§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro)This Bill, which I ask the House to be good enough to read a second time, is for the purpose of enabling grouse to be shot in Scotland as from the 5th August this year instead of from the 12th August.
§ Mr. MUNROI should emphasise at once that the Bill is not designed to extend the shooting period. In all probability there will be very little sport in Scotland this year. The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of those who indulge in the pastime under normal conditions are at the present time serving their country in one capacity or another, and the probability therefore is that sport will be abridged to a very large extent and will be limited to keepers and elderly men. This Bill has a certain bearing upon the question of the food supply of the country. I am told that in an average year some- 1284 thing like two million grouse are shot, and under the abnormal conditions of this year, the moors being very plentifully supplied, I am told the probability is that there will be something like three million grouse shot. It should be remembered in this connection that last year while the price of meat rose, as we all know, in an extraordinary way, the price of grouse fell, and, according to my information, grouse was sold last season at a price which was less than the price of first-class beef today. Unless the question is taken in hand at an early date, and unless shooting commences at an earlier date than is usual, two results, it would seem, may follow. The first would be that in the absence of many guns from the moors this year there would be a diminished supply of grouse, which, as I have endeavoured to set before the House, is a cheap commodity under existing conditions and a useful one; and in the second place, almost certainly, in the opinion of those who are capable of expressing an opinion upon the subject, there would be a diseased supply of grouse next season. I think the House will agree that these are two contingencies equally undesirable. This Bill endeavours to prevent these results. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Bill is a purely permissive measure, and, having regard to the considerations to which I have ventured to advert, I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI heartily approve of the Bill as far as I understood what the hon. Gentleman has said, but why does it not apply to England as well as to Scotland? Why should Scotland have a market a week ahead of England? It will be very profitable to Scotland. I am very glad that the shooting should be ante-dated by a week and that we should have an extra supply of grouse, but at the same time I should like to know the reason why the Bill does not apply to England.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELI was really going to raise the same point. This is a Bill which is going to apply to Scotland. We have English grouse as well as Scotch grouse.
§ Sir F. BANBURYBetter.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELApart from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, I only see two Scottish Members present who are asking for this Bill. There cannot be a demand on the part of the Scottish Members—a third has just come in—and it seems to me that it is an attempt 1285 really to induce men who take a pleasure in shooting this class of bird to rush to Scotland and to deprive England of the same facility. Scotland, I believe, is advertising very extensively this year for people to go there and spend their holidays, and I should like to know whether this is part of that scheme to deprive our English moors of their presence. If it is an advantage to Scotland, certainly it would be an advantage to England, and we ought to know why it is that the Scottish Office is taking this advantage over the English grouse shooters and why, as the hon. Member opposite said, the English market is to be flooded with Scotch grouse before our friends in England can come into the market. We ought to have an explanation on this subject before we pass the Bill. I do not know whether the Chief Whip, who is a Scottish Member, is part and parcel of this plot; very likely he is, hoping to get the Scotish Members away before the 5th of August so that the House may rise a little earlier. I am glad to see the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) here. I am quite certain that he is an authority upon this subject, and if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to speak again I think he ought to explain to us why they are going to have the advantage of shooting grouse in Scotland on the 5th August while we, who represent English constituencies, are deprived of that opportunity. They are stealing an advantage.
§ Mr. PRINGLEStealing!
§ Mr. J. SAMUELYes, because the Act does not apply to England and Wales. We ought to have some explanation why it does not.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThe hon. Member who has just sat down has displayed an amazing ignorance of this Bill and its purpose. There is certainly no plot to deprive the Yorkshireman of the market for his grouse by trying to forestall him. This is a necessary measure in the interests of the future of the moors of Scotland, and in the interests of those who possess them and who have probably to depend entirely upon their rents for paying their rates, which are very heavy in some parts of Scotland. It is essential to pass this Bill if we are not going to have the whole of the country overrun with disease next year or this year. The truth is that in Scotland it is not possible to shoot grouse on many moors exactly in the same way as they do in England. In Yorkshire they 1286 entirely kill their grouse by driving. I do not know whether the hon. Member knows what driving grouse really means.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThey may not all do so, but most of them do. In Scotland, of course, on many moors it is quite impossible to drive the grouse. You cannot get beaters—the moors are not suitably laid out for that purpose; and, in the last place, it is difficult to get guns in these almost inaccessible districts. The shooting usually begins on the 12th August. We have the Lammas fetes a few days after, and then it will be perfectly impossible to get the birds otherwise than by driving, because they will be so wild; therefore, as we have the promise of a very large stock of grouse on the moors this year, unless we can get at the birds very early, say a week before the usual time, we shall next year have the whole of the moors more or less decimated by disease. We may lose a good many of our usual visitors next year and the year after, if, as I hope it may be, the War is at an end. No doubt Yorkshire will hope to get them, and I honestly say I wish to prevent that. This is not a measure which has for its object the sending of the grouse to market. In many cases the birds will have to be shot very young, and will consequently not be saleable. But the change of date is essential in the interests of the soundness and quality of the birds in future seasons.
