these crops in the night just now when it is proposed to create a close time, and when after a dismal winter we are waiting to see the first blades shoot from the ground. There is no living creature that will discover the first appearance of crops sooner than the vagrant hare, and you are actually going at the very time when hopes of agriculturists are rising with the early growth, to prevent a man from killing the animal who is ready to commence its depredations. A more monstrous and absurd proposal it is impossible to conceive. If this Bill passes its Second Reading I shall propose an Amendment that every holder of 20 acres or under shall have the right to protect his crops; it is not a question of gardens, but of small holdings; and another Amendment I shall again propose, that no man shall be sent to prison for killing a hare on his own land for the protection of his own
  80
  crops. A greater scandal on the administration of justice was never exhibited than the sending a man to prison for an offence of that character. I look at this matter from the point of view of the small holder—pro aris et focis—and not from the view of the country squire educated at Eton who rendered the phrase " for his hares and foxes," which perhaps to some country gentlemen have the importance the ancient Roman attached to aris et focis. But depend upon it, there is a very strong feeling on this subject among small holders. 1 regard myself as a law-abiding man, yet I should certainly form a sinking fund to provide for the fines for my right to kill hares in defence of my own crops. There are others who may not be able to pay the pecuniary penalty, and are they to be sent to prison because in defending their crops against the depredations of hares they infringe a regulation of a County Council? I learn from this Bill that it is proposed to impose a penalty of 20s., and I am sure a magistrate's clerk must have suggested the words " and costs." Somehow they always manage to make the costs considerably exceed the fine. It is a practice against which, while I was at the Home Office, I laboured almost in vain. A fine of 2s. 6d. or 3s. may carry with it costs of 15s. or 20s.; therefore, it comes to this: that a man who destroys a hare devouring his crops may be fined 40s. or sent to prison, under this Bill. That is a sort of legislation you think will commend itself to small holders throughout the country? The Parliament of 1880 would not have it, and it will be a measure of the distinction between the Parliament of 1880 and the present, if this Bill is passed now. My hon. Friend has referred again to what I have said as to the operation of the Game Laws, and I attach great importance to that. I do believe that the Act of 1880 had no better effect than what it achieved in this—that it kept the gamekeeper a great deal off the land of the occupier. Formerly he was always there, and was regarded very much as a spy, and very often as a tyrant. I remember once in Yorkshire —a county to which, with my hon. Friend, I belong—talking with a farmer soon after the passing of the Act of 1880, and the farmer said—

  81
  "It is a very good thing in the Bill, Sir, that the keeper will now have to consoolt us instead of insoolt us."
  That is a very favourable change in the relations between them, that the keeper has to pay some consideration to the occupier if he wants to preserve his game. Now my hon. Friend says, how will this Bill interfere with a keeper going on a man's land? Well, there are many lands on which there are no partridges or pheasants, and these can take care of themselves; but the gamekeeper in looking after hares in close time will be brought back on the land in a manner that I believe will be very objectionable. I do not know what is going to be the fortune of this Bill, and I must say that having a Minister for Agriculture, I think he ought to be here during a discussion of this kind. My hon. Friend has referred to the " Wild Birds " Act by which the decision of Quarter Sessions requires the sanction of the Executive Government through the Home Secretary, and that is a very proper provision, and I do not think that in a matter of this kind affecting the agricultural interests and the conditions of social life in the country, we should be without the opinion of the Minister for Agriculture. For my part I retain my opinion and am as strongly opposed to the Bill as ever I was. There is nothing I have seen during the last ten years with so much satisfaction as the marked diminution of crime throughout the country. Look at our criminal statistics and our prison returns. There are fewer people in prison and this is due to many causes, and is a satisfactory feature of our time. Well, it should be a warning to us not to create artificial offences. Conceive what happens to a man if he comes under the operation of a Bill such as this which creates what I call an artificial offence. He gets sent to prison, and his wife and children are ruined by it. He is a marked man ever after, for he has been imprisoned. But will you persuade that man or can you convince anybody that it is an offence in the sight of God or man deserving imprisonment, that a man has killed a hare on his own land? You cannot—it is not in the nature of things that you can. My hon. Friend, and those who support this Bill, cannot have given sufficient consideration to these things. Conceive the possible effects of this Bill.
  82
  If one man is sent to prison for killing a hare in close time, do you think that all the sport you can have can compensate for the evil done in that way, for the evil spirit you will have raised through the consciousness of injustice suffered, by the creation into an offence of an act which is not an offence, and for the purpose of promoting an amusement which, in itself, I do not condemn? You ought to be extremely careful of the consequences of legislation of this kind. One of the great causes of the diminution in crime is that there are not now those convictions for poaching offences which some 10 or 20 years ago were a reproach to the country. The Game Laws produced evils of the gravest character. I do not envy the feelings of that man on whose estate, and owing to over preservation, a murder has taken place in a poaching affray. The change that has taken place in this direction, I am happy to think, is due to the Act of 1880. Other causes have operated, no doubt, but do not let us, while we are talking of improving the conditions of life for small holders in the country, do anything by inconsiderate, not to say selfish, legislation of this kind, which may tend to restore a state of things we are all glad has ceased to exist. If people want to preserve hares they can do so, but if they do not want to preserve hares any penal legislation to compel that preservation will bring with it greater evils than any advantage that can possibly be gained. I entreat the House to consider this matter most carefully, and to reflect whether it is worth while to pass a Bill of this character, the benefits of which must, in any case, be comparatively small, but the social evils of which may be of the gravest kind. (2.0.)
  COLONEL GUNTER: I am somewhat diffident in following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) in his discursive speech, much of which had nothing to do with this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the measure as a rich man's Bill. My view of it is just the opposite. It is, in my opinion, a poor man's Bill—a tenant farmer's Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be very hard if the occupiers of small holdings, where carrots and cauliflowers and so forth are grown, could not kill

  83
  hares. But such holdings would come naturally under the head of small gardens, which are exempted from the Bill. He also talked about a man doing what he likes with his own. I would remind him, however, of the Wild Birds Protection Act, under which a farmer near the sea would be prohibited from shooting at a flock of birds settling on his crops. The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious to protect men with small holdings. On Friday last, before I came up from Yorkshire, a yeoman of the old school, who owns about 50 or 60 acres, came to me and asked me to do what I could for this Bill. He told me that on the previous day he had seen the shepherd of a neighbouring farmer shoot two hares which came on to his ground and died there, and they were both does full of young. I myself farm nearly 1,000 acres in Yorkshire, and so I know pretty well what damage is done by hares, and it amounts to very little. Rabbits do a great deal of damage. Hares sometimes stand on their hind legs and eat off the shoots of young trees, but, with this exception, I consider them very harmless animals. One hon. Member said he would not oppose the Bill if it were directed against selling alone. He must bear in mind that the sale of young animals which are not fit for food takes place usually in public houses, and they are generally paid for in drink. No poulterer would buy a hare that is heavy with young or giving suck. The small holders in Yorkshire are among the men who are most anxious for the passage of this Bill, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby in its favour.
  MR. H. T. KNATCH-BULL-HUGESSEN: As a representative of an agricultural constituency, I shall give this Bill my vote. I hav listened to the very long and somewhat discursive speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. I suppose that, inasmuch as certain public matters do not appear to him to be of such vital importance as they used to be, he has spent the Recess in studying the provisions of this Bill, and I cannot help thinking he has discovered a great deal more in it than its promoters imagine to be there. He has declared that the Bill is an indication of an opinion on our part that Colonel Gunter
  84
  what we regard as the agricultural depression is a mere myth, and that all the farmers want is more hares. He said that under this Bill, if passed, farmers would see their turnip crops gradually disappearing. He forgot, however, that under the Bill the farmer, or anyone else, could snare, or kill, or trap a hare during the month in which the turnip crop exists; unless, indeed, in Hampshire, agriculture is conducted differently from what it is in the rest of England. The two points on which the Division will shortly be taken are these: Is it true that under the existing legislation hares are, in many parts of the country, nearly extinct, and do the people who will be most affected by this Bill desire it? The right hon. Gentleman denies that in many parts of the country hares are nearly extinct. Respecting my own district, I can assert positively that a hare is now a very rare animal. Where formerly there were 50 there is now one. In the Island of Sheppey, which forms part of my constituency, the farmers combine to preserve hares for coursing purposes, and to shoot a hare there would be considered as great a crime as to shoot a fox in hunting counties. I believe that the reason why farmers do not generally preserve hares is that they find it difficult to combine, and they shoot those they find on their land because they think if they 'do not someone else will. I shall vote for the Second Reading, believing that the Measure is desired by the agricultural population and that it will be beneficial and useful.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Second Reading to say that a large number of Petitions, numerously signed, have been presented in favour of the Bill, as contrasted with only one signature against it. I do not know when those Petitions were presented, but I find that during the present Session there have been only two presented in its favour, with 94 signatures.
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I said when the Bill was first brought in five years ago.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I wonder the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not see what conclusion should be drawn from that. In past time there was a degree

