§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
§ Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that as he did not address their Lordships on the second reading of the Bill, they would perhaps permit him to say a few words before going into Committee—by doing so he hoped he might save the time of the House when in Committee. The Bill was one of considerable importance, and deserved attention both with respect to its principle and its details. Although, as their Lordships were aware, it referred immediately and solely to Scotland, it affirmed a principle of considerable importance, and one which, if accepted, was not unlikely to be extended to England. In this case a very important subject was dealt with by a Bill originated by a private Member of Parliament. There were occasions on which it was convenient that important subjects should be dealt with by private Members, because that course tended to withdraw them from the arena of Party politics, and such measures were more likely to receive their due consideration when there was an entire absence of Party feeling; and he thought that the Government had acted wisely in allowing this Bill to pass the House of Commons at the instance of a private Member (Mr. M'Lagan), who for many years had given great attention to the subject, and who had produced a Bill with which in general principle all were agreed. The great object of the Bill was to make the principle of the existing law of Scotland with reference to damage done by game more easily workable, and the law more easily adjudicated upon by the 1417 Courts. The principle of the Scotch law with regard to damage by game was that a tenant might claim for damage if he could prove that there was an excess of game upon the land during his tenancy over what was upon it when he took the lease; and the object of this Bill was fair and equitable—namely, to establish that principle, and to enable Courts of Law to adjudicate upon disputes between landlord and tenant in respect to damages caused by game upon their farms upon that principle. It was obvious that when a man took a farm, he formed a certain notion of the amount of game there was upon it; and when he agreed to give a certain rent for that farm, he offered that rent knowing that a certain equivalent of rent would be paid according to the amount of game upon the farm. It was clear that if' those conditions between landlord and tenant were seriously altered by any large quantity of game coming upon the farm subsequent to the date of the contract, the contract would not be an equitable one; and therefore the justice of the principle which gave to the tenant a claim for damages caused by such excess could not be disputed. But in the present condition of the law in Scotland, it was extremely difficult to carry into effect that principle, because there was no basis laid clown in the lease by which to compare the amount of damage at one time with the amount at another. The tenant might say—"When I took the lease the question of game never entered into my consideration. The thing was not in my mind when I entered into the contract, and I am entitled to the full amount of the damage done by the game." Under the Bill, in future no tenant would be able to say that, because at the time of granting and taking the lease, both landlord and tenant would be obliged to take into consideration the amount of damage estimated to be caused to the estate by the game, and a clause would be inserted in the lease which would form the basis on which increased damage, if any, could be assessed. Without some such basis it was impossible for either landlord or tenant to estimate the amount of the excess damage. The principle, therefore, of the Bill was simply to establish the basis, and make it legally applicable for the future; and both landlord and tenant would be entitled in future to make terms for the 1418 payment of the excess of damage on that basis. In respect of this part of the Bill there was no departure from the general law of Scotland—it simply placed the matter in such a form that the Courts could adjudicate whenever the question arose, and gave a basis on which to assess the compensation. He desired to say a word upon what was termed freedom of contract. It had been represented that this Bill interfered with what was termed freedom of contract. Nobody was more in earnest than he was in supporting freedom of contract in any matter, and he would not give his consent to any measure which in the least degree interfered with it. But there was an important distinction here. It was one thing to say to the landlord and tenant—"You are bound to so and so in regard to game," and quite another thing to say to them—"You must make your bargain in such a manner and in such a particular form, in order that the amount of compensation may be ascertained;"—it being strictly within the purview of the law to grant compensation for the excessive damage done by game, it was no abandonment of the principle of freedom of contract to prescribe that this contract should be in a specified form. There was, however, another point in the Bill which was more a matter of detail, and. in respect to which he had given Notice of an Amendment. He referred to the change in the presumption of law. At present the presumption of Scotch law was that the game belonged to the owner, unless there was a distinct contract that it should not. Now, the 4th clause of the Bill reversed that principle, and declared