COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 31 August 1880 vol 256 cc781-812

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

THE EARL or REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)

said, he desired to say a few words now with regard to the Amendment he suggested yesterday, because, as Chairman of Committees, he could not speak on the clauses. He strongly objected to the 3rd clause, which was inconsistent with the professed object of the Bill. He had been charged with saying that the object of the Bill was to create discord and strife between landlord and tenant. Was it not true? The Government had brought in a Bill professedly for the advantage of the occupier, and yet they had prohibited him from entering into any agreement, however beneficial to himself, with his landlord in respect to ground game. That would be sure to cause conflict between them. It was utterly impossible to secure the good management of estates, unless there was a proper understanding between the owner and the occupier, and there could not be such understanding unless they could enter into amicable arrangements. The Bill as it stood would have the effect of training a lot of poachers all over the country, who would keep down ground game for the farmer at one time, and at another for themselves. If an occupier entered into an arrangement which was not advantageous to himself, he might be allowed to determine it in six months. A most extraordinary suggestion was made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), that landlord and tenant might act harmoniously by private understanding; but these private agreements were not to be binding under the Act, and a tenant might therefore turn round and repudiate any bargain he had made. In that case they would be perfectly useless, as they could not be enforced, by law. The consequence, on the other hand, would be that where such an agreement was entered into but not observed by the landlord, the tenant would be placed in a disadvantageous position. What harm could there be in saying that if the offer of an owner was advantageous to the occupier, he should be allowed to accept it? His Amendment was quite in accordance with the principle, and he proposed to move it when he came to the clause in Committee.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

said, he had not been able to be present at the debate on the second reading of the Bill on Monday, because there were no trains on Sunday in the part of Scotland where he lived. He had hoped that his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) would have moved his Resolution, not upon the second reading, but on going into Committee, for he (the Earl of Galloway) was not prepared to oppose the second reading. He was in hopes that the Bill would not have gone further this Session; and he had therefore put on the Paper a Resolution declaring— That, although in the opinion of this House occupiers of agricultural holdings are fully entitled to look to Parliament for securing to them compensation under law for destruction occasioned to their crops by ground game, the provisions of this Bill are founded upon a principle of too novel and arbitrary a character to admit of its further consideration at this period of the Session. He was, however, told he ought not to move it. He understood the second reading of the Bill to amount to a declaration that some legislation was required on the game question, an assertion he did not care to dispute. He should not, therefore, have thought it necessary to trouble their Lordships if the operation of the Bill had not been extended to Scotland, a course of proceeding to which he took great exception. He was very much surprised when he read that morning in the papers that the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) had said in the previous night's debate, that Mr. M'Lagan's Act had not given satisfaction in Scotland. That Act passed in 1877, and, if his memory served him right, the noble Duke was himself the only opponent of it. The only exception the noble Duke took to it was, that it was rather too restrictive an Act with respect to the interests of the landlords. He (the Earl of Galloway) therefore must repeat that he read with great surprise the remarks of the noble Duke last night. With all respect to the noble Duke, he must demur to the accuracy of what he stated when he said that Mr. M'Lagan's Act had not proved acceptable in Scotland. He believed, if the truth were known, there was not 1 per cent of the tenants in Scotland who had come under the operation of that Act, and he did not believe that there was A- per cent who were actually aware of the existence of the Act, or at any rate of its provisions. The reason was that the Act had only been in force two years, and it was limited in its operation to new leases, as was this Bill. He had intended moving his Amendment on the supposition that their Lordships might have been disposed to postpone legislation for a year. He was certainly prepared to argue the subject, and he thought it might possibly have found favour with their Lordships, who might possibly have been satisfied with having passed the second reading of the Bill, and not have attempted to go further this year. He was perfectly satisfied that this Bill would not give the satisfaction that was expected by Her Majesty's Government, and the reason why he thought so was, because he had, owing to exceptional circumstances, had practical experience of the way it would work. It so happened that on the estate to which he succeeded seven or eight years ago, full permission had been given 25 years since to kill hares and rabbits in any way except by guns. What had been the result? Hares were practically extinct; but there was a cry for the aid of the landlord to keep down the rabbits. Consequently, five or six years ago he withdrew this permission, which was simply a permission during the pleasure of the landlord. It certainly proved an unfortunate time that he chose for this, because immediately afterwards they had two very bad harvests, and there was a general depression in agriculture. Nevertheless, he did not believe that there was one case of complaint with any justice in it. He could only bear in mind two complaints over a very large district of country, one of them having reference not to rabbits, but to sheep. To the other complaint he would specially draw attention. Happening to go out on a farm, he found a great many rabbits on the ground, and he therefore gave strict orders that these should be put down. Within a fortnight he received a complaint against his having employed a man to do this, because the tenant wanted the rabbits himself. He did not propose to move his Amendment, because the noble Earl (the Chairman of Committees) last night took the wind out of his sails. He would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment; but he hoped their Lordships would consider the propriety of taking Scotland out of the Bill, because it seemed to have been forgotten that they passed an Act for Scotland only two years ago. What could be the object of bringing in and passing, in this hasty manner, another Act before they had given the first a fair trial? He hoped it was not now too late to announce that he would, before the Committee finished, move a clause that the Act should not extend to Scotland. ["Oh, oh!"] What would be the re- sult of extending the Act to Scotland? He signed half-a-dozen leases at Whitsuntide last. This Bill would not come into operation on these farms until the next century. He was speaking not figuratively, but literally, for the leases were for 19 years. They would consequently have in Scotland one man under the operation of the Act, and another next him not. The farmers would only come under the operation of the Act as their leases fell in. That would create ill-feeling, not only between landlord and tenant, but between tenant and tenant.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