§ Mr. J. SAMUELThe right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading said the reason for making the alteration was that it would supply the market with the birds; but, if they are to be unsaleable, surely that is a reason why the Bill should not pass.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI said that on some moors the grouse would have to be shot before they were quite matured, and therefore they would not be sold. But that does not affect the general argument in favour of the Bill. The great bulk of the birds will go to market, and will, no doubt, be much appreciated by those who buy them. It is said that this measure is designed not in the interests of real sport, but of the owners of the moors. But the public authorities in Scotland depend for rates and taxes to a very large extent on shooting rentals, and this year it is going to be a very serious matter, because the moors are not going to be let. People are not 1287 able to take them. They want to save the money and put it in the War Loan I suppose. But it is going to be a very difficult thing for people to find the money to pay the rates. It is a serious economic question which we have to face now, and it will be far more serious next year. It is, therefore, desirable to take steps to see that the birds are kept in a healthy condition.
§ Mr. BOOTHAt last we understand the real meaning of this Bill. It is a relief Bill for the landlords, to enable them to get a week's more rent for their grouse moors.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThey are getting no rent for them.
§ Mr. BOOTHI wish to protest against a Bill like this being starred by the Government, or even brought before the House during the War. In case any of our newspapers get to the front, and are seen by the men in the trenches, I hope that not a single line of the present Debate will be published, for there could be nothing more calculated to dishearten the men in the trenches than to read that the House of Commons is discussing a Bill of this nature. Further than that, it is a breach of the understanding between the Government and this House. I do not say it is a technical breach. It is a breach in the spirit, although not in the letter. Private Members of this House are prevented bringing in Bills in which they are interested. The Government have taken the whole of the time of the House—they have taken Fridays and private Members' evenings, so that we may not bring in Bills like this, or even more important measures. But in another place they allow a private Member to bring in a Bill which is of interest to those who are more concerned in grouse shooting and drawing the rents for grouse moors than in beating the Germans, and this Bill is adopted by the Government.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs it in order to state that Members in the other House are more interested in grouse shooting than in beating the Germans?
§ Mr. BOOTHI did not apply that to all of them. But how can a man with his mind on the War conceive a Bill like this, and how can the House, with its mind on the War, discuss and pass a Bill like this? I do press on the Government to deal with Bills more important than this. It is monstrous for the Government to invite 1288 the attention of the House to a Bill like this during the War. We come here under a very great strain; we are all concerned about the national position; we are concerned for this House to do its duty. Conversation in the Lobby and in the Smoke Room shows that nearly every Member who comes here realises the very serious position in which the country is, and yet we are asked to deal with a Bill like this, a Bill which has been starred by a Government which has prevented private Members from bringing in measures which they believe to be far more important. To adopt this Bill introduced by a private Member in another place in this way, is to belittle the House of Commons, and to break the spirit, although not the letter, of their bargain.
I do beseech them to show some consideration to the House on this matter. I do so not merely in connection with this Grouse Bill. The same argument applies to many other Bills which are being pressed forward. The House of Commons is entitled to protest, and I certainly do protest against this Bill being proceeded with. I care nothing for any particular Scottish landowner or for a few Scottish Members and the view they may take. They are trying to get a week's start of England in regard to the matter of rent. The hon. Baronet opposite is perfectly entitled to look after the interests of Scotland when they come into competition with Yorkshire, but I do not want to hear anything here about rival appeals on behalf of grouse moors in Scotland and in Yorkshire. I shall be prepared to meet the hon. Baronet on that point at another time, and I hope I shall be able to do a little bit for my own country. But this is not a time when we ought to have our attention diverted to these things. I do not know what the Government intend to do with regard to this Bill, but if I can get anybody to support me, I will go into the Lobby as a protest against its being taken in a crisis like this in the nation's history.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI, too, want to urge the Government not to press a measure of this kind on the House. What will be the effect on the working people if they do? They have been asked to make very big sacrifices, and they have been making them. At the present time they are being asked by this House to give up, in the interests of the country at this crisis, their trade union regulations and restrictions and to put everything aside in the interests of the nation. If workmen are willing to 1289 do that, surely it is not asking too much of the landowners of Scotland that they shall not demand at a time like this that they shall be allowed to have seven days added to the period of grouse shooting obviously in the interests of grouse rents in that country.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am sorry to interrupt the hon Member, but I want to point out that these moors are not let at all, and are not going to be let.