that in future the presumption of law should be that unless there was an express reservation it belonged to the tenant. Now, his objection to that proposition was that it was wholly unnecessary to the Bill, and that it appeared to give the tenant a right which, under the system of freedom of contract, had been invariably reserved to the owner; and it would raise in the minds of the tenants in Scotland a presumption that in future they would possess some rights which they had not now, but which their landlords had; and lie considered that it was very inexpedient to lay down any such principle in an Act of Parliament. But beside his objection on the point of principle, he objected to the manner in which the clause was drawn, 1419 inasmuch as it would render nugatory the substance of the contract; because where the lessor reserved to himself the winged game, and left the ground game to the tenant, the lessor did, in fact, retain to himself the sole right of killing game. Another objection as to which much might be said, was in regard to mountains and moors—where the whole side of a mountain was let in sheep farms; the presumption of law being in favour of the tenant, the effect would be that the landlord could not shoot his own grouse. In that way they would deal with a very large part of Scotland. He knew many large estates in Scotland where agricultural pasture land was comparatively small, and where the right of shooting was very large. He thought it only reasonable that where a man held a square mile of land he should still have the right of shooting over it. Again, there were many cases, as of lands owned by corporate bodies, where, although the lessors had no power of shooting, there was no intention of giving the right of shooting to the tenants; but this clause would transfer it to them. In his view there was a very great objection to that portion of the 4th clause which proposed to introduce a change in the Scotch law of presumption of ownership in this respect, and he proposed in the Committee to move an Amendment reserving to the landlord the presumption of ownership by common law. That was the only Amendment he proposed to move. The general scope and object of the Bill he considered very valuable, and in his opinion it was not inconsistent with the general law of Scotland.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEapproved the principle of the Bill, which he thought would prove a very valuable measure. At present the tenants in Scotland had so much difficulty in establishing a claim for compensation, that it amounted to a denial of justice. The difficulty, of course, in proving to what extent the damage done by game had increased during 15 or 16 years, when the damage done at the earlier period remained an unknown quantity. This difficulty the Bill would remedy. He did not agree in the observations of his noble Friend who had just addressed their Lordships as to the reversing of the presumption of law provided in the 4th clause. In England, by the common law—and he 1420 believed by statute law also—the game was the property of the tenant, and the landlord had no right to shoot on land let by him unless in the letting he reserved that right. What the Bill proposed in that respect was, therefore, to put the Scotch tenant in the same position with respect to game as the English one, and of keeping the presumption of law as at present in favour of the landlord. He did not see why the landlord should reserve the whole of the game or none at all: he thought that it should be allowed to the landlord to reserve either a part or the whole. In respect to the damage done being limited to 40s., he thought it might operate rather hardly on some tenants.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he should resist the proposed Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). He considered the apprehensions expressed by the noble Duke were unsubstantial bogies.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHwas of opinion that the Bill as it now stood would, if carried, take away a very valuable right from the landlord and give it to the tenant. The Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) was a most reasonable one. He did not think the tenantry of Scotland generally entertained any feeling on the subject.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYdeclared that in the heart of Scotland, from which he came, the feeling on this question of the presumption of law was very strong, and he should vote for the Bill as it stood.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONconsidered that it would not tend to create good feeling between landlord and tenant; to interfere would be presumption of law in favour of the landlord's ownership, and he therefore hoped the noble Earl who had charge of the measure (the Earl of Rosebery) would not resist the noble Duke's (the Duke of Argyll's) Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOpointed out that the word "game" was defined in the 4th definition of the 3rd clause to be "all the animals enumerated in the Game Acts, or any of them." The Schedule, however, only gave the titles of a number of Statutes—so that those who turned to the Schedule would be very little wiser than before as to what "all the animals" were. He thought a distinct enumeration of the animals that 1421 were to be considered "game" should be given in the Bill.
Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Interpretation clause).