  85
  of feeling in favour of this Bill, but now that feeling has passed away, and during the present Session there have been only-two small Petitions in support of it. Surely if it had been thought that hares were becoming extinct there would have been a general outcry. Farmers find that hares which have been preserved on their neighbours' lands descend upon them and devour their crops, doing enormous mischief. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that Lord Durham had no difficulty in the mining district in Durham in preserving hares. Of course, if the population is unanimously in favour of preserving hares there would be no difficulty, bat if not why should you pass a Bill which would enable hares to feed on the crops of those who do not desire it? The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had received a communication from the Society of -Advocates in Aberdeen in favour of the Bill, but I do not think he has shown that there is much popular sympathy with it. Statements are made upon this point which vary considerably. I remember that it used to be said that two hares would eat as much as one sheep, and nowadays when we hear so much about the absolute necessity of avoiding any interference with the food of the people, we find that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no hesitation in supporting a Bill which will have the injurious effect on the food of the country which has already been described. In my opinion the time of day for this sort of thing is past, and that if people owning or occupying land in any particular district desire to preserve hares for any purpose there is no difficulty in the way of their doing so, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. We, however, object to the passage of a Bill which will have the effect of producing an additional number of ground game at the cost of a far more than proportionate value of the people's food.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I wish to speak in the interests of those who may be designated as the moor-edge farmers, who will be specially affected by the passage of this Bill. A very large portion of my constituency extends up to the
  86
  moor-edge in a large agricultural and pastoral district, and I may say that, speaking solely in my individual capacity, and as the mouthpiece of my own constituency, but not in any sense as representing the Government, 1 shall support the Bill in compliance with the urgent representations I have received. 1 wish to emphasise the fact that I do so in the interests of the humbler classes —the small moor edge formers and the working men in the adjoining town, who follow the ancient, wholesome English practice of hunting the hare with harriers, following them on foot. The records of the organisation of packs of hounds for this purpose goes back for centuries, and the sport is regarded as ancient, honourable, and wholesome. Having regard to the urgent representations that have been made to myself, I cannot believe that the farmers in the constituency of the last speaker, which adjoins my own, wish to see the Bill defeated. These farmers think that a close time for hares is the only thing that will save their sport. There are two things which they s y—first, that the sale of immature hares goes on in consequence of the absence of the close time, a fact which I recommend to the appreciative attention of the House in view of the circumstance that the Bill contains no clause dealing with the sale of hares. In the second place, they say that though the farmer has the fullest right to spare hares during the proposed close season, an unfortunate effect of the Act of 1880 is the production of a belief that hares are common property, and that any one may go anywhere and kill them as freely as he pleases. It was not foreseen that this would lead to the gradual extinction of the females during the proposed close season, and that this would involve the extinction of the sport. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has very properly invited the attention of the House to the case of the small men. It is on behalf of the small men that I now speak, and I cannot think the resources of draftsmanship would be unable to amend the Bill so as to meet the cases of farmers whose crops are being destroyed by the over-preservation of hares. If that objection were got rid of, there does not seem to be any other objection to the Bill which could

  87
  not be dealt with in Committee. It may be right to give to County Councils such a discretion as was given to a Government Department with respect to wild birds; but the absence of a controlling authority in a State Department is no reason for objecting to the principle of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Derby asked whether masters of harriers had any difficulty in finding hares. It may be they have no such difficulty in the neighbourhood of the New Forest; but the smaller and humbler classes on the moor edge have sent me here to say that they do have great difficulty in finding hares. The House may judge from the absence of Ministers from the Treasury Bench that the Government will view the passing of the Bill in a philosophic spirit; and for myself I hope the House will give a Second Reading to a Bill the principle of which is that a tenant shall have the same rights as a landlord in ground game, and neither more nor less.
  MR. C. WILSON: I desire to say a few words for the purpose of explaining why I regard this Bill as a measure of a reactionary character. It has been said that the measure has the almost unanimous approval of the farmers of this country; but, for my part, I can hardly believe that you could get a meeting of the farming interest in any large agricultural district at which, if the question were put as to whether those present were in favour of this Bill or not, the unanimous vote of the farming interest would not be raised against it. [Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no.] Hon. Members say "No," but I have had a considerable amount of experience, and possess a certain amount of knowledge of what are the opinions of the farmers on this game question, and I maintain that my opinion is correct. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has made a somewhat lengthened speech on the subject, and has gone into almost every detail connected with the question. To my mind, at any rate, the arguments he has adduced against the Bill are such as it is absolutely impossible to confute. Perhaps the arguments which of all others would have most weight with me is that this Bill in reality proposes to create a new sort of crime or offence that will tend to bring the
  88
  agricultural population under the ban of the law. To my mind, even if one man in a village should be convicted and punished for an offence under this Bill, that would be almost in itself a sufficient argument against the Bill. If it be true that a larger number of hares is wanted in different parts of the country, that is a matter which depends very largely on the good feeling of the farmers. If the farmers consider it to their advantage that hares should be preserved they have the means of keeping them up, the hardship resulting from the increase of ground game is one which is undoubtedly felt more keenly by those occupying the small holdings than by the occupiers of the larger and wealthier farms. If the farmers are to be deprived of the means of guarding themselves against the heavy damage which may otherwise be done to their crops at such a season as this, the result may be almost the entire ruin of the poorer class of agriculturists. We see, however, now that the question is being fully argued, that' hon. Members on the opposite side of the House are ready almost as a solid body to support this measure, though I trust that on this side we shall find very few who are willing to vote for it. I think I have seen it stated in the public Press that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has introduced this Bill does not propose to stand again for a seat in Parliament. Therefore his action in this matter may be of little moment with regard to his constituency, but I very much doubt whether several hon. Members who are supporting this Bill will not find when they go before their constituencies in the agricultural districts that those electors will take a very different view of what is for the benefit of the agricultural interests from that which is taken on the other side of the House. There can be little doubt that any good landlord who is desirous of preserving ground game can easily obtain the good will of his tenants, and thus obtain as many hares as he may desire. My own experience is that such, as a rule, is the good nature of the tenant farmers that they would rather suffer from an excess of game than willingly disoblige their landlords. One of the difficulties which has to be faced in dealing with this question is that of selling hares out of