§ Mr. ANDERSONThen I do not understand the argument advanced by the hon. Member. But surely rent does enter into the question as a factor?
§ Mr. ANDERSONI cannot accept the hon. Baronet's explanation, and if it is not the case I can only say it makes the Bill less understandable, because it either means that or nothing at all. I do hope that the Government will not proceed with this measure, but will withdraw it in response to the protest that must be made by Members in all parts of the House.
§ Mr. KINGI have listened to this Debate and I intend to vote for this Bill. I fear that the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) is carried away by his prejudice against all legislation. Here we have private Member's legislation, emanating certainly in another place, but to my mind quite sensible. In the first place, it is emergency legislation and it is legislation that is going to increase the food supply of this country. I have not in previous years been able to afford the luxury of grouse, but I look forward to that pleasure both this year and probably next year also. If I, a poor man, can look forward to that prospect in these hard times, I am sure I can appeal for sympathy to an ordinary modest member of the community like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and ask him to change his mind. I am sorry that one point has not been elucidated in the course of this Debate, namely, why this Bill does not apply to England, and whether the conditions of English moors do not partake of the same nature as those of the Scottish moors. That question, which was first propounded on this side and afterwards by the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. J. Samuel), has not received a reply from the Treasury Bench. If we find that the same conditions apply to English moors as to Scottish moors—I include also, of course, 1290 Welsh moors in the same category — we ought to have another emergency Bill antedating the time for grouse shooting on those moors. I suppose the position is that the early Scotsman is going to set the first grouse. That is quite right, but now that England has woke up to the position we ought to have another Bill extending the privilege to England also.
§ Mr. MUNROPerhaps the House will permit me to say a few words in reply to the observations which have fallen from hon. Members in all quarters. First of all, a single word as regards the origin of this Bill. It was suggested that it was a Scottish Office Bill, which was supposed to be part of a plot to which my hon. Friend the Chief Whip was a party and which was so brought to the House of Commons. That is not so. The Bill was introduced in another place. It was not the project of the Scottish Office at all. It has come down from another place and is so submitted to the House of Commons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who introduced it?"]. Lord Lovat, With regard to the point as to why the Bill does not apply to England, I do not profess to be an expert in this matter, but I am told that the conditions of the sport in England are entirely different from those in Scotland in this connection. For instance, I am informed that the English moors are much smaller than those in Scotland, and the organisation for driving is very much better. Moreover the English moors are more getatable—one can speak of that from personal knowledge and experience—than the inaccessible moors with which one has to deal in Scotland. There is no resemblance between the two cases, and no desire to give a benefit to Scotland which is being denied to England. Hon. Members will at once see when they reflect that although grouse may be shot in Scotland on the 5th it cannot be sold in England before the 12th.
Recalling the difference of conditions between the two countries and the absence of any hardship there is apparently very little good ground for objecting to the Bill. It has been more than suggested that this Bill is a breach of the understanding whereby controversial measures are not to be taken at this time. If I thought that, I should certainly not be standing at this Box defending the Bill. I think the Bill can be well defended upon the ground of its bearing upon the food supply of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] 1291 If hon. Members had done me the honour of listening to what I said in regard to the price of grouse last year in Scotland and the probable price this year, they would have seen that although it may be a small contribution, nevertheless it is a substantial contribution to the food supply of the country. For that reason, if for no other, the Bill can be justified as a War Bill, and it is only from that point of view, speaking on behalf of the Government, that I seek to justify it. There is no intention whatever, as I said when moving the Second Beading of the Bill, that it should be treated as an extension of sporting rights. Looking to the circumstances which prevail in Scotland at the present time—the absence of sportsmen, the abnormal supply of birds, and the open market—I do not think it can be suggested that this is a sinister design for the benefit and profit of lessees of sporting rights; but, on the other hand, it is a Bill which can be justified on the particular ground I have ventured to urge upon the House. If this Bill were to be regarded as a controversial measure, of course, under present conditions, it could not go through, but I venture to appeal to the House again, in the most earnest fashion possible, to be good enough to accept the view put forward in all humility by myself, and supported in various quarters of the House, and if they do so I would ask the House to read the Bill a second time.