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHtook exception to the definition of the word "crop" including "grass, whether intended for hay or pasture," pointing out that if it so defined the definition would include all the moorlands in Scotland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHagreed with the noble Earl; but, at all events, some words should be inserted by which it should be taken out of the category of permanent pasture. It might be restricted to enclosed land perhaps; but, at all events, it required explanation.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONpointed out that there were large quantities of land in Scotland under cultivation, with a rotation of crops, and. were not enclosed at all. He knew several farms in which there was not a single fence to be seen; and therefore his noble Friend who had charge of the Bill must be careful that there was no mistake made in this respect.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLrather understood from his noble Friend that it was not intended to include mountain or moorland, but there was a great deal of both enclosed in Scotland, and therefore it would not do to restrict it to enclosed land.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHintimated that he would consider the matter, and introduce seine Amendment on the Report.
§ LORD ABINGERsaid, he should like to know from the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill whether it was really intended to include the Highland moors, or whether land cultivated with grass and crops in rotation? As the words appeared in the clause in question they were liable to be interpreted in more than one sense, and it was desirable that upon such a subject as this they should be perfectly clear.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he did not suppose that any moor in Scotland was ever intended to bear crops, but that the provisions of the Bill would 1422 certainly apply to some portions of the borders of moors.
§ LORD ABINGERsaid, that as the clause stood it really did include moors, and therefore he hoped that some plain words would be put in to imply that it meant grass under cultivation.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that there should be words introduced into the clause defining it to be grass land for pasture in "open cultivated ground."
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he did not think that it would be advisable to use the words "upon open ground," because it might include the very land which it was wished to exclude.
§ LORD ABINGERwas, on the contrary, of opinion that the words "open cultivated ground" would answer very well.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHassented, and said that would give the noble Earl an opportunity of exercising his ingenuity.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 (Right of killing game, &c., to be in the lessor, unless reserved by the lessor.)
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved an Amendment, having for its object to reverse this proposition, and of retaining the presumption of law as at present in favour of the landlord.
Amendment moved,
To leave out all the words down to ("of"), inclusive, line 21, and insert ("Where under any lease made subsequently to the commencement of this Act, or where by presumption of common law upon any land occupied under a lease made subsequently to the commencement of this Act, the lessor shall reserve or retain,")—(The Duke of Argyll.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYwas desirous of stating the reasons why he thought the Amendment both inexpedient and unnecessary. In the first place, he did not see the dangers which the noble Duke had shadowed forth, because the noble Duke knew very well that in 99 cases out of 100 the right of killing game would be reserved by the lessor, and therefore the right which the clause conferred on the tenant would be merely nominal. Therefore, he thought the bogies raised by the noble Duke 1423 were as unsubstantial as could well be imagined. When they went further, and looked at the condition of things in England, they found in that country, where the presumption was that the tenant was the owner of the game, no particular evil resulted; and he could not see how in Scotland, where the tenant invariably obtained the security of a 19 years' lease, there could be reason to suppose that any inconvenience could arise from the change. Beyond that, there was some little advantage in having uniformity between England and Scotland in this respect; and, moreover, if the noble Duke's Amendment were carried, he did not think the measure would be at all successful in allaying that irritation and soreness which were felt by the tenant-farmers of Scotland on this subject. It must be recollected that the Scottish farmers were an intelligent and enlightened class—at the same time, they had a strong feeling on this question. What, then, would be their feeling when they saw a Bill come up from the House of Commons with a clause giving the tenant the presumptive ownership of the game, and which placed them on an equal footing with English tenant-farmers, if the House of Lords rejected that clause, and left them, so far from being placed on a footing of equality, in a position inferior to that of the English farmer? Did their Lordships think that a Bill which contained no such provision as this would be ever likely to satisfy the tenantry of Scotland? He assured them that this was a great grievance to the farmers in Scotland, and he should ask their Lordships to divide on the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that he was very sorry to find that his noble Friend opposite objected to the very reasonable Amendment of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll). He seemed to think nothing whatever of taking away a very valuable right from one body of men and giving it to another. Now, he (the Duke of Buccleuch) was inclined to think that such a proceeding was not in the least likely to promote good feeling between the two classes. He thought the Amendment of the noble Duke extremely fair, and one that would commend itself to their Lordships, because there was nothing whatever in it to prevent the tenant from going to a Court of Law for the purpose of obtaining 1424 compensation for any damages sustained by him from his landlord's game.
