HC Deb 18 August 1893 vol 16 cc623-4

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "except as hereinafter provided," and to insert the words "and 'The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1881,' and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1893," the first Amendment, read a second time.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

complained of the terms in which the Bill had been spoken of in the House of Lords, although it was introduced by a Member of the late Government, and of the remarkable changes it had undergone at their Lordships' hands. The Bill had been made unworkable.

*SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton)

agreed that the Amendments which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords tended to alter its character and make it unworkable. The principal objection he took to the Amendments was that, instead of giving the County Councils power to protect certain species of birds, they only enabled the County Councils to extend the protection to specified areas. He would illustrate the effect of such a provision by a concrete instance. A few years ago an attempt was made to make a raid on the breeding places of the great skua, an interesting species of wild bird, which only frequented a few places in the Highlands of Scotland. If the areas in which the species breed were to be protected under the Bill as amended by the Lords every other species of egg would also have to be protected, and this would involve a great hardship, as the egg harvest was an important industry to the inhabitants. In the same way, if the County Council of Surrey desired to protect the nightingale, by an order prohibiting the taking of nightingale's eggs, they would have to include the eggs of the sparrow hawk and the carrion crow and other mischievous species in the order as well. He must, therefore, ask the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— (Sir H. Maxwell.)


said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Sir H. Maxwell) in this this matter. He feared that the power proposed to be given to the County Councils was too extensive; and as his hon. Friend was not inclined to give the Lords' Amendments a more favourable reception, he should object to further proceeding with the Bill.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

rose to Order. He asked was it fair for the noble Lord to get up and make a speech himself, and then preclude others from saying a word on the subject?


If objection is taken, of course the Bill must go over.

Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.