Sir H. DALZIELI am sure the House will sympathise with the Lord Advocate in the very difficult task which, through no fault of his own, has fallen upon him to-night. He was careful to explain that he has no personal responsibility for the Bill. I am not surprised at that, because I really think that at a time like this it is trying the patience of the House too much, when days are refused by the Government for matters of vital importance, that they should come down and occupy the time of the House in discussing a Bill which means that there shall be six or seven days more for the shooting of grouse in this country than has hitherto been the case. It is not the proposal to which my hon. Friends object so much as the fact that the Bill is being brought forward at present. It is an almost indecent proposal to bring before the House at the present time, when the people of this country are thinking of matters of a much more grave character. 1292 The Lord Advocate justified the Bill, because he says there is the consideration of the food supply of this country. I suppose what he means is that we should eat less meat and more grouse. That is practically the position, because the Members of the Government have been spending public money in advertising the fact that the people of this country have got to eat less meat. I wonder how many of the great working-class population of this country ever taste grouse at all. I hope that the Lord Advocate is not going to pretend that grouse is consumed by the great working population of this country. It is nothing of the kind. To a person who can afford to pay 5s. or 7s. 6d. for grouse a consideration of that kind never appeals at all.
The point made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth) with regard to the history of this Bill is an important one. No private Member of this House can bring forward a Motion or a Bill during this Session. The Government say, "So grave are the issues of the War that we demand the whole time of this House. You may think that men have blundered and cost thousands of lives; you may think anything you like, but we have no time to allow that to be discussed; but we have time to consider sportsmen, forsooth, and whether in the interests of sport we ought to have these six days more for the shooting of grouse in the Highlands." I confess that I cannot reconcile the two positions at all. Again, as regards to the question of the history of the Bill, this is not a Government Bill. It was brought forward by a private Member of the House of Lords. No private Member of the House of Commons has the privilege of bringing forward anything at all, but because a private Member of the House of Lords brings forward a measure of this kind the Coalition Government welcome it—it is almost their first offspring—and they say we must find time for it, not only in the House of Lords, but in the House of Commons. In my opinion, the Government are getting out of touch with the opinion of this House and the country. They ought not to occupy the time of the House of Commons at a serious time like this when we cannot get time to bring forward matters of urgent importance with a measure of this kind, and I hope the Government will consider the protest which has been made, and will consent to an adjournment of the Debate. They ought not to use the fact of the Coalition 1293 to press a matter of this kind, which is opposed by even an insignificant section of the House. We have claims outside that the House must adjourn, that Parliament must be shut up, that time is being wasted, and suggestions of that sort. I wonder what these critics will say about the time of Parliament being occupied by a measure of this kind. I suppose this will be a grand legislative achievement. The Lord Advocate will have shown his strength; he will show that he is master of the House in bringing forward this measure. I hope the Government will consent to an adjournment, and not press a measure which is opposed to the loyalty of their supporters.