said, that in the able debate last night every Peer, from the noble Earl who opened (the Earl of Kimberley) to the noble Earl who concluded the debate (the Earl of Shaftesbury), excused that part of the Bill which annulled freedom of contract. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies excused it as meeting a grievance. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) excused it because, being sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government and the other House, a grievance had been created. The latter he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) accepted as the fact; but he protested against the statement of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) that public policy demanded that, as soon as a grievance was alleged, public principle should yield to the convenience of the House. To remedy the fancied grievance of a worthy but wealthy class, this Bill handed over to them a portion of the property of another class, without giving any compensation for property so taken. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) showed clearly that there was no precedent for this in the Truck Act, neither could it be said there was any precedent for it in the Irish Land Act. The plea put in for both those Bills was to protect the poor against the rich. That plea was not available in this case. The tenants were not paupers; they were able to protect themselves. The Bill had further been defended on the grounds of public policy. What that might mean he hardly knew, except it was an expression equivalent in meaning to Party expediency, and the hope of getting the votes of the farmers. The measure created the worst possible precedent—that a Government alleging a grievance might force any measure through Parliament which was likely to sow dissension among their opponents and gain support for themselves. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) twitted the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill (the Earl of Redesdale) with having made the same accusation against the late Government with regard to the repeal of the Law of Hypothec. He believed both accusations to be true. "Two blacks did not make a white;" and it was a very unfortunate fact that competition for place and power was so prominent an element in the government of this country. How would this Bill work in Ireland? A friend of his received from £300 to £500 a-year from rabbits. They were fed on grass lands farmed by himself. He believed that they were a paying crop. His farms were surrounded with small tenants; each of these would now have one or two guns. With the small holdings in that country, it would be impossible to preserve any game at all if every tenant farmer were to have a gun and go about with it. As a consequence, the income derived from the rabbits would, by this Bill, be confiscated. But would this Bill have no effect on the peace of the country? It was a direct encouragement to the 600,000 small holders of Ireland to buy at least 600,000 guns. Was the prospect of 600,000 armed men not very serious in the present state of Ireland? The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant looked with alarm to the importation of arms; he regretted that the number of agrarian outrages had doubled; but he did not blame the people. Nor more did he (Lord Oranmore and Browne). The blame lay with the Executive, which announced its intention only to carry out the law when, from its point of view, it was founded on justice. That was, indeed, an imperium in imperio, the Executive supreme above the Legislature and Judges of the country. There was yet another point from which to regard this Bill. The food supply of the country would also be seriously affected, especially in England. The winged game were the luxury of the rich; ground game the luxury of the artizan. Under freedom of contract millions of rabbits were sent to the manufacturing districts. To ease the comparatively rich farmer they would deprive the struggling artizan of his pet morsel —one that afforded a pleasant and whole- some change in diet. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley), a few days back, thought much of this class when he proposed a measure with the avowed design to set the workman against his employer; but now it was his desire to set farmer against landlord—he had forgotten his former friend. He hoped the artizan class would not forget that it was a Radical Government who spoilt their dinner. He regretted their Lordships allowed expediency to prevail over principle.

Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.

Clause 1 (Occupier of land to have concurrent right to kill ground game with any other person entitled to kill the same on land in his occupation).