  89
  season. We know that there is a large and constant importation of foreign hares from Russia, Hungary, and Germany. They are brought here in considerable quantities, and sold at very reasonable rates. Only last week the question was brought before the Hull Chamber of Commerce, and a serious complaint was made against the passing of a Bill making it illegal to sell game at this season, because such a measure would have the effect of depriving a portion of the population of a cheap article of food. It must be remembered that times have greatly changed in regard to the means of furnishing food for the people. Communication between this country and the Continent is now so rapid that we can obtain game from Norway, Sweden, Russia, and other countries by steam vessels which bring that game to us at the cheapest rates. This sort of thing did not exist in former years. One of the arguments in favour of this Bill is that it will increase the food of the people. The tendency of legislation of this kind is in the opposite direction. It imposes restrictions on the importation of food, and is a Protectionist measure which operates against the commoner. Foreign game is extremely cheap. At the Hull Chamber of Commerce, two or three days since, one of the members made a long statement on the subject. He said in the Port of Hull alone he had imported 89,000 head of game—partridges, ptarmigans, hares, and black game. Ptarmigans cost 1s. 8d. a brace; partridges, 2s. and 2s. 6d.; hares, 1s. 3d. to 3s. All this game was distributed in a perfectly sound condition. The tendency of all legislation of this sort is to interfere with the natural course of trade, and it is a false argument to say that it would increase the source of food, because the Bill would prohibit the sale of hares during the close season, and in consequence would prohibit the sale of foreign game at the same time. I am of opinion that we have a great deal too much legislation of this kind. I believe that this is altogether a retrograde measure; and if the farmers were canvassed, I have not the slightest doubt that the enormous majority of them would be found opposed to the Bill.
  SIR H. JAMES: I was one of those responsible
  90
  for the Ground Game Act of 1880, and I should like now to explain why I am going to vote for this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, as the author of that Act, was entitled to object to this measure passing into law. But I think we ought to take into consideration this fact, that we have now had 11 years' experience of the Act of 1880, and have had an opportunity of seeing the effect of its provisions. I believe my right hon. Friend has opposed this Bill mainly in the interests of the tenant farmer, and in that view I entirely concur. I do not think this is a question in which the interests of the landlord ought at all to be considered. I do not think that objeetionable person, the shooting tenant, ought at all to be considered. The only persons who I think are entitled to any consideration are the tenant farmers directly, and the public in a minor degree. In that view we have to determine whether this Bill should become law or not. With that object I have endeavoured to ascertain the opinion of the persons chiefly concerned, and I declare that of the scores of farmers whose opinion I asked, I found not one but would, if he had the opportunity, vote in favour of this Bill. [Sir W. HARCOURT: No.] The right hon. Gentleman must have seen a different class of tenant farmers to those I saw. In 1880 the tenant farmer had no interest whatever in the hares; they belonged to the landowner except under very peculiar conditions, and never belonged to the tenant farmer. For 11 years the hares have belonged as much to the tenants as to the owners. The object of the Act of 1880 was to prevent the evil of excessive ground game, and under that measure the tenant farmers have had the right to destroy it, and certainly, so far as hares are concerned, the tenant farmer has the remedy in his own hands. Having that right he is perfectly satisfied. It is said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull that he can preserve if he likes. He cannot do so, because no tenant farmer could exercise the right of preserving without affecting the whole district. And I would say that this taking of the female hare is a brutal act, besides which the hares are in such a condition that they are not fit for human food in many instances.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: Why should not the buyer distinguish?
  SIR H. JAMES: How many buyers could decide which hare among a large consignment is or is not fit for human food? But, apart from the right to shoot, given by the Act of 1880, many tenant farmers by a good understanding with their landlords, and all owners, have the right to take, and for the purpose of coursing in closed grounds—a sport which I do not assume is commendable—is worth 15s., a sum which is constantly realised. I know what would be said to hon. Members opposite at any farmers' ordinary or agricultural meeting if they voted against this Bill. Not one of them but knows there is a strong feeling in the agricultural districts in favour of this Bill. It seems to be the Borough Members and not the County Members who are against the measure, and the constituencies of the Borough Members have no opportunity of knowing what has been the effect of the Act of 1880. I am very glad to see that my right hon. Friend's position did not meet with a complete echo from his usual supporters. I find the name of that veteran sportsman the Member for Swansea on the back of the Bill, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Durham and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, the latter of whom generally shows strong Liberal tendencies, are also responsible for this Bill, by the success of which I feel sure the tenant farmers would be gratified.
  MR. A. PEASE: The hon. Member for Hull said that if the farmers were canvassed their votes would be found unanimously against this measure. In the district of Cleveland a tenant farmer who neither shot, hunted with harriers, or coursed, undertook to ascertain the opinion of the tenant farmers there, and in only one instance was there any opposition to a close time. I regard this Bill entirely as a farmer's Bill. Large landowners will always have an opportunity of preserving hares on their estate, but many a small farmer who desires to have a few hares on his holding may be deprived of them through the conduct of one ill-natured than. There was one portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby with which I sympathised warmly, and that was the part in which he
  92
  pointed out the tendency in the Bill to bring the gamekeeper on the land of the tenant farmer. I believe that the gamekeeper is often a nuisance to the tenant farmer, and I should, if I thought the Bill would lead to the intervention of the gamekeeper, vote against it. But I do not believe it will have that effect. I look on the Bill as placing in the hands of the County Council a very desirable power. If we have any confidence in that body we have sufficient to justify us in entrusting it with a matter of this sort. For my part, I am quite content to place this matter in the hands of the people, feeling confident that they will deal justly with all classes of the community.
  SIR F. T. MAPPIN: This is a matter in which the general public are said to have a deep interest. Now I have had no communication from any of my constituents on the subject, and I feel satisfied that had they entertained any strong opinions on it they would have applied to their Parliamentary Representative. Gentlemen who support this Bill desire to have the state of things renewed which existed before the Bill of 1880 was passed. If they succeed in their object there will be a great outcry not only from the tenant farmers, but from all the landed classes except those who enjoy the sport of killing hares. Anyone who has had large experience in preserving game knows well it is not merely the corn and turnips consumed which constitute the great loss; they know that hares do an immense amount of damage by treading down the barley field. Again, as we have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, since 1880 the tenant farmers have experienced much less trouble and annoyance from the gamekeepers, and we certainly ought not to desire to reintroduce the friction which existed before 1880. I therefore hope that the House will not assent to this Bill being read a second time.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I do not think that any justification has been shown for this Bill. Has it been proved that a decrease has occurred in the number of hares since the Bill of 1880 was passed? There is, in fact, a total absence of statistics on the point. This is an attempt by a side

  93
  wind to do away with the benefits arising under the Act of 1880, and it is not an honest, straightforward endeavour to repeal that Act. The Bill itself is full of anomalies. Are we to understand that one County Council may fix one close time for hares, and the adjoining County Council a different close time? May one County Council adopt this Act and another refuse to enforce it? Is there to be a close time for hares and not for leverets? This Bill will create new offences; it will make that an offence not only to kill hares, but to do anything with the intention of killing a hare. I say that all these anomalies arise from the fact that this is an attempt by a side wind to do away with the benefits which have undoubtedly accrued to the tenant farmer from the Game Act of 1880.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: I wish to know if allotments and nursery gardens are. to be excluded from the operation of the Bill? The answer to that question will influence the votes of a good many hon. Members.
  COLONEL DAWNAY, interposing, said: I intend in Committee to move a new clause expressly providing that the Bill is not to apply in cases where a hare or leveret has been killed, wounded, or taken inside a nursery or other garden.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: How about allotments and small holdings?
  COLONEL DAWNAY: I will consider that point.
  SIR J. KINLOCH: I should like that point to be clearly explained. There are many small holdings and allotments in the country, and the occupiers of them ought to have some means of protecting themselves. I have known cases in which hares have in the course of one night destroyed half an acre of cabbages, and, unless the Bill provides for such cases, it cannot be satisfactory.
  MR. HOYLE: I wish to draw attention to the Preamble of the Bill, which says that hares form an important article of food, and that owing to their marketable value it is important to provide for their protection during the breeding season. There is no question more important than that of the supply of food to our ever-increasing population; but the evidence adduced before two Select Committees of this House on
  94
  the Game Laws conclusively proved that there is great loss in the production of this kind of food; and Mr. Clare Sewell Bead, who will, I suppose, be accepted as an authority on the subject, told the second Committee that hares cost from two to three times as much as they are worth when they are killed, so that to produce hares worth 10s. costs £1 or 30s. On that ground, and on that ground alone, I think this Bill ought to be opposed. I represent a constituency 75 per cent. of whose food is imported, and it is a matter of vast moment to them that nothing shall be done to hinder a free supply of food. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury said that one farmer would destroy all the game in a district. But surely he would only destroy that on his own farm.
  SIR H. JAMES: Hares travel.
  MR. HOYLE: True, they travel to where the food is best; so that if a farmer is more skilful than his neighbours —if he grows a better and more nutritious kind of food he will be the sufferer, for he will provide the food for the hares. The fact that hares do travel will make against the successful enforcement of the Bill by the County Councils: one County Council may order a close time for hares and another may not. It was proved in evidence before the Select Committee that hares will travel four miles in one night to their food and then go back to their seat. One witness, a farmer, told the Committee that one severe winter hares had travelled that distance to a field in which his turnips were stacked, and the result was that the whole of his crop was destroyed. What I wish to point out is, that instead of this Bill tending to increase the food supply of this country it will have the contrary effect. Every vote given in favour of the Bill will, in the large cities and boroughs, be interpreted as a vote for destroying food which should be devoted to the support of the people.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I have no wish to delay the Division, but I desire to press the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Perth, as the answer to that will determine our attitude towards the Bill. The big farmers can look after themselves, and,