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEI am sorry in one sense that this Bill has been brought forward, and has occupied time in the House of Commons, but I really believe it is in the interest of the country—a very small interest possibly—that it should pass through all its stages and pass without very much discussion. The reason for its occupying the time of the House this evening is that two or three hon. Members below the Gangway have thought it necessary to raise their protest against a private Member's Bill being taken up by the Government. It was regarded in the other place as absolutely non-controversial, and many of us hoped it might be so regarded here. The simple facts in connection with grouse are these. In Scotland, if there are no shooting parties, it is absolutely impossible to kill the necessary number of birds to avoid disease. In 1873 disease killed nearly every bird in Scotland. In the previous year there was an enormous number of grouse and they were not adequately killed. This is the nearest year which has occurred since 1872 in regard to the number of grouse in Scotland, and it is well known that many of the moors in Scotland are not let, and there is not the slightest prospect of their being let, and the only question is whether the birds are to be killed or to be spared. If they are to be spared, in all probability disease will extend throughout the whole of Scotland, and next year there will be practically no grouse left. On the other hand, these birds will not come into competition this side of the Border in the London market with birds killed in England, but they will be sold or dispersed in Scotland. Many hon. Members and two or three large landowners have already told me that they have given directions that these birds, if they are killed early in August by their men, will be at once dispatched to the 1294 hospitals for the wounded. They have no desire to make money out of the proposal of the Bill. The object is merely to prevent the birds dying from disease when they might be utilised for the purpose of human food.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThere will, I think, be general agreement in every quarter of the House with one item in the criticism of my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) and my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth). It is surely a very anomalous thing that while this House, in the interests of the Government and in the interests of carrying on the War, has consented to deprive itself of the right of introducing any private Member's Bill, it should still be possible to introduce private Member's Bills in the House of Lords, and by conniving at that discrimination, by introducing here a private Member's Bill, which we ourselves are prohibited from introducing here, but which has been introduced in another place, the Government are guilty of provocation; they invite disagreement; they are not treating this House in a respectful manner. But that is general criticism of the Government. It is not criticism of the Bill on its merits. When we come to the merits of the Bill, I think there is a good case to be made out for it; indeed, I think the case has already been made out. I do not understand the attitude, of my two hon. Friends in the manner in which they have declaimed against wasting the time of the House in discussing such a measure when there is a great War going on. Why did not my hon. Friend get up earlier in the evening and protest against discussing the Coal Bill when a great War is going on? Why did he not protest against the Bill to get cheap coal to keep yourself warm when people are fighting in the trenches? He would have made as good a point as he is making here. Why did he not protest against the Registration Bill? Why should we spend the time of the House in passing a Bill for the mere purpose of counting the people of the country when fighting is going on at the front?
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThere are degrees in war measures, and this Bill is a war measure, not in so great a degree, but it is a war measure in the way that other Bills which have been introduced in this House with the full assent and agreement of my hon. Friends are war Bills. 1295 It is a Bill to relieve a large part of Scotland for the great loss which is being inflicted upon it directly through the War, a loss which can be easily remedied without doing injustice to any person in the country. The grouse moors of Scotland constitute a great interest in the country, not only to the landlords and the people who are employed on them, but to the local authorities who derive a considerable portion of their revenue from the rates on these moors and to the other ratepayers in the county, who are relieved of their rates correspondingly. That is surely a matter which is deserving of serious consideration. I will not deny that I and others in this House have held and do hold that many of these moors could better be used for other purposes. The hon. Baronet will agree that some of these moors could be better used for other purposes.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERVery few!
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI am not so sure that there would be very few of them. My own belief is that a very large proportion could better be used, say, for the purpose of afforestation. But we are not proposing that these moors should be used for a better purpose. It is impracticable to change their purpose at the present time, and so long as the purpose for which they are devoted is the purpose of rearing grouse it is contrary to the interests of the country that merely for the sake of a phrase, merely for the sake of scoring a point, we should consent to allow the opportunity to pass when we could save the country, and many of the interests in the country, from a very great financial loss. I think I can understand the motive of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). Since the War started Othello's occupation is gone. There are no private Bills to oppose. The hon. Member has lost his occupation. Now, here is a little Bill which he can hit. I think it is not quite worthy of the hon. Member. If he wishes further practice in the arts of which he is a past master, surely he can exercise them upon some of the greater Bills which are before the House! There was a Bill not very long ago which had considerable discussion in a Committee of the Whole House, and the Minister in charge of the Bill—the Minister of the Local Government Board—made very handsome acknowledgment that during its passage through this House that Bill had been considerably improved by discussion. Why is not the hon. Member working for his country by help- 1296 ing to improve the Bills passed through the House? Why did not he exercise those arts which he has exercised in former years with such skill, such force, and such vigour, in improving some of the important measures which have passed through the House during this Session, and which I am sure he will be the first to acknowledge could be improved? I submit that my right hon. Friend in charge of this Bill has made a good case for it on the merits of the Bill, and therefore, however much we may think the Government is to blame for some indiscretion which is quite outside the merits of the Bill, I hope the measure will receive the unanimous support of the House.