LORD LOVAT

moved an Amendment in the clause, providing that the Bill should not extend to farms under 100 acres in extent, or under £ 100 of yearly rent. In England, where the farms were generally large, it was easy to see how this Bill could be carried out; but in Scotland, where very many of them were small, it would be difficult to carry it out. He had nearly 700 tenants, and if he were to have 1,400 guns on the property, and 700 traps going, there would be a destruction of all winged game as well as ground game. He was not absolutely wedded to the limit he proposed, and would be ready to listen to any other reasonable one.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it would be quite impossible for him to accept the Amendment. He could assure the noble Lord that in a great many parts of the country there were occupiers of land who did not pay £100 a-year for their land, whom it was desired to benefit, and the Bill, if amended as the noble Lord wished, would be entirely useless in such cases.

LORD ORANMORE and BROWNE

asked if the noble Earl would agree to a smaller amount?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

objected to any limitation whatever.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved an Amendment providing that only one other person besides the occupier should have power to kill game. The Amendment was one to which he attached the greatest importance, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept it, and that their Lordships would agree to it. The right of killing game in this country was a privilege, and for the exercise of that privilege sums of money were frequently paid. But that privilege, in his opinion, and, he thought, in the opinion of most of their Lordships, must be vested in one person. If any number of people on any given farm were to be allowed to kill game and exercise that privilege, the value would be very seriously deteriorated. In the Preamble of the Bill it was stated that the measure was brought in to enable occupiers to protect their crops; and their Lordships, he thought, would agree with him that on almost every holding or farm in this country, if not on every farm, the power to kill ground game by one or two persons—the occupier and the person he authorized—was perfectly sufficient for the purpose which the Preamble stated as the object of the Bill. He hoped their Lordships would give favourable consideration to the Amendment. He looked with very serious apprehension to the consequences that would ensue upon the passing of the Bill. He recognized to the full the reasons expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (the Earl of Beaconsfield) against opposing the second reading; but, at the same time, he did think that in Committee they might introduce very important limitations, with the view of mitigating the severity of its operation. Speaking in reference to Scotland, there was grave and serious apprehension that the passing of the Bill would abolish or do serious damage to the system of agricultural leases which at present was maintained in that country. He would not comment upon the great value which that system of leases was to an agricultural country. But if, for two-thirds of a generation, the landlords were to part with the control of their land, and any people were allowed to shoot over it at any time they chose, then he ventured to say many landlords, and himself amongst the number, would very seriously consider whether it was not possible to get the land farmed on somewhat less onerous terms than those. The Bill would have the effect of preventing many landlords in their own interests from making long leases; and so far as he was concerned— and he had considered the matter well— he should be prepared to sacrifice a large part of his income rather than that this Bill should operate on his land, it being let for 19 or 20 years' leases. Then it was said that the object of the Bill was to do away with bad feeling between the landlord and tenant. Now, if there were a dozen or more people having the right to go over the land and to kill game, how could the Bill do away with bad feeling? That was an utterly delusive hope. It was utterly impossible to imagine a scheme more calculated to create bad feeling between the landlord and tenant than was contained in the Bill. His proposal was, that the right to kill should be confined to one other person only besides the occupier; and that, he believed, would mitigate the severity of the action of the Bill, and there would be some chance of some good feeling being maintained between landlord and tenant. He thought their Lordships would bear him out, when quoted the words of one of the largest farmers in the Eastern counties of Scotland, who had said that in almost every holding in the country where ground game existed two people were sufficient to keep down the hares and rabbits. He was afraid that the Bill would have a pernicious effect upon the tenants' families, if they had the power to kill game whenever they chose. No doubt, the result would be that the young men would neglect their work, and would be very apt to get into idle habits; while there would be serious danger of the regular work of the farm being neglected. The young men with sporting proclivities would be going about the farm killing hares and rabbits when they ought to be engaged in other work. He felt very strongly upon the point, and he hoped that the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment, because he thought it would have the effect of, in some measure, reconciling many who were bitterly opposed to the Bill in its present form. He concluded by moving the Amendment.