  95
  as far as I have been able to discover, they are in favour of the Bill, rightly or wrongly. But I am one of those who believe in the growth of small holdings. We know that hares are very destructive to cottager's gardens and allotments, and I want to know what the hon. and gallant Member opposite means by the vague term "garden." If he merely means nurseries, then in the interests of those who cannot defend themselves I shall vote against the Bill. The large farmer is able to defend and protect himself; it is the small holder who requires to be protected in this matter, and if the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill will say frankly and plainly that he will exclude from the Measure all holdings not exceeding five acres, I will vote for it. Otherwise I shall vote against the Bill, and I would urge hon. Members who are in favour of small holdings to consider the enormous damage that may be done to this small class of people if the Bill is passed without some such protection as that to which I have referred.
  MR. MORTON: I shall oppose the Bill, for as far as I can gather there is no demand whatever for it except on the part of sporting men. The statement in the Preamble of the Bill as to the Measure being in favour of the food supply of the country is, I believe, absolutely incorrect. The food supply has nothing at all to do with the Bill, and I have the means of knowing this. I represent in the London Common Council one of the largest wards in the Metropolis, and a ward in which many of the great markets are situated, and directly any question arises affecting the food supply of the people the representatives of the ward are at once approached by those who conduct the markets. But neither last Session nor this have I received from these people any inquiry about, or demand for, this Bill, though, when the Possession of Game Bill was before Parliament, they immediately called on their representatives to oppose the Measure because it was prejudicial to the food supply of the country. Therefore, if this Bill were in favour of the food supply, as it purports to be, those connected with the largest markets of the country would have immediately requested hon. Members to support
  96
  it on that ground alone. In the absence of such evidence I am justified in repeating that the Bill has really nothing to do with the food supply of the nation. All the arguments that have been urged in favour of the Bill have been more or less on sporting grounds, especially that form of sporting known as coursing. I know of no more cruel sport than coursing, which is kept up simply for purposes of betting and gambling, and if for no other reason than this I shall consider it to be my duty to oppose the Bill. We have been told that farmers want the Bill, but as far as my experience goes—and I have been about the country to some extent—I have found that the farmers have always opposed the keeping of hares altogether, because they are against the agricultural interest. It is all very well to say that the county Members are all in favour of the Bill. We know that they do not always have regard for the interests of the tenant farmers as was proved by their action on the Tithes Bill. I trust that after the able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Derby, those who desire to promote agricultural interests will feel it their duty to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. At any rate on the grounds I have mentioned I shall vote against the Bill, and I am sure that in doing so I shall be acting in the best interests of the farmers of the three Kingdoms.
  (3.22.) The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 63.—(Div. List, No. 118.)
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  RELIGIOUS EQUALITY BILL.-(No. 19.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CONYBEARE: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not propose to trouble the House with many remarks. If I may judge from the interest taken in the question of the attendance of Registrars at marriages of Nonconformists, the principle embodied in this Bill is ripe for settlement. Already a Bill relating to the attendance of Registrars at the

  97
  marriages of Nonconformists, introduced by a Conservative Member, has reached the Committee stage, and I apprehend that the only question is, how the object and principle of the measure is to be carried out. The object of this Bill, so far as the question of Registrars is concerned, is identical to that of the Bill to which I have just referred, and, therefore, I think I may. fairly claim approval of my Bill in that respect. I have been reproached or taken to task by some friends of mine for not proceeding in the matter of Registrars upon wholly different lines. It has been suggested to me it would have been better if, instead of permitting marriages in all cases to take place without the presence of a Registrar, I had provided that the attendance of a Registrar should be compulsory at all marriages. The reason why I did not find myself able to proceed upon that line was that I have brought in this measure for the purpose of removing a grievance suffered by a large section of my constituents. An instance has been brought under my notice of a bridal party coming to a chapel in the town of Camborne for the purpose of having the marriage ceremony performed, and being compelled to wait for over an hour while the Registrar was found. I have come to the conclusion that the simplest way of obviating such inconvenience in the future is to dispense with the presence of the Registrar altogether at marriages. I propose that the regulation laid down in respect to the Nonconformist denomination shall apply also to the Church of England, and it is because I am endeavouring to assimilate the law in respect to all denominations that I use so large and general a title to my Bill as the Religious Equality Bill. I think the House will agree with me that it is better in the interests of Christianity and of the different denominations, that all these causes of friction should be swept away, and that we should, where no privileges are infringed, or even where unjust privileges are infringed, endeavour to place different classes of Christians on an equal footing. I hope Members on both sides of the House will, therefore, accept the principle of the Bill. I think the view I have taken will commend itself to those who are more particularly associated with the Church of England, because, although I
  98
  cannot see the reason for it, I can undoubtedly appreciate the point of view of those who are closely associated with the Church of England respecting the attendance of a civil officer at their religious ceremonies. In the proposal I make I offer relief to all the clergy of the Church of England, and impose no onerous burden on them in any sense. I propose to relieve them from the duty which I should imagine to be a more or less burdensome one of keeping registers in the parish churches. I do not say they shall not keep them, if they think it desirable, but I propose to require that the register shall be kept by duly appointed civil officials, and that the clergy shall be relieved of all liability in connection therewith. The machinery I propose is this: the certificate or licence for marriage having been issued in the first instance by the Registrar, the parties will go to the church or chapel with such a certificate or licence and hand it to the officiating clergyman or minister, who will fill it up according to the properly authorised form. It will be signed by the clergyman or minister, the parties to the marriage, and at least two witnesses, and sent by the clergyman or minister in a registered envelope, free of charge, to the Superintendent Registrar of the district. There are, of course, certain provisions for the prevention of fraud and the prevention of unauthorised marriages, and so on. I do not say the Bill is perfect in these particulars, but they do not affect the principle of the measure. I may say, however, that one provision is that when a certificate or licence has been issued by the Superintendent Registrar it shall not be valid for more than three calendar months. The second part of the Bill relates to the Amendment of the Burial Law, but only one of its provisions embodies any considerable departure from the present law. I take it that the question of the reduction of the notice from 48 hours to 24 hours is one of detail which will not be a matter of religious controversy. The reason for such a provision is that in many years it is very difficult to give so long a notice as 48 hours, and in some cases of disease it may be really a matter of sanitary regulation that the length of notice should be reduced. Sub-section 4 provides for an extended period of the day