§ Mr. R. LAMBERTI confess that I have had some doubt as to what attitude I ought to adopt in regard to this Bill. I think I have begun to understand what the Bill is intended to do. It appears that there is considerable danger that the disease will bring havoc upon the birds. Therefore we are asked to pass this Bill and to spend considerable time in this House in order that we may save the lives of these birds by killing them. Secondly, I understand that this Bill is intended to supplement the food supply of the country and to provide the working classes with additional food. I can only express the hope that plentiful supplies of grouse will find their way to my Constituency to gladden the tables and the hearts of some of my working men Constituents. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I regard it as somewhat of a disadvantage and somewhat unfortunate that this Bill. a private Member's Bill from another place, should have been taken up by the Government, and should be passed into law, or be attempted to be passed into law, when in the House of Commons itself, we the Members of the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, are forbidden and prevented from bringing in any private legislation at all. We cannot even bring forward a Motion in this House, and we cannot get a Bill printed. I do think that, under these circumstances, the Government would be well advised if they would withdraw this Bill and not press it to a Division.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMHon. Members on this side of the House are always regarded by hon. Members opposite as a kind of Piccadilly Highlanders who know nothing about sport, and therefore are unable to express any opinion on the merits of the question. As I spent several years of my 1297 life big game shooting in different parts of the world I know a little about sport, having in my younger days devoted most of my life to it. On the merits of the Bill I have not much criticism to pass except this, that I think the period of seven days is not really going to change the question one way or the other. If the moors were shot regularly through August and September the birds would in the main be kept down. That is not the point I raise objection to. My point is this, that we are refused by the Government any time whatever to discuss questions affecting the War. We are told that it is not in the public interest, and that Parliament has not time to discuss questions affecting what some of us consider matters of the utmost necessity in regard to the carrying on of the War. We have time to deal with a Bill which originates in another place, while we in this House have no power whatever of either introducing legislation or of bringing proposals before the House. A servile Press and a servile House of Commons give the Government all the power they require, and yet we are asked now to give time for dealing with a Bill affecting the grouse moors of Scotland. We have been told by the Lord Advocate that this measure will help the food supply. That rather reminds one of what Marie Antoinette said during the time of the French Revolution. People were crying out for food. "What are the people crying for?" she asked. They replied, "Bread." "Why don't they eat cake?" she asked. I suppose the cake that the people of this country are going to eat in place of other food is grouse. That is perfect nonsense. So far as the working classes are concerned, and so far as the community at large are concerned, "whether this Bill is passed or not it will not make the smallest difference to the food supply. Holding the view that this Government has no right to take up the time of the House with measures of this kind, while denying to private Members all time to discuss the conduct of the War, I can only say that I shall not support this Bill; and I should like to say as to what my hon. Friend behind me said in his complaint about time being given to this Bill, when he falls foul of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract because he discusses the questions of coal and other necesaries of life, that there is a wide difference between the cases. What analogy can there be between saying that the House of Commons discusses the question of munitions, the Registration Bill, 1298 and the Coal Bill, which are necessary in connection with the successful prosecution of this War, and this Bill? This Bill is one which, in my opinion, should not be brought before the House, and I beg leave to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ Sir W. BYLESI beg to second that Motion.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI desire to support the Motion for the Adjournment, and I do so with all the more confidence as I find that on this occasion I am on the same side with three such stalwart supporters of the Coalition Government as the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), so that my action can be open to no suspicion of pro-Germanism. In regard to this Bill, I confess that, although I knew nothing of the reasons for introducing it, and I knew little about the subject, I was prejudiced against it in its origin. I recalled the circumstance which has been mentioned on several occasions this evening, that there has been a complete embargo placed by the Government upon all private Members' legislation in this House; and, when I found that a Bill emanating from a private Member of another place had received the blessing of the Government, I naturally inferred that some very important public object was going to be served by this unusual procedure. However, I do not take quite the same line as my hon. Friend in regard to this proceeding. I am hopeful now that the Government, having made an exception in favour of a private Member's Bill in the House of Lords, will see a reason that that should be their policy in regard to this House, and that when the new Session of Parliament opens once more there will be freedom for Members of this House to have at least the Bills which they regard as necessary for the public interest printed and open for discussion in this House. But, setting aside this prejudice on account of its origin, I listened with interest to the speech of the Lord Advocate and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rother-ham (Mr. Pease), as well as to that of the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) as to the objects which this Bill serves, and I have great difficulty in reconciling the statements of these various speakers. The Lord Advocate has put it on the ground of food supply, but the hon. Baronet opposite has told us that 1299 the grouse will be so immature when shot that they will be of no use for food. Consequently, I cannot find that there is any consistency between the statements of these supporters of the Bill. I can understand that it may be useful to have the birds shot in a larger measure this year than last year in order to prevent disease. That, of course, is an object which may be served by extending the time for shooting by seven days.