§ MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that William Burgess and three others who were charged with him (all being men of respectable position in long service) at Corringham, in the Petty Sessional Division of Orsett, in the County of Essex, on the 18th of August last, on the charge of using four guns for the purpose of taking hares, were the holders of licences to carry guns; that they were on the public footpath, proceeding towards Shelhaven Creek with the intention of shooting sea-fowl; that they were convicted of using guns for the 1021 purpose of taking hares, there being no evidence beyond the facts above stated, and were each fined £1 and 5s. 6d. costs; and that three of them were in default of payment taken to Pentonville Prison handcuffed, and confined until the fines were paid; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made in this case, with a view to the remission of the penalties imposed and to the securing effectual protection to the holders of similar licences?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.)My attention has been drawn to this case. The defendants were the holders of licences to carry guns, but they were not on the footpath, whether it was public or no, but had spread out to the right and left of it, on private land, beating the saltings where there are hares, and the Magistrates came to the conclusion that the defendants were there for the purpose of shooting hares, although at the time neither the prosecutor nor the constable saw a hare. The three defendants, with one other, were taken to prison under the escort of two constables who, for precaution, handcuffed them. I cannot, upon the materials before me, take upon myself to differ from the conclusion of fact arrived at by the Magistrates who heard the evidence.
§ MR. J. ROWLANDSI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any evidence to inform him of the fact that shooting is quite usual in this neighbourhood, and that no fewer than 20 people with guns were out there yesterday, shooting wild fowl? On what evidence did the Magistrates come to the conclusion that because people had guns they were necessarily after hares in a neighbourhood where they are rarely seen, as I am told?
§ MR. ASQUITHI will make further inquiries.