  99
  during which, burials may take place. At present they cannot take place after 3 o'clock. I propose that they shall be allowed to take place up to sunset. As to Sub-section 5, dealing with the question of fees, the Nonconformists feel it to be a great grievance that when they bury their dead they should have to pay the fees, not to their own minister who performs the ceremony, but to the clergyman of the parish church, who has nothing whatever to do with it. I should not object to an Amendment giving the Nonconformist minister half the fees. By Sub-section 6 I have endeavoured to alter the law in favour of Nonconformists in a few small matters, such as permission to have the church bell tolled, and to have the use of planks, &c, and the aid of the officials of the Church in connection with burials. Then there is a provision that if any representative of a deceased person has been buried in the graveyard of a Church, and the representatives of a relative desire that his body should be buried in the same place, this shall be permitted, although he is not resident in the same parish. It may be suggested that non-parishioners have no recognised right to burial in the parish churchyard, and therefore the present law, which permits a clergyman to refuse to allow a Nonconformist minister to take part in the service in such a case, is perfectly reasonable. But a case has occurred in the last few weeks in the City of Truro, which shows what scandal and annoyance may arise from the present provisions of the law. On the 13th of February last a lady was buried in the graveyard of St. Mary's parish, Truro. The custodian of the burial ground is the Rev. Canon Burt, sub-dean of the Cathedral of Truro; and, although the lady was a Wesleyan, Canon Burt refused to allow the Rev. W. H. Thompson, the resident superintendent of the district, to take any part in the service, solely on the ground, as stated in the Press and not contradicted, that the lady at the time of her death was not residing within the limits of the parish to which the graveyard belonged, although she had resided for 40 years within the limits of the parish. Her father had been one of the ministers appointed at Truro when the Wesleyan Chapel of St. Mary's parish was built,
  100
  and two of her sons are at the present time Wesleyan ministers. A great deal of ill-feeling has been occasioned by this refusal of Canon Burt, who, being a new comer, may perhaps be excused for not understanding the strong feeling which prevails in the district. The irritation has been intensified by the refusal of Canon Burt at a Vestry meeting to allow any reference to be made to the subject, on the flimsy pretext that no notice had been given of the intention to bring it forward. I have only to add, that although this lady whose burial was the occasion of this dispute was not at the time of her death a resident within the boundaries of the parish, her place of residence was within a stone's throw, she having removed from one part of the street to another, which was some 200 or 300 yards beyond the parish boundary. The refusal, therefore, was an arbitrary act, to say the least of it, because this lady was living within the limits of the city. She had not removed to a distant part of the country, but was living close to the parish within which she had lived for 40 years, and in the grave-yard of which parish her nearest and dearest relatives had been buried. I think it will be agreed this was an unnecessary and unfortunate raising of religious prejudices and animosities, and it is desirable that such should not occur under the law of this country. I have no doubt that other Members can bring forward cases illustrating this point, and in justification of such a provision as this I have referred to and contained in Sub-section 3 of Clause 15. This, I propose, with a sincere desire to put an end to such cases of unseemly strife between members of the same religion, though of different denominations. For this purpose I ask to be allowed to move the Second Reading of a Bill, the principle of which I hope that the House on reflection may be disposed to accept.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  MR. J. G.TALBOT: I rise to move that the Bill be read, a second time this day six months, and in doing so it is not my intention to trouble the House with an

  101
  elaborate argument, for I think I can show in a very few words that the provisions of the Bill are not such as the House can possibly accept at the mere?-suggestion of the hon. Member, My primary objection is to the title of the Bill as being altogether misleading, it does not indicate the contents. It is called a Bill for Promoting Religious Equality, a high-sounding title indeed. Religious equality, no doubt, is a subject of grave importance, but it is hardly to be dealt with, I think, by the removal of a grievance under which the hon. Member says Nonconformists suffer in the county he represents. To bring about religious equality in its full sense, of course we must do a great deal more than the hon. Member proposes in his Bill. We must disestablish the Church of England in the first place, and we must provide for an alteration in the law which requires that the Sovereign of this Kingdom shall be a member of the Church. No one from the title would suppose that the Bill is to remove a particular grievance such as the hon. Member has alluded to. If the hon. Member wishes to secure religious equality let him go to the root of the whole matter and bring forward a proposition for disestablishing the Church of England, and see what the House thinks of that. For my part, I doubt if religious equality can ever be secured, but, at any rate, it cannot be accomplished by this Bill. So far as the Bill relates to the marriage grievance and the attendance of Registrars, upon which there is a great deal to be said, that surely is a matter upon which we are hardly entitled to enter here, for there is before the House a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Atkinson), to which, on the part of the Government, notices of Amendment have been given, notices which exceed the extent of the Bill itself. I only mention this as showing how important the subject is considered by the Government; and if there is a grievance it is desirable should be removed, and if it can be done on fair consideration of all interests, I have not the slightest objection to the removal of that grievance. But this can be done within the four corners of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Lincolnshire, amended as is proposed by the Government. But
  102
  to suppose that this Bill will accomplish the great object indicated by the title is an entire delusion, and though the country might well be startled on seeing the record of this Wednesday's proceedings, and on being informed that the House of Commons had resolved upon religious equality—because a Bill for that object, introduced by the hon. Member for Camborne, has been read a second time—I think a very little examination will show that the title is delusive. Then, to follow up those objections which begin with the title of the Bill, I find the first clause covers the whole of the churches and chapels in the Kingdom, and the Registrar is to affix a notice on all the buildings where marriages may be solemnised. Now, I do not think we want such notices stuck up on all our ancient churches that people may know that therein marriages may be solemnised.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not mean that in recognised places like churches this should be done, but in chapels of ease. I have seen such notices exhibited.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: That disposes of that point. And then I come to Clause 5, which proposes that the legal hour for marriage shall be extended to five o'clock. This is, I think, altogether undesirable. Five o'clock means after daylight during part of the year, and this is a perfectly gratuitous change in the law for which, so far as I know, nobody asks. Then I come to what is perhaps a still more important innovation proposed by the Bill, the reduction of the period of notice of funerals required under the Burials Act. On this I may make the preliminary remark that the Burials Act was the result of much discussion in this House, and the outcome of a long and embittered controversy, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was the hero of that settlement of the question to which my friends and I offered strenuous opposition. But we found ourselves in a minority, and it became the law of the land. I put it to the House now, is it worth while to rake up again the embers of that old controversy? I put it to hon. Members above and below the Gangway, is it worth while from time to time to propose further alterations and irritate the minds

  103
  of Church people, who had much to bear in that settlement, and have had many grievances, sentimental you may say, to get over? I do not think it is. I think the House will agree with me that the period of notice is not at all too long to allow of the accommodation of arrangements, which are not after all always very convenient. The relations between the clergyman of a parish and Nonconformist ministers are not always of the most friendly character, and it is just possible that Nonconformists, either the minister or the friends of the deceased, taking advantage of the very letter of the law might, under the proposed alteration, give the very minimum of notice and maximum of inconvenience. Again, the proposed alteration in the hours of burial gives so much less time for accommodation of arrangements, and increases the opportunity for friction. In these matters we all desire to avoid, as far as possible, anything that may give rise to religious animosities and friction, and to shorten the period of notice and the interval for making arrangements will increase the possibility of difficulties arising. Then a great objection arises upon the 4th sub-section of Clause 15, which proposes that burials under the principal Act shall be allowed between ten and sunset on any day in the year without exception.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The hon. Member will not find the words " on any day " in the Bill. The Bill is subject to the principal Act of 1880, which, I think, excludes certain days. My Bill must be read in conjunction with the Burial Laws Amendment Act.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Of course if there are exceptions my objection does not apply in the same degree—
  MR. CONYBEARE: I only wish to point out that the hon. Gentleman is reading into the sub-section words that are not in it, and that is hardly fair.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Well, I may be mistaken, and I will not press the point until I have referred to the Burials Act. At any rate, the hours for funerals are to be extended to sunset, and this I cannot but think is an uncalled for and undesirable alteration of the terms of settlement arrived at when the Burials Act was passed. Another objection arises on the 5th sub-section by which it is proposed that the burial fees shall
  104
  no longer be paid to the incumbent, but to the person officiating at the burial. This clearly is a departure from the settlement which Parliament in its wisdom arrived at, and which naturally recognises the receipt of fees as part of the income of the incumbent. By the 3rd sub-section of the 15th clause the Bill provides that—
  " Where any relatives of the deceased person have been buried in the graveyard of a particular parish or church, and the person having charge of or being responsible for the burial of the deceased person desires that such person shall be buried in the same place, or where such deceased person has expressed such desire, the burial shall be permitted in such graveyard, notwithstanding that such deceased person was not at the time of decease, or had not been prior thereto resident in the said parish."
  I am not quite sure how far the consequences of enacting such a provision as this may extend. It might be that the hon. Member himself having expressed a desire to be buried in Westminster Abbey, and one of his remote ancestors having been interred there, his friends might force such a burial upon an unwilling nation. There is no limit of relationship which may extend far back into the days of our Saxon ancestors. Why not, I say, leave these matters to the arrangements of good sense between the parties interested, why attempt to legislate in this manner, pushing matters to an extreme length? The hon. Member has quoted a case with which I am not familiar, and it appears that the objection of the clergyman was not that the deceased was a Nonconformist, but that she was not a parishioner. If the objection had been on the ground of Nonconformity there might be complaint—
  MR. CONYBEARE: It was desired that the service should be performed by a Wesleyan minister, but the clergyman insisted on performing the service himself, and would not allow a Wesleyan minister to do so on the ground that the deceased was not at the time of death resident in the parish.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Well, the clergyman was perhaps half right and half wrong. He acted, it may be, injudiciously. I take the facts as the hon. Member presents them, and am not disposed to prejudice the question, but I do not think it can be treated altogether as a Nonconformist grievance. On the consideration of some of the matters