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERExtending the beginning.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PRINGLEYes, you are starting to shoot seven days earlier and consequently you would be shooting the birds in a more immature condition, and therefore in a condition less useful for food. If, indeed, it was desired to have food for the people, why not continue the 12th of August and give some of the soldiers on leave permission to go to the moors and shoot the birds in a mature condition? Then you would have food for the people and at the same time prevent disease, and also you would have a consistent policy and would be giving a little sport to the men on leave from the trenches, which would be a kindly act. I am sure that such an announcement would be received with great joy in Flanders. Consequently the object of preventing disease can be secured in a much better way, and in a way consistent with increasing the food supply of the country, in the manner which I have suggested.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI did not suggest that you would shoot it with a rifle bullet. [An Hon. MEMBER: "A machine gun?"] None of these things were in my mind. I confessed in my opening remarks that I was very ignorant on this subject, but my right hon. Friend must not suppose that my ignorance in this respect extended to the belief that you would shoot grouse with rifle bullets. I have never shot grouse, though I have been out with shooting parties, and I know the kind of ammunition used for the purpose, and that kind of ammunition could be made available for the men on leave as well as for the superannuated gamekeepers who at present are the only people available for the purpose of shooting. Another ground put forward by the hon. Baronet 1300 opposite was the preservation of these grouse moors as letable subjects. I am not in sympathy with that object. I have never looked with pleasure upon a largo part of Scotland being made a mere sporting ground. I do not think that it is a good thing for Scotland that this has been so. I believe that, while Scotland may have gained a little revenue in that respect, yet it has not been in the best interests of the country, and I am not in favour of passing a Bill which will maintain the reservation of these areas for sporting purposes. The hon. Member for Bridgton (Mr. McCallum Scott), with whom I seldom disagree, seems to have taken a rather inconsistent line this evening. I know, for example, and I believe that the House remembers, that on many occasions he has advocated the afforestation of Scotland, and he has put forward and supported schemes whereby a large part of Scotland which is used for sporting purposes might be put under forest. Yet here he is to-night supporting a Bill which is keeping up the value of the land for sporting purposes, and so making it more difficult for the Government in future to acquire that land for the purpose of afforestation. That is not the way to go about having the land in Scotland diverted from sport in order to put it to a really economic use. We are told that if this Bill passes and this disease is prevented, these moors will be preserved for grouse shooting in future. But if this War is to go on there will not be many people left in the country who will be able to hire these moors for sporting purposes. The people will be so poor that they will not be able to indulge in the luxury of grouse shooting. Those who will take the moors will be Americans who have made fortunes out of the War and out of the misfortunes of Europe, and instead of Scotland being, as it has been in the past, overrun by sportsmen from this House, they will be overrun by sportsmen from the other side of the Atlantic. I am not at all anxious to see that brought about. In all the circumstances, and as no real case has been made out for this Bill, I think the Government should reconsider the matter.
§ Mr. MUNROI have followed the course of the Debate very carefully and attentively, and, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, I have come to the conclusion that it will be in accordance with my duty to accede to the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has yielded to opposition of hon. Members below the Gangway, which was about the most uninformed opposition that I have ever listened to in this House. It proceeded upon petty distinction about the position of these gentlemen concerned in the Bill, and upon what is really gross ignorance of the true situation. It proceeded, so far as I could see in the case of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, from personal annoyance that he himself, with others, had raised questions in this House which the Prime Minister thought to be inexpedient, and therefore he showed his indignation or ill-humour for a very modest measure intended, not in the interests so much of sport, as of this valuable property in Scotland, which in many districts pays the whole of the rates and carries on the whole of the local government in regard to land which cannot be put to any other purpose, and which in many cases is far too high to bear the trees which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire thinks will grow anywhere. If the Lord Advocate takes the course of accepting the adjournment of the Debate on this useful measure, I will raise no objection, but I do not think the opposition is worth very much in point of value or a well-informed opposition, though, apparently, it is going to be persisted in. I do not, myself, propose to offer any objection, though I am ready to go into the Lobby, if anybody will join me, against the adjournment. Very few reasons have been given for this opposition, and I regret that a really most useful and very necessary measure is to be stopped in the way it has been.
Sir H. DALZIELI am very sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs should have made those suggestions about the opposition to the Bill, and it is hardly fair to suggest that it arises from ulterior motives.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERI took the right hon. Gentleman's own words.