Moved, in page 1, line 17, to leave out ("persons") and insert ("one other person.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was very sorry he could not accept the Amendment. In the first place, their Lordships would observe that by it only one other person was to be authorized to kill game as well as the occupier. But it might be that the occupier was a woman, an old man, or a sick person, and in such a case it would be reduced to one person. The consequence would be that there would be only one person to keep down the game, and it was perfectly certain that it was quite impossible for one person to ferret rabbits. ["Oh!"] Well, he thought two, no doubt, would find it easier to ferret than one. He believed, further, that two guns would not adequately destroy the ground game; and that, if two persons only were allowed to shoot, there would be a professional expert on every farm who would probably be a poacher—a practice which all landlords wished to discourage. He traversed the assertion that the Bill would not lead to a good understanding between the tenant and the owner, and deprecated the treatment of the subject in such a petty and jealous spirit. Why should they show such an extraordinary distrust of the tenants? He could not conceive that noble Lords in that House should place their tenants in such a position as this Amendment would place them, and that they should watch with the utmost jealousy every clause under which farmers might possibly enjoy some amusement, under the Bill. The intention of such an Amendment was to restrict the tenant; but were they to suppose that it was the wish of the farmers to kill every head of ground game on the estate, and, in fact, to become regular poachers? ["No, no!"] Why, did not the noble Lord say that the effect would be to induce the young men with sporting proclivities to neglect their work and devote themselves to the killing of game? ["Hear, hear!"] That was exactly what he said—namely, that they were afraid that some of the tenants would enjoy sport and amusement in such a way as to make them fall into idle habits. For his own part, he saw no reason for limiting the operation of the Bill in the ungenerous manner proposed. No such Amendment was proposed in the other House, and he hoped their Lordships would reject it.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) in opposing the Amendment. He differed with his noble Friend the Mover of the Amendment as to the wisdom of limiting the Bill in the manner proposed. If the object of the occupier was to keep down ground game, it could surely be accomplished more effectually by the employment of several persons. He quite agreed that they could ferret rabbits with one man; but they could do it very much better with more than one. He differed from his noble Friend (Lord Balfour of Burleigh), when he said that the good feeling between the owner and the occupier would be greatly impaired by the operation of the clause under discussion unless some alteration should be made on it. He did not believe that such a feeling existed in the country. And he did not think that anything that was contained in the Bill would produce any bad feeling between the landlord and occupier. And when the noble Lord said the clause would have the effect of injuring the system of leases in Scotland, he entirely differed from him. He hoped his noble Friend would not insist upon the Amendment; but that he would allow the employment of other persons by the tenant, whom he could trust not to injure the interests of the owner. In the great majority of cases farmers could be perfectly well trusted not to injure the interests of their landlords.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

supported the Amendment.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

deprecated any such restriction as that proposed by the Amendment, and he could not believe that the liberty granted to the family of the tenant would produce any of the evils complained of by his noble Friend. He had lived much in Scotland, and he knew one landowner there who gave all his shooting to his tenantry, and no undesirable consequences had ensued from it.

THE MARQUESS OF BRISTOL

suggested that the number should be increased to two or three besides the occupier.

THE EARL of DERBY

said, it would be very inconvenient and difficult in practice to draw a hard-and-fast line which should apply all round. One or two persons might be sufficient to keep down ground game on small farms, but they would not be sufficient on large farms. In practice, if there were no objections to the proposed Amendment on small holdings of from 50 to 100 acres, it would be difficult to enforce the restriction in the case of holdings of from 500 to 1,000 acres.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

considered the Bill a very mistaken and objectionable one, and declared that its promoters assumed that the country was overrun and swamped with ground game; that nothing could grow in consequence; that hares and rabbits predominated over all other animals in the world; and that the whole object of the life of the proprietors was to keep up a very large quantity of ground game. There could be no greater mistake. For his own part, he regretted very much the introduction of this Bill; not on account of the hares and rabbits—for they were, after all, of comparatively small importance—but on account of the distrust which be was afraid would be engendered between owners and occupiers in many instances. It was a popularity-hunting Bill, a tenant farmer toadying Bill, a dishonest Bill, which, for the sake of winning a little popularity from the tenant farmers, removed a grievance from the shoulders of one class in order to place it on the shoulders of another class. It was not a question between hares and rabbits and the farmers, but it was a a question of the good feeling and kindly interest which had hitherto been felt by the owners and occupiers of the land in this country. He had never experienced any difficulty upon the subject; but he would venture the opinion that the occupiers themselves would not be equal to keeping down the ground game upon their respective farms. After Mr. M'Lagan's Act, which had satisfied Scotland, they did not require the present Bill.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, that, after the expression of opinion which he had heard, he would withdraw his Amendment. But he wished to protest against the imputation of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) that he grudged any sporting right or amusement to a tenant they might acquire under the Bill. He was rather surprised to find such motives imputed to him, after the lecture they had on the previous evening from a noble Duke on the Front Bench opposite on this subject. Such a feeling was entirely foreign to his mind.