  105
  with which this Bill deals, we have already entered by the Bill of my hon. Friend to which the Attorney General has given notice of serious Amendments. With the Burials Act I think churchmen have gone as far as they should be required to go, and I will be no party to re-opening the settlement arrived at, and raking up the embers of a bitter controversy. The difficulties that may arise may be settled by mutual arrangements, they cannot be satisfactorily removed by any legislation of this kind, and therefore I move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."—(Mr. Talbot.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: The hon. Gentleman has coupled my name with the settlement of the burials question, and as I had the honour of taking charge of the Burials Act Amendment Bill, I may be allowed to say that there has been no such thing as a settlement of the question. We took all we could get, but it was far from being a settlement, and in many respects the result was most unsatisfactory, it merely touched the fringe of the question; and the best proof I can give that we did regard the Act as something short of a settlement is that within four or five years we brought in an amending Bill and have reintroduced it without success in successive Sessions. I am exceedingly sorry that the Bill coming on unexpectedly I was not present to hear the speech of the Attorney General. [Several hon MEMBERS: He has not spoken.] I beg pardon, I have only just come in, and I had an impression the Attorney General had expressed his opinion. The only part of the Bill with which I am particularly concerned is that which deals with the Burials Act. I have a Bill for the amendment of that Act, which deals with the subject in a more comprehensive manner than this Bill. It proposes, for instance, to abolish the distinction between consecrated and un-consecrated ground, so far as consecration operates as a legal instrument. At
  106
  the same time, there are parts of this Bill which seem to me to be exceeding useful and necessary. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken finds fault with the 3rd sub-section of the 15th clause, but something of the kind I hold to be absolutely necessary. At law the incumbent has the right of allowing or of prohibiting the interment of a non-parishioner in the churchyard. That right, however, was given to him, not in the interest of the Church of England, but in the interest of the parish, so that the parishioners should not be crowded out of their own churchyard by non-parishioners. The Burials Act, does not interfere with this right of the incumbent, but it has been found that in many cases the incumbent exercises this power of excluding non-parishioners as a means of imposing as a condition of interment that the non-parishioner, though a Nonconformist, should be buried with the Church of England service. I am sorry to say there have been many such instances in Welsh parishes, and I gather from the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down that the hon. Member for Camborne cited a case as having occurred in Cornwall. Now, I think, it is only reasonable that there should be some way of preventing an incumbent taking an unfair advantage of a discretion vested in him for a wholly different purpose. As to the melancholy incident referred to in the course of this discussion, I made it the subject of a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and he attempted to justify the action of the incumbent, although he did not justify the refusal to allow the body to be buried without a Church service in the part of the parish churchyard where her husband was buried, which is the real point in the case. That point will be met by the very reasonable provision contained in the Bill. Similarly it is only right that Nonconformists, on paying the burial fees, should have the right to have the bell of the parish church tolled and to have the use of the burial appliances. These are small matters, but they lead to petty insults and ill-feeling. The next section deals with a much more important question, namely, the question of fees for burials in the parish churchyard—and on this subject the Bill is on

  107
  all fours with a measure I hope to have the honour of asking the House to read a second time this day four weeks. The demand contained in this section seems to me to be obviously fair and just. It is surely right that the fees for performing the burial service should only be paid to the person who performs it. At present Nonconformists have to pay twice over —once to their own minister and also to the incumbent, even though the latter takes no part in the burial service. The incumbent, therefore, is paid for work he does not perform. I should have thought that the easiest way of deciding this matter would have been to lay down the principle that where there was no work there should be no pay. It seems to me that every one of the provisions of the 15th clause, including the alteration in the hours of burial, are reasonable, and follow the lines of the Bill I have introduced. I shall be curious to hear what possible objection can be taken to any one of these provisions. We have heard the objections of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who is a sort of official representative of the Church of England, but I should like to hear what objection the Attorney General can take to the Bill. I refrain from dealing with that part of the Bill bearing upon the question of marriages, but as to the other part, after the most careful attention that I have been able to bestow upon it, I must say that it seems to me to be reasonable and just; and if I have any fault to find with it, it is that it does not cover the whole ground which the question occupies.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I will follow the example of the right hon. Gentle man who has just sat down, and will confine my observations to Clause 15, going through its various sub-sections seriatim. The first two sub-sections are of minor importance, dealing merely with the notice required to be given of burials under the Burials Act. It is proposed to reduce the notice of burial to 12 hours. I think that that would be too short a notice and might lead to inconvenience, as there might not be adequate time for the incumbent to give due notice in return that the burial in some cases could not take place at the hour fixed. The hour named by the relatives of the deceased
  108
  might clash with the period fixed for some other service, of which the relatives might know nothing, or might not be in conformity with the rules of the burial ground. Under the Act of 1880, the incumbent is empowered to say that the hour proposed will not do, or that another day or hour must be appointed, and I am bound to say that that seems tome to be a very reasonable provision. The change proposed would, to my mind, be productive of much more inconvenience than benefit. The next change proposed is one which does not appear to have been exhaustively thought out. It is that where any relative of a deceased person has been buried in a churchyard, and the person having charge of the burial desires that the deceased person shall be buried in such churchyard, or the deceased has expressed a wish to that effect, then such burial shall be permitted in the churchyard, though such deceased person has not been a resident of such parish. It is said that this is necessary because an incumbent in a. certain Truro case that was mentioned refused to allow a Wesleyan to be buried in the churchyard, he not being a parishioner, unless upon the condition of the Church of England service being performed. The argument is that the incumbent did not object to the non-parishioner being buried in the parish churchyard, but that he made the fact, that the deceased was a non-parishioner, the ground for insisting that the burial service of the Church of England should be read over the deceased who had been. a Wesleyan.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not wish the facts to be misunderstood. The burial did take place in the churchyard, but Canon Burt refused to allow the-Wesleyan minister to officiate and officiated himself.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Well, it was. obviously open to the relatives of the deceased not to have submitted to the conditions and to have had the burial somewhere else where the Wesleyan minister could attend. It comes to this, that the right of burial in the churchyard was conceded by the incumbent, but he refused to add to that privilege—-which was one the law did not require to be given, and to which the family of the deceased had no statutory right— the further privilege of having the Wes-

  109
  leyan service performed. It is not for me to express any opinion as to the good taste or judgment exhibited by the incumbent on that occasion. I do not think I should myself have taken the course followed by him. But if there are cases of this kind—of which I know nothing—the proposed remedy would be far too wide. At present no Church of England non-parishioner has a right to burial in the churchyard. This provision proposes that every Nonconformist non-parishioner shall have such a right, and, therefore, the Bill is not one for bringing about religious equality but religious inequality. [" No."] Well, if it is proposed that every non-parishioner, whatever his religion, shall have the right, surely that is a remedy that is much too large, and one which may be called extravagant and ill judged. The fact that burials in a parish churchyard are confined to parishioners has nothing whatever to do with the question of religion, or religious animosity, or the burial service, but it is founded in public policy. It is necessary to confine these burial places to parishioners, because all the churchyards of the country are rapidly becoming full. The proper remedy, if any were required, would be to take away from the incumbent the right of granting burial in the churchyard to any non-parishioner, for it surely is not desirable to throw the parish churchyard open to all non-parishioners, it may be to the exclusion of the parishioners. The Common Law right of parishioners to have the parish churchyard preserved to them should be maintained. The remedy proposed in the Bill is very much larger than the grievance alleged. The next proposal is one for which one is at loss to find a reason. It is that, instead of hours for burial being fixed as at present from 10 to 6 in summer and from 10 to 3 in winter, the hours should be from 10 to sunset. But the fixed hours are, I think, preferable, as better calculated to secure that the interments shall take place by daylight I think that it is hardly worth while to alter the Act of 1880 for the matter of so trifling a detail, and I confess that I think it undesirable to make sunset the limit. The next sub-section, dealing with the question of fees, is one which excites every kind of passion in the world sub-
  110
  lunary, and in the spiritual life. I approach the subject with absolute impartiality. Do let us see what is the equity of the case. The freehold of the churchyard is in the incumbent. It is quite true that in the right and true view of the organisation and discipline of the Church of England he is the freeholder in trust for the parishioners, and the Act of 1880, I think very wisely, has recognised that the incumbent holds it in trust for the Dissenting parishioners as well as for those who conform to the Church of England. But that being admitted, it is inconsistent that on the matter of fees hon. Members should turn round on the incumbent and want to deprive him of that which he receives perhaps as much for breaking the soil in the churchyard as for performing the service. This is not the time to go into the question of the Canon Law on this subject; but I think that if the hon. Member for Camborne will devote some of his unrivalled industry to inquiring into the origin of these immemorial burial fees, he will find that what I say is the case. It certainly would seem to me inconsistent to recognise the incumbent's right to the freehold of the soil—in trust, if you like, for the parishioners—and to refuse him his fees for the breaking of the soil. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire says, "No work, no pay."
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I would point out that this sub-section is founded on the recommendation of the Select Committee which sat for several months to consider the whole question of burial fees.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have great respect for the opinion of Select Committees, but I was offering to the House my own independent view. The right hon. Gentleman said if there is no work there should be no pay. But the incumbent is willing to do the work; it is the Nonconformist parishioner who declines to let him. With regard to Sub-section 6, which permits the parishioner to have the bell tolled, and to have the use of the parish appliances and officials, I confess that I absolutely approve of it. It seems to me to be the spirit and intention of the Act of 1880 that the Nonconformist parishioner should have the same rights