Sir H. DALZIELIf the hon. Member always does that he will always be correct. My own words were, and I repeat them, that when the Government refuse to all private Members of this House the opportunity to have their Bills printed they ought not to offer facilities to a private Member of the House of Lords to force legislation upon us. If this is a measure which in the opinion of the Coalition Government is a war measure, and which has been advocated by the hon. Member for 1302 Bridgeton, in an excess of loyalty, let them say so, and let them take the responsibility of it. With regard to the merits of the Bill, in my opinion it is absurd to say that the shooting of grouse in Scotland is going to settle great social and national problems. No case has been made out in any form as to the necessity of the Bill. It does not raise the question of the food supply, and, above all, the question of disease is not going to be cured by five days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Still, if that is the view of the Government, and if the Coalition Government say that it is a strongly urgent matter and that the five days is going to deal with the whole question of the disease, let them take the responsibility of it, and do not let them leave it to private Members. The opposition to the Bill is not really on its merits; I frankly admit that it is not on the merits of the measure. I do not think anyone thinks so, and so far as I am concerned I object to going into the merits. What docs it matter to us whether it is five days later or earlier! The question is whether the time of the House is to be occupied by discussing a question of this kind. A case has not been made out to-night. What we object to is this, that if any Member of this House dares to ask a vital question affecting the security of the nation and the equipment of our soldiers, you cannot find time at all for a discussion as to that, but you can as to grouse. I say it is a monstrous proposal to occupy the time of this House with such a measure when we are prohibited or denied the discussion of questions vital to the soldiers and vital to the nation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would point out that the only question now before the House is the Adjournment of the Debate. The hon. Member, I presume, is supporting the Motion.
Sir H. DALZIELI do. I was carried away by the remarks of the hon. Baronet, who gave a bad lead and I followed it.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI can quite understand the feeling of hon. Members below the Gangway, and their reasons against the Government, which I do not wish to go into for one moment, but I trust that they will allow this measure to proceed, as it has the approval of the vast majority of Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe are not discussing the merits of the Bill. Hon. Members must confine themselves to the merits of the Adjournment.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI would urge hon. Members to withdraw the Motion for the Adjournment, in order that this Bill, which is a valuable one, may proceed.
§ Mr. BOOTHI acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. and learned Gentleman's appeal, but he does not understand the intensity of our feelings. I cannot discuss the merits of the Bill, but if it is to be pressed I shall oppose it at every stage and by every means in my power. The hon. Gentleman must not think that this has been planned or plotted. What has taken place is perfectly spontaneous. I never spoke to a single Member about it, and I candidly stated my own views, and other Members have done the same. The Government are right in accepting the Adjournment, otherwise there cannot be any procedure with regard to these minor Bills. The Government are understood to take up a very definite position. If a Bill is non-contentious they will take it though it is not a war measure. If it is a war measure, they will take it whether it is contentious or not, but they distinctly stated on an earlier Bill that they could not proceed with any Bill not affecting the War if it was contended against. This Bill does arouse the severest opposition which will be shown on every stage, and therefore I think the Government is right to accept the Motion to Adjourn.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI am surprised at the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate in saying that he is willing to withdraw this Bill. I thought from what he had already said that this is a Bill which was introduced to save a very large part of the area of Scotland—
§ Mr. MUNROMy hon. Friend has just referred to my withdrawing the Bill. I have done nothing of the sort. I merely accede to the Motion for Adjournment.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI think it is obvious what the acceptance of Adjournment on an occasion like this means. I would like to have some statement as to the right hon. Gentleman's future intentions with regard to the Bill. He told us that it was a Bill to save Scotland from great financial loss directly due to the War, and that it was in fact a war Bill. If the Government does not know its own mind about a Bill relating to such a small matter as grouse it is not conducive to confidence in it in regard to much more important measures which it submits to 1304 the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy made a very fair offer to the Government, and so did the hon. Member for Pontefact. They both said that if they are assured that this is a war Bill, they will withdraw their opposition, and my right hon. Friend said that if he were assured by the Coalition Government that.this was a Bill designed to prevent disease in the Scottish moors he would withdraw his opposition, and the Member for Pontefract said if he were assured it was a war Bill he would withdraw his opposition.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThe Member for Kirkcaldy also assured the Government that the opposition was not upon the merits of the Bill. I think it is regrettable that the Government should assent to the Adjournment and not go forward with the Bill.
§ Question, "That the Debate be now-adjourned," put, and agreed to.
§ Debate to be resumed To-morrow.