After a few remarks from the Earl of STRADBROKE,

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD AVELAND

moved, at the end of the clause, to insert a new subsection— The occupier himself, or (in lieu of the occupier) one other person authorized in writing by such occupier, being his son or bona fide bailiff or foreman, shall be the only person on the part of the occupier entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms. He believed the Amendment would not make the Bill less useful to the farmer, and it would certainly make it more acceptable to the landlord. If the Bill were passed in its present shape, it would not only destroy the ground game, but most of the other game as well. Unless some such Amendment were made, he thought it would be difficult for landed proprietors to let shooting. He had been a sportsman all his life; but he must say that, while he was willing to give up the ground game, the Bill, as it stood, was destructive of the landlord's rights of sporting.

Moved, in line 17, after ("writing,") insert as new sub-section— (a.) The occupier himself, or (in lieu of the occupier) one other person authorized in writing by such occupier, being his son or bona fide bailiff or foreman, shall be the only person on the part of the occupier entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms."—(The Lord Aveland.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLET

said, that was an Amendment which stood on a very different footing from the one he opposed before. Its form was, however, very objectionable, because a farmer might have neither son, bailiff, nor foreman. He did not say it would be acceptable to him in any form. But, admitting for a moment that it would be right to limit the use of the gun, the limitation to one other person besides the occupier would not be open to the objection that this was. He objected, however, to the imposition of these jealous restrictions, as they would lead the farmer to use the other means at his disposal in a way that would utterly destroy the game. A farmer, if he were not limited in this way, would have no desire to destroy his landlord's sport as well as his own.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, the object of the Bill was to prevent injury to the crops by ground game. To secure that object, a gun was not necessary; but he would deprecate any refusal to allow a farmer the use of the gun. A limitation of the privilege was, however, necessary. He admitted there was an objection to the form of the words of this Amendment. But the object of its Mover would be attained, and the objection of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) would be got rid of, by striking out the words "being his son or bona fide bailiff or foreman."

Amendment amended, by striking out the words "being his son or bona fide bailiff or foreman."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the limitation to the occupier or one other person would work extremely harshly in many cases. By keeping the word "or" in, they would make the clause much more stringent than was designed.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

said, he would remind the noble Lord that Mr. Gayford, the tenant of a farm of 500 acres, whose letter had been quoted in the House, stated his firm conviction that one person was sufficient to destroy the ground game. He maintained that the proposed limitation was a most reasonable one.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

thought they should substitute "the occupier and one other person" for "the occupier or other person."

EARL SPENCER

observed, that if he thought the tenant farmers of England would use the Act for the purpose of providing shooting parties for their friends, he would support the principle of the Amendment. He trusted, however, to the good feeling which had always prevailed between landlord and tenant to prevent any such abuse of the provisions of the Bill. They ought to trust more to the farmers. If they were making the concession, they should do it graciously. He would prefer to see the clause carried as was proposed by the Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

asked, if they really meant to prevent a farmer who was temporarily disabled from using a gun from employing a deputy?

On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 108; Not-Contents 58: Majority 50.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Bateman, L.
Leeds, D.	Beaumont, L.
Norfolk, D.	Borthwick, L.
Northumberland, D	Braybrooke, L.
Richmond, D.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Wellington, D.	Carleton, L. (E. Shannon.)
Abergavenny, M.
Bristol, M.	Chelmsford, L.
Bute, M.	Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)
Winchester, M.	Colville of Culross, L.
	Congleton, L.
Amherst, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L. [Teller.]
Bathurst, E.
Beaconsfield, E.	Dunsany, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Bradford, E.	Fitzhardinge, L.
Cadogan, E.	Forester, L.
Clarendon, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Clonmell, E.	Gerard, L.
Dartrey, E.	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buecleuch and Queensberry.)	Grey do Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Eldon, E.	Gwydir, L.
Ferrers, E.	Harris, L.
Feversham, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Gainsborough, E.
Hardwicke, E.	Hawke, L.
Harewood, E.	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Howe, E.	Hylton, L.
Ilchester, E.	Lamington, L.
Lucan, E.	Leconfield, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Lilford, L.
Manvers, E.	Londesborough, L.
Mount Cashell, E.	Lovat, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Onslow, E.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Lyveden, L.
Redesdale, E.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Sandwich, E.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Shaftesbury, E.
Stanhope, E.	Raglan, L.
Stradbroke, E.	Rowton, L.
Tankerville, E.	Saltoun, L.
Verulam, E.	Scarsdale, L.
Wharncliffe, E.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Bolingbroke and St. John, V.	Strathnairn, L.
Combermere, V.	Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)
Cranbrook, V.
Hardinge, V.	Templemore, L.
Hawarden, V.	Teynham, L.
Hill, V.	Tollemache, L.
Hood, V.	Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)
Melville, V.	Vivian, L.
Alington, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)
Auckland, L.	Windsor, L.
Aveland, L. [Teller.]	Wynford, L.
Bagot, L.	Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L

NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Clermont, L.
	Coleridge, L.
	Dormer, L.
Grafton, D.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Saint Albans, D.
Somerset, D.	Emly, L.
Westminster, D.	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Camperdown, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Chichester, E.
Derby, E.	Lawrence, L.
Devon, E.	Leigh, L.
Granville, E.	Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.	Lyttelton, L.
Northbrook, E.	Methuen, L.
Spencer, E.	Moncreiff, L.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
	Mount Temple, L.
Sydney, E.	O'Hagan, L.
	Sandhurst, L.
Sherbrooke, V.	Saye and Sele, L.
	Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Aberdale, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Belper, L.
Blachford, L.	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Brabourne, L
Braye, L.	Sudeley, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Byron, L.	Vernon, L.
Calthorpe, L.	Waveney, L.
Carew, L.	Wolverton, L.
Carlingford, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Carrington, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved, in line 23, after sub-section (a.), to insert as a new sub-section— No person who has been twice convicted of offences against the Game Laws after due process before the Court competent to take cognizance of such offences, shall be eligible to receive or hold authority for the killing or taking of ground game under the provisions of this section, except with the concurrence of such other person or persons as may have, along with the occupier, concurrent authority to kill and take ground game. He thought their Lordships would agree that the object which the Amendment sought to attain was one they should fairly agree to pursue. It would be some security that an undue advantage would not be taken of the power of employing an agent. To employ a person who had been twice convicted of offences against the Game Laws in order to keep down ground game would only be to subject him to temptation again. If a man had been twice convicted for offences under the Game Laws, he should not be employed again under this Act; but if, after a lapse of years, he had regained his good character, it was possible for him to be so employed with the concurrence of those who had a right to kill game.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the carrying of the Amendment would produce a great amount of inconvenience, inasmuch as it would involve an inquisition into the character of every man proposed to be employed. ["Hear, near !"] Well, noble Lords could hardly think that an agreeable occupation. He should oppose the Amendment, as he could not see any necessity for its insertion. Such an inquiry would be very undesirable, for it would be a needless and gratuitous offence to the neighbouring population to stigmatize men who had become steady because, in their younger days, they were convicted of poaching. He objected to any such inquiries; besides, he thought it might be safely left to the farmers to decide whom they should employ'. They were not likely to employ men of bad character.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

supported the objection. It was not likely, when an occupier wished to destroy ground game, that he would seek the services of persons who had been twice convicted of poaching. It would be better to trust to the good sense of the occupiers of the soil, and not impose any restriction.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, perhaps the noble Earl on the Treasury Bench (the Earl of Kimberley) would give a right of veto to the landlord upon the persons to be employed. Perhaps no harm would arise from the clause as it stood in 99 cases out of 100; but the hundredth might be the cause of an immense deal of difficulty and annoyance.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

remarked, that if the power would have to be so seldom exercised, it was scarcely worth while subjecting all the persons employed to the inquisition the Amendment would involve. It was to be observed, however, that the Amendment, while it would exclude the twice-convicted poacher, would allow the twice-convicted felon to be employed in the work referred to. He could not accept any modification.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

concurred with the view of the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley). The noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) had confined himself to convictions for poaching. It might be that a man who had been convicted twice for felony would be worse than a man convicted twice for poaching. He thought it would be hard that men who might have been poachers, and had become respectable, should not be allowed at any time to kill ground game.

THE EARL OF CHICHESTER

also opposed the Amendment, and pointed out that the Church Estates Commissioners let their lands—many thousands of acres—to tenants with the fell right of of sporting, and that a better class of tenants or better husbandry could not be be had or seen, and he contended that tenant farmers should be trusted to do what they thought proper.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, he could not understand the object of the Amendment, and pointed out the inconsistency of the language in which it was expressed. He did not see why a certificate of character should be given in the case of a man catching rabbits any more than in that of a man picking turnips.