  111
  with regard to burial in the churchyard as the conforming parishioner. While, however, I quite agree with this subsection, I do not consider that it alone is enough to save the Bill, and for my own part, I shall vote for the Amendment.
  MR. S. T. EVANS: The House has listened with great satisfaction to the speech the right hon. Gentleman has delivered— a speech which I must say, was in strong contrast with that of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him on that side of the House, who shows himself more of a champion of the Church of England than gentlemen on the front Ministerial Bench. My name is on the back of the Bill, nevertheless I must disclaim responsibility for its title and for the drafting of some of its clauses. 1 object to the title, because even if the Bill passed in its entirety, it would not satisfy our desires as to religious equality. Speaking for myself as a Representative of the Principality, I must say that I think the passing of the second part of the Bill would be regarded by my countrymen as more important than the passing of the first part. I maintain that, while there are grievances on the part of the Nonconformists with regard to marriages, it is absolutely necessary, in the interests of fair play and even decency, that the Act of 1880 with regard to burials should be altered. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend who was the author of the Act of 1880 (Mr. Osborne Morgan) declare that that Act was not a settlement at all. I was not a Member of the House when the Act was passed, but I remember the time very well, and I can say that we simply regarded the measure as the smallest possible concession that those who championed the Church of England were willing to give to the Nonconformists. The spirit in which the Act has been administered from 1880 down to the present time proves that it is not a settlement of the matter at all. With regard to the details of the present Bill, I do not think that any of the inconveniences will arise which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the proposal to shorten the time of notice. In my own opinion, it is hard that within 24 hours of the death of a near relation the relatives in their sorrow should have at once to set about getting up a statu-
  112
  tory notice in strict accordance with the Schedule of the Act of 1880. I think the time asked for should be given. I think the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension as to the intention of Sub-section 3. I agree that the sub-section has not been properly drafted; but what is intended is to make it impossible for an incumbent, relying on the legal right he has of refusing burial at all to a non-parishioner, to insist, in cases where he may be willing that a Nonconformist parishioner should be buried in the churchyard, upon the burial service of the Church of England being read. I think that is the intention of my hon. Friend in the Bill, and I therefore think the subsection will commend itself to the judgment of the House. There may have been reasons in the past, and there may be reasons now, why the trustee of the churchyard should be able to say, " You must not bury a non-parishioner there." Somebody must have the power of limitation. But that is not the case which we put; the case is where the incumbent insists upon the rites of the Church of England. Such cases constantly occur in the Principality. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the Act of 1880 has not been worked in a spirit of conciliation, and that is why those who smart under the administration of it are anxious to amend its provisions. If the Act of 1880 had been carried out in the spirit in which it was framed, it would not be necessary to come to the House at all with the 15th clause of this Bill. But that has not been the case, and it is absolutely necessary that we should endeavour to amend the provisions of the Act of 1880. The next sub-section is that which deals with the extensions of the hours during which a burial can take place in the parish churchyard. I see no reason why the hours should not be extended to sunset. It is said that a burial might be fixed at an hour almost immediately before sunset, which would necessitate the great inconvenience of carrying out the ceremony in the dark. Surely it can hardly be supposed that anybody who has the arrangements of a funeral to make would be actuated by such motives as have been suggested, and in order to gratify his feelings in this respect would adopt such a course as this. I have intimate ac-

  113
  quaintance with the manner in which funerals are conducted in the Principality, where it is the common practice to have very large funerals. In many cases nearly the whole of the inhabitants of a village will attend the funeral obsequies, and the result is that, especially in the mining localities, it is very difficult to fix the funeral ceremonial before 3 o'clock, because the people do not leave their work before that hour. Surely it is a pity that those who are at work till 4, or half-past, should thereby be prevented from attending a Nonconformist funeral. We have been told that the spirit of the Act of 1888 was that Nonconformists should have the same privileges with regard to burial as belonged to members of the English Church, but in the Church of England funerals are not limited to 3 o'clock in the afternoon. As far as I know, there is no limit to the hour at which Church of England funerals may take place, and I ask, therefore, why should this invidious distinction exist between them and their Nonconformist brethren? With regard to the subsection dealing with fees, the on. Member for the University of Oxford has said that every sub-section he came to appeared to be worse than the previous one, and he seemed to think that this particular sub-section formed the climax of the injustice contained in the measure of my hon. Friend. He said the burial fees were not paid for conducting the service, but for breaking the soil by the incumbent. That may be so, and it may be argued that until we have a large scheme of Disendowment it would not be fair to deprive the incumbent of his fees. But in cases where the grave has been paid for, and constitutes a freehold, why should the incumbent exact burial fees for every new burial? Then comes the case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. G. O. Morgan) as to the payment of fees for work which is not performed. On this the Home Secretary says the clergyman is willing to bury anyone if the fees are paid. But surely it is too late in the day to argue that, because he is willing to perform a service which is not desired, and consequently not rendered, he should therefore have the right of exacting fees. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire has said that Nonconformists who have the mis-
  114
  fortune to bury their relatives in the churchyards have to pay double fees, namely, to their own minister and also to the incumbent of the parish. This, however, is not my experience, which has always been that the Nonconformist ministers do not receive fees for their services at the burial of their dead. They are only too glad to perform the ceremony for the friends and relatives without any remuneration; and if this be so, why, I ask, should the Church clergyman insist on payment where no service is rendered at all? In conclusion, I cannot but express a hope that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House will permit the passage of this Bill without raking up the embers of a very bitter controversy. Why it was bitter I do not know, and it is for them to say. We are only trying to obtain a measure of justice which Parliament eventually granted. When we now desire to extend the measure of justice it is not we who desire to fan the embers of bitter intolerance; and if those embers are to be fanned into a flame, it is upon hon. Members on the other side of the House and not upon us that the responsibility must rest.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: The hon. Member who has just sat down has told us he will undertake no responsibility either for the title or for the drafting of this Bill. Then I ask, why did he allow his name to be endorsed on the back of the Bill? Religious equality What on earth does it mean? I often think we should be better off if we had Preambles to our Bills, as we used to have. We should then understand the motive ideas of hon. Members who introduce measures to this House. The Preamble to this Bill would, I suppose, be somewhat in this form:—" Whereas all religions ought to be made equal by Act of Parliament, and whereas there is no difference or distinction between the religion of a fire worshipper or a devil worshipper, or a seventh-day Baptist, &c; be it enacted, &c." But this Bill, though professedly a Bill to establish religious equality, deals only, in fact, with two religious services, namely, the burial service and the ceremony of marriage. Let us look for a-moment at the way in which the Bill proposes to deal with the Marriage Act,