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYassured the House that in the district from which he came the tenants were very loud in their complaints that by the presumption of law the right to kill game was with the landlords, and they asked why they should not be placed in the same position as the farmers of England. He thought that by making this concession they would do away with much of the agitation which existed in Scotland. With reference to the lessor not having a right to shoot upon the land, he thought that many instances existed where owners of common pasture land had not the right to shoot over it; and he could give the noble Duke some strong instances where even lords of manors, or as they were called in Scotland "superiors," did not possess the right. He thought that could easily be remedied by inserting a rider to the clause, to show that where the landlord had not the right of shooting on his own land, some exception might be made, and that could be done on Report.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Huntly) had based his argument upon the statement that the feeling amongst the tenantry in his part of the country on this subject was very great; but he thought he could show his noble Friend that no such agitation existed in that part of Scotland with which he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) was acquainted. The noble Marquess must, therefore, forgive him for asking him to confine his remarks to that particular portion of the country with which he himself was acquainted. The noble Marquess also said that his friends complained that they were not placed upon a position of equality with their friends in England; but he would remind the noble Marquess that in England there was no such Bill at all, and therefore if the Scotch tenantry were legislated for, they would be placed in a better position than their friends in England. He entirely agreed with the Amendment, and he hoped their Lordships would pass it. In his opinion, the tenants would have nothing to be grateful for in respect of the provision against which the Amendment was directed; because the boon which it professed to give with one hand it immediately took 1425 away with the other, by giving power of reservation to the landlord. He thought it would be far better to leave the presumption of the law as it stood. There was no necessity for making any such alteration. Neither did he think it would have any effect upon the Bill. If it did he should be sorry to vote for it; because, as he said before, the Bill was an honest attempt to remedy an evil that at present existed. He hoped that the noble Earl would assent to the Amendment.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsupported the clause as it stood, on the ground that the presumption of law ought to be in favour of the tenant—it being but natural to suppose that where a landlord let his land he let it for all purposes whatever, and that if he did not, he would make a special reservation. The merit that the Bill presented in his eye was that it took away the principle of uncertainty which at present existed about the damage caused by the game, and reduced it to a matter of agreement between the landlord and tenant. Under this Bill the tenant would know exactly what he had to expect, and on what ground he could obtain damages for the compensation committed by game. It appeared to him to be very desirable both for the landlord and the tenant that the basis of the agreement should be distinctly stated in the contract.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was glad his noble Friend in charge of the Bill had admitted that it would make no great difference whether the presumption of ownership was in the landlord or in the tenant, because in Scotland it was the universal practice for landlords to reserve the game. Therefore, so far as the operative part of the Bill went, it would make no difference whatever. There might be something to be said for the presumption of ownership being in the tenants in respect of arable land, and that they should have the common law right to kill ground game on that description of land; but in regard to the great districts of the country where the mountains were let in sheep runs, it was only fair and proper that the presumption of law with respect to game should be that it belonged to the landlord. For his part, he should prefer the question of the presumption of the law not being dealt with at all by this Bill, but being 1426 left entirely to the landlords and tenants is a matter of contract.
§ EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that as a matter of expediency it would not be well for a House which was often described as a House of landlords to reverse a decision conic to by the other House of Parliament in favour of the Scotch tenant, which only extended to him a legal presumption long enjoyed by the English tenant.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that though the provision was not vital to the Bill, he had again to express a hope that the noble Duke would not press his Amendment, because if it were carried it would be calculated to excite a discontented feeling on the part of Scotch tenants. The question involved was one of principle, and therefore he felt bound to take a division upon it.