THE EARL OF PEMBROKE,

in supporting the Amendment, said, there were only two classes of persons who could be employed to do the work. They were either professional keepers or professional poachers; the former being difficult to get and expensive they would have to employ the poachers. This kind of work could be done only by experts; and if their Lordships wanted to test the truth of that statement, he would advise them to send out their butlers and gardeners to snare hares and rabbits, and then see what came of the experiment, and how unfit they were for the occupation.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, curiously enough the landlord was authorized under the Bill to employ poachers, if he liked to do so.

Amendment negatived.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved, as an Amendment, in line 30, after the word ("person") to insert ("but shall remain subject to the same proceedings and penalties as if this Act had not passed.") The object of the Amendment was to make the provision clearer as to the infliction of penalties on unauthorized persons.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, the words were entirely unnecessary. If a person who was not authorized to represent the occupier was found destroying ground game, he would be a person killing without legal authority, and would be subject to a penalty.

Amendment negatived.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 5, to leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve.") The noble Lord said, he wished to point out that, as the clause stood, no one was deemed an occupier by reason of his occupation not being more than nine months. He moved to substitute 12 months, as he had been advised by counsel that, under the Land Act, lettings for grazings could not be made for less than a year, without creating a permanent tenancy, and for that reason he had himself made the alteration in his own lettings for such purposes. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) was not then prepared to accept the Amendment, perhaps he would consider the question before Report.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that, except in the case of long leases, the adoption of the Amendment would destroy the Bill, and it would be impossible to accept it.

LORD EMLY

did not think the objection of his noble Friend would apply to lettings for 11 months. A great many lettings in his (Lord Emly's) part of the country were for 11 months, and it would be quite in accordance with the spirit of the Bill to insert that period in the clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

must decline to accept the suggestion of his noble Friend (Lord Emly). By making a letting for nine months, they marked distinctly that it was a temporary letting.

LORD DUNSANY

said, they were dealing with occupiers who had no crops, and could have none; and, therefore, he saw no reason why they should come under the Bill, any more than the Dublin butchers who had a right of grazing, but not of cropping land. Why give these men with simply a grazing right the right of shooting? He would suggest that the word "exclusively" might be introduced, showing that occupiers who were simply graziers should not have the right of shooting.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would inquire into the matter and determine upon it on the Report. In England they considered grass a crop, and he could assure the noble Lord (Lord Dunsany) that grass was a crop which was often very seriously injured.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

The EARL OF ILCHESTER

moved, as a new sub-section— The occupier and the person authorized by him shall exercise the right of killing ground game conferred by this section, only from the 1st day of August until the last day of March, in each year, both inclusive. The Amendment had in view, he observed, the preservation of winged game, and not of ground game. Their Lordships, no doubt, would be satisfied that in a year or two's time, under the operation of the Bill, ground game would cease to exist. It was the winged game, therefore, that he was most interested in, and unless a precautionary measure for its preservation were now taken it would soon be too late. The pursuit of ground game would not cease as it became scarce. On the contrary, it would become more active, and the nesting of the birds would be disturbed by dogs rambling over the lands. For himself, he could not see why partridges should not be as well cared for as grouse. Grouse had already been protected, and the same protection ought to be extended to partridges, which afforded sport to a much greater number of persons. There was no real provision against trapping. It was provided that traps were not to be set; but if they were set, what redress would there be? It appeared from the Preamble of the Bill that the Bill proposed to prevent injury to crops from ground game; but he thought it transferred the right of shooting from the landlords to the tenants. If it was only intended to keep down the ground game, eight months would be a sufficient period for the purpose. He did not wish to take sport away from the tenant; but it would be no hardship to forego the exercise of his rights when hares and rabbits could scarcely be eaten.

Moved, in page 2, line 5, after subsection (2.), to insert the following subsection:— (3). The occupier and the persona authorised by him shall exercise the right of killing ground game conferred by this section only from the first day of August until the last day of March in each year, both inclusive."—(The Earl of Ilchester.)