  115
  and the kind of machinery it provides. According to this Bill, all a man has to do is to obtain a marriage licence from the Registrar for half-a-crown; that licence is to run for three months, at the end of which time it is to be renewable. There is no limit to the number of licences a man may take out. He may take out half a dozen or more in the names of different women, and keep them in suspense until he has made his selection. During this period of suspense the parties will be, as it were, half married, resting at a half-way house, which is not unlikely to end in something less than marriage in many cases. I have heard of fictitious marriages, and I cannot help thinking that the way in which this Bill proposes to carry out the preliminaries of the sacred condition of marriage might lead to immorality. But let us proceed. Having got the licence the parties go to a registered building. Hon. Members, perhaps, know how a building becomes registered. Thirty people only have to declare that they wish to have a building registered for the solemnisation of marriage, and it is registered. We must remember that there are very few Nonconformist Bodies who have any Central Authority. . Most Nonconformist churches are complete in themselves, and do not submit to government by any Central Body. Those 30 persons who have got a place registered for the solemnisation of marriage have the entire control of that building, and of the forms and ceremonies used within it. Nay, more; they often have complete religious equality among themselves, and each one of the 30 men or women may be lawful ministers and the individuals duly commissioned by this Act to perform the marriage ceremony. Let me, however, take the case a little further. Lot us accompany the bridal party to the registered building. No notice need be given to the minister. But if he happens by chance to be hard by he may ask certain questions, but there is no obligation to answer them. He may know that the lady is under the age of consent, and that the man is already married. He may ask questions, but he has no power to get them answered. He may refuse to perform the service; but any one of the 30 members of the congregation is just as
  116
  much a lawful minister as he is. He cannot refuse the use of the registered building. The parties may bring their own minister with them, and he may perform the ceremony " according to such form and ceremony as he shall think fit." A person whom the ordinary minister of the Church refused to' marry might flourish this Bill in his face, and have the ceremony conducted according to his own fancy. But even that is not all. Supposing the lawful minister acts in direct contradistinction to everything in this Bill, he is only liable to a fine of £5. So that a rich person might contravene the law, and procure a marriage without any of the conditions and restrictions of this Bill, such as they are, by paying a fine of £5. Is it possible that the House of Commons can read a second time a Bill of this sort? As to the provisions relating to burial, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University pointed out that if any of the relatives of a deceased person had been buried in Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's, and that if the deceased had expressed a wish to be buried there, too, his friends could demand his burial in the Minster or Cathedral. With regard to fees, I notice that they are payable " unless the persons otherwise determine." I cannot conceive of their being paid generally, if people had the means of relieving themselves by merely expressing their wish to be relieved. I cannot help thinking that the hon. Members who brought in this Bill must have had the recent decision of the Lord Chancellor in their minds, and that as separations are made quite easy by that decision, they are determined to make marriages as easy. The whole proposal is so unstatesmanlike that I hope the House of Commons will reject it.
  MR. J. A. BRIGHT: I wish to say a word or two against this Bill before it goes to a Division, and I do not wish to be misunderstood in so doing. I have no feeling against religious equality. I am a Nonconformist by descent and from conviction, and I should be glad to see every inequality removed between Dissenters and members of the Church of England. I object to this Bill, because it makes it very probable that the records of marriages will not

  117
  be safely kept. When it was illegal for marriages to take place except in churches, an arrangement was made on behalf the Society of Friends, by which their Registrar was allowed to be present. The real solution of the question was not that the Registrar should not need to be present at Nonconformist marriages, but that he should be present at all marriages for the purpose of recording them. I believe it is notorious that records of marriages in churches which ought to have been preserved have been lost. By this Bill, instead of the Registrar attending with his book, the minister officiating has to make out four different certificates and send one to the Registrar. Now the minister officiating may be any lawful minister, and we have heard of marriages solemnised by sham ministers. Besides, the certificate might be lost in transit through the post, not to speak of other complications in registration which this Bill would cause. I see that the penalty for failure to register a marriage is £5—a very small penalty for such a gross neglect of duty. It might be worth somebody's while to pay £5 in order to have the traces of a false or real marriage removed. I think that we shall be going in an altogether wrong direction if we pass a Bill like this, which will make the record of Nonconformist marriages in places of worship less permanent and certain than they have hitherto been. I shall therefore, vote against the Second Reading, because I object to anything which will afford a loophole for a loose record of marriages.
  MR. KELLY: I observe that the hon. Member whose name is on the back of the Bill repudiates responsibility for its drafting or its name. The Bill of the hon. Member for Camborne is really divisible into two Bills—one dealing with the attendance of the Registrar at Nonconformist marriages and the other with the Burial Laws. With reference to Sub-section 3 of Clause 15, there are certain reasons against it which I have not heard urged. It would throw a burden upon poor parishes. I am acquainted with a small parish about 15 or 16 miles out of London, where they have had the greatest difficulty in preserving the churchyard for the parishioners in consequence of the applications to bury non-parishioners
  118
  who, however distant from it, may have taken a fancy to be interred there. I can understand some provision being made for those who have resided many years in a parish, and are away at the time of death; but it seems to me a most unfair claim that strangers or non-parishioners should urge the right to be buried in some churchyard to which they have no claim other than the mere expression of a fancy in life that at death they would like to be buried there.
  It being half an hour after Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday-next.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not intend to oppose this Motion. I only wish to explain that, in consequence of representations made to me by the hon. and learned Attorney General, I have not pressed the Amendments of which I had given notice, on the understanding that the objects aimed at are already secured in the Bill.
  MR. CAUSTON: Although I have opposed the Bill in its several stages, I shall not vote against the Third Reading, for I have no desire to hinder the removal of electoral disabilities. What I do charge the Government with is that in introducing this Bill with a high-sounding title they have brought forward a measure without any real backbone to it. They have only removed the disabilities of soldiers, sailors, and policemen, and they have declined to remove those to which the working classes of the country are subjected; indeed, the Bill was so carefully drawn as to preclude all opportunity of securing an amendment in that direction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would have no tinkering with the Registration Laws. Well, I [assert that this is a tinkering, feeble Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I only wish to say, in reply to the hon. Mem-

  119
  ber for Camborne, that the view he has expressed—that the object of his Amendment is secured in the Bill—is correct.
  MR. T. ROBINSON: I wish to express my regret that the Attorney General would not afford me an opportunity of proposing an Amendment dealing with disqualifications arising out of recent decisions of certain Revising Barristers. It is a pity the Bill was so drawn as to prevent that point being raised.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The Bill was drawn long before those decisions were given.
  MR. T. ROBINSON: No doubt; but surely it would have been possible to deal with this matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ARMY SCHOOLS BILL.—(No. 211.)
  As amended, considered.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  RATING OF MACHINERY (No. 2) BILL. (No. 18).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 3rd June.

MOTIONS.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Robert Reid, Bill to enable Local Authorities to acquire Land, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Reid, Earl Compton, and Mr. Winterbotham.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 268.]

  LONDON (CITY) TRIAL OF CIVIL CAUSES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to provide for the Trial of Civil Causes in the City of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Solicitor General.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 269.]

  PARKS REGULATION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to extend "The Parks Regulation Act, 1872," to Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 270.]

  LOANS FOR SCHOOLS AND TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND) ACT (1884) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Attorney General, Bill to amend "The Loans for Schools and Training Colleges (Ireland) Act, 1884," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Arthur Balfour.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 271.]

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Ninth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN WRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, at Two of the clock, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]
QUESTION.

  UPPER BURMA.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information as to the reported death, in the action on the Chin Hills, Upper Burma, of Lieutenant L. A. Forbes, of the 3rd Goorkhas?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The following telegram has been received from the Viceroy:—
  "Reported from Chin country that detachment 39th Bengal Infantry, under Lieutenant Mocatta, detailed from Haka, was attacked April 4, while returning towards Haka, by a large gathering of Chins of the Klanglang tribe. The detachment continued march, fighting till met by force from Haka of the same regiment under Mainwaring. Lieutenant Forbes wounded severely in arm, five men killed, 12 wounded. This disturbance is believed to be local and unconnected with events on Manipur side. Steps will be taken to punish offending tribes."
  This 39th (Gurhuali) Regiment is the old 2nd Battalion 3rd Goorkhas. The old 39th was reduced very lately, and its place in the Army List taken by the 2nd Battalion 3rd Goorkhas. A new 2nd Battalion 3rd Goorkhas is being raised in India. Lieutenant Forbes's initials are L.A.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.