§ On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 34; Not-Contents 73: Majority 37.
1427| CONTENTS. | |
| Devonshire, D. | Aberdare, L. |
| Beaumont, L. | |
| Bristol M. | Boyle, L. (E. Cork & Orrery. ) |
| Ripon, M. | |
| Carysfort, L. (E.Carysfort. ) | |
| Airlie, E. [Teller.] | Coleridge, L. |
| Camperdown, E. | Dinevor, L. |
| Dartrey, E. | Dorchester, L. |
| Pucie, E. | Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.) |
| Fortescue, E. | |
| Granville, E. | Hammond, L. |
| Kimberley, E. | Keane, L. |
| Lovelace, E. | Lyttelton, L. |
| Minto, E. | Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.) |
| Morley, E. | |
| Mostyn, L. | |
| Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery. ) [Teller.] | |
| Cardwell, V. | |
| Halifax, V. | Selborne, L. |
| Leinster, V. (D. Leinster. ) | Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) |
| Powerscourt, V. | Truro, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor. ) | Belmore, E. |
| Bradford, E. | |
| Cadogan, E. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Cowper, E. |
| Richmond, D. | De La Warr, E. |
| Somerset, D. | Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) |
| Hertford, M. | |
| Northampton, M. | Haddington, E. |
| Harrowby, E. | |
| Amherst, E. | Jersey, E. |
| Beaconsfield, E. | Mansfield, E. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Mar and Kellie, E |
| Morton, E. | Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) |
| Nelson, E. | |
| Powis, E. | Elphinstone, L. |
| Redesdale, E. | Foley, L. |
| Selkirk, E. | Forbes, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) |
| Strange, E. (D. Athol.) | |
| Sydney, E. | Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.) |
| Wharncliffe, E. | |
| Wilton, E. | Hampton, L. |
| Harlech, L. | |
| Eversley, V. | Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.) |
| Hawarden, V. | |
| Sidmouth, V. | Heytesbury, L. |
| Templetown, V. | Lovat, L. |
| Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.) [Teller.] | |
| Abercromby, L. | |
| Abinger, L. | Sackville, L, |
| Balfour of Burleigh, L. | Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.) |
| Blantyre, L. | |
| Bolton, L., | Silchester, L. (E. Longford) |
| Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | |
| Sinclair, L. | |
| Castlemaine, L. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Chelmsford, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.) | Stratheden and Campbell, L. |
| Clonbrock, L. | Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.) |
| Cloncurry, L. | |
| Colchester, L. | Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) [Teller.] |
| Colville of Culross, L. | |
| Cottesloe, L. | Talbot de Malahide, L. |
| de Ros, L. | Winmarleigh, L. |
| Digby, L. |
§ Words struck out; then Amendment put, and agreed to; words inserted.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONinquired what was the meaning of the words in the clause "harboured on the lands of the lessor?" Was the phrase known to Scotch law?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYexplained that the words were put in for the purpose of providing a remedy for the case where the lessor who had reserved the game kept up a large head of game in the woods and coverts which came out and fed upon the crops of neighbouring farms which did not belong to him.
After some discussion and explanation—
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that after the discussion he really did not understand himself what interpretation to put upon the word. It seemed to him to have been put in for the purpose of enabling the landlord to protect himself, and he suggested whether the better way would not be in such a case that he should give the tenant leave to shoot the game.
§ LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he understood the word in the sense intended 1428 by the promoter of the Bill; but it was quite clear that educated and sensible men entertained quite a different opinion upon it.
After further conversation,
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would attempt to make the matter clear on the Report.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 (Lessee being of opinion that damage to his crops exceeds the sum mentioned in his lease, to intimate same to lessor) agreed to.
Clause 6 (Provision as to actions for damage between lessor and lessee).