LORD LILFORD

cordially agreed with all that had been said by the last speaker. A close time was necessary in the interest not only of winged game, but also of foxes, whose natural food would be destroyed if hares and rabbits were exterminated.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the Amendment had appeared in a new form, and had been supported by new arguments. Other proposals for the enactment of a close time had been made on the ground that hares would otherwise totally disappear; but now his noble Friend (the Earl of Ilchester) had pleaded for a close time for the benefit of the winged game. That amounted, of course, to a close time for hares and rabbits, and he believed that now for the first time rabbits had ceased to be spoken of as hostes humani generis. He could quite understand a close time for hares being proposed, but not one for rabbits. He could not attach much importance to the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Lilford) that for want of a close time the foxes would lose their natural food. The close time which the noble Earl proposed would be, to all intents and purposes, a close time for restricting all persons authorized by the Bill to kill game in the exercise of that right; and he did not see why they should restrict the farmers especially, who were of all persons those most injured by the ravages of game. There was no time, moreover, when a larger number of rabbits were killed than during the harvest. He could not accept the Amendment, and did not think such restrictions in any way necessary, as he was convinced the tenant farmers would not use the power which the Bill would confer on them in any way to molest the game. Furthermore, the restrictions did not apply in the case of landlords, they being allowed to kill hares and rabbits at all times. For those reasons, he must object to the Amendment.

THE EARL OF BRADFORD

suggested that the Amendment should be modified by confining it to hares.

On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 94; Not-Contents 59: Majority 35.

CONTENTS.
Beaufort, D.	Braybrooke, L.
Leeds, D.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
Norfolk, D.
Northumberland, D.	Byron, L.
Wellington, D.	Calthorpe, L.
	Carleton, L. (E. Shannon.)
Abergavenny, M.
Bristol, M.	Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)
Bute, M.	Colville of Culross, L.
Exeter, M.	Congleton, L.
Winchester, M.	De L'lsle and Dudley, L.
Bathurst, E.	Dormer, L.
Beaconsfield, E.	Dunsany, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Ellenborough, L.
Clarendon, E.	Fitzhardinge, L.
Clonmell, E.	Forester, L.
Dartrey, E.	Gage, L. (F. Gage.)
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)	Gerard, L.
	Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)
Eldon, E.	Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)
Ferrers, E.
Feversham, E.	Gwydir, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Harris, L.
Hardwicke, E.	Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)
Harewood, E.
Howe, E.	Hawke, L.
Ilchester, E. [Teller.]	Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)
Lucan, E.	Lamington, L.
Macclesfield, E.	Leconfield, L.
Manvers, E.	Lilford, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Londesborough, L.
Stanhope, E.	Lovat, L.
Stradbroke, E.	Lyveden, L.
Suffolk and Berkshire, E.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Tankerville, E.	Oxenfoord,L.(E.Stair.)
Verulam, E.	Raglan, L.
	Rowton, L.
Bolingbroke and St. John, V.	Saltoun, L.
	Scarsdale, L.
Combermere, V.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Cranbrook, V.	Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)
Hardinge, V.
Hawarden, V.	Strathnairn, L.
Hill, V.	Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)
Hood, V.
Melville, V.	Templemore, L.
Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)	Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)
Auckland, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Aveland, L. [Teller.]
Bagot, L.	Windsor, L.
Bateman, L.	Wynford, L.
Beaumont, L.	Zouche of Haryng worth, L.
Borthwick, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Grafton, D.
	Richmond, D.

Saint Albans, D.	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)
Somerset, D.
Westminster, D.	Emly, L.
	Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)
Bradford, E.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Cadogan, E.	Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)
Camperdown, E.
Chichester, E.	Lawrence, L.
Derby, E.	Leigh, L.
Granville, E.	Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)
Kimberley, E.
Morley, E.	Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)
Northbrook, E.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E.	Lyttelton, L.
	Moncreiff, L.
Shaftesbury, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Spencer, E.	Mount Temple, L.
Sydney, E.	O' Hagan, L.
	Sandhurst, L.
Sherbrooke, V.	Saye and Sele, L.
	Skene, L. (E. Fife.)
Aberdare, L.	Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)
Belper, L.
Blachford, L.	Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)
Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]	Sudeley, L.
Brabourne, L.	Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)
Braye, L.
Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)	Tollemache, L.
	Vernon, L.
Carew, L.	Vivian, L.
Carlingford, L.	Waveney, L.
Carrington, L.	Wolverton, L.
Clermont, L.	Wrottesley, L.
Coleridge, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments made:—In line 9, after ("December") insert ("in one year"); line 10, leave out ("each") and insert ("the next"); and in line 12, after ("portions") insert ("of moorlands.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 (Occupier entitled to kill ground game on land in his occupation not to divest himself wholly of such right).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 15, leave out from ("thereon") to ("if") in line 17; line 18, after ("take") insert ("such") and leave out ("on land in his occupation.")

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