LORD LOVATmoved, after line 16, to insert as sub-section 2—
No such action shall be competent in regard to damage done to turnips or other root crop between the thirtieth of November and the first of April in any year, or clone to crops of ally kind which with ordinary diligence might have been reaped, raised, or removed before the damage was done.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXpointed out that in the North some crops had to be of necessity left out in the fields till very late in the year.
§ LORD ABINGERsupported the Amendment. He thought that those who left crops out, which might with ordinary diligence have been got in. should not be paid compensation if damage was done to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLORalso thought that if crops were left out longer than was necessary the occupier should not be compensated for damage.
§ THE EARL OF DUNMOREthought the principle of the Amendment was a good one, but that it might operate very hardly upon the farmers of the North of Scotland, and there were portions of the Highlands where they could not get the crops in early.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause amended and agreed to.
Clause 7 (Provisions as to arbitration for settling claims of damage between lessors and lessees).
THE EARL OF SELKIRKmoved to transpose Clauses 6 and 7, page 3, by placing Clause 7, as amended, in place of Clause 6.
1429 Clause 6 (now 7.) to be amended by leaving out—
("When a lessor and lessee agree in writing to refer to arbitration any claim of damage arising under this Act") and inserting ("In all cases where there is a clause in a lease providing for the settlement of disputes by arbitration the case shall be at once referred to the arbiters, as pointed out in the lease; and where no such clause exists in the lease it shall be competent for a lessor or lessee to refer such claims for compensation to arbitration, in which case.")
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYopposed the Amendment as quite unnecessary, and contended that it would be better that all cases should be dealt with under the one uniform system of arbitration provided by the Bill.
On Question? resolved in the negative.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYmoved, at the end of the clause to add as new subsection—
5. Any notice under this section shall be in writing and may be served on the person to whom it is to be given either personally or by leaving it for him at his last known place of abode in Scotland, or by sending it through the post in a registered letter addressed to him there; and if so sent by post it shall be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter containing it would be delivered in ordinary course, and in order to prove service by letter it shall be sufficient to prove that the letter was properly addressed and posted and that it contained the notice to be served.Motion agreed to; sub-section added.Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to, with Amendments.
Clause 12 (Leases or agreements about game existing at passing of this Act not affected by it) agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHmoved, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause:—
Nothing in this Act shall prevent a landlord and tenant from entering into and carrying into effect any such agreement as they think fit, or shall interfere with the operation thereof.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLhoped that his noble Friend would not press his Amendment, as it was really not necessary for the purpose of securing the rights of landlords, and if agreed to it might make the Act useless.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOquite agreed that the integrity of freedom of contract ought not to be touched. He should, however, vote for the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that if the Amendment were carried the Bill would be useless, for it would cut away the very purpose of the Bill, which was to establish some fixed and known basis on which claims for compensation might be made.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that Nobody held more sacred freedom of contract than he did, but, as the noble Duke opposite had explained on going into Committee, this Bill really did not interfere with it. At present farmers were entitled to a certain amount for damage done to their crops by game, and this Bill only established a basis on which they could assess the damage. He joined the noble Duke opposite in urging his noble Friend not to press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that in deference to the opinion of his noble Friend he would withdraw the Amendment; but still he was not quite satisfied with the clause, nor did he think that under it freedom of contract would be safe.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Schedule I., which sets forth the titles of the various Acts relating to game in Scotland from the Act passed in the year 1587 "Aganis slayeris of deir and utheris wyld beastis," to the Act for the Prevention of Poaching, 25 & 26 Vict., c. 114.
§ THE EARL OF MINTOsuggested that the animals intended to be included in this Bill should be set forth in a Schedule.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwished for some explanation about the Schedule, which was merely a list of Acts of Parliament, some of which were obsolete.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYexplained that he was anxious that there should be a list of game in the Schedule, but it was extremely difficult to obtain a good definition other than in the Acts referred to; which had been retained, because there were some provisions under them they wished to continue.
THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the Acts in question would remain in force though not in the Schedule.
The Report of the Amendments to be received on Friday the 22nd instant; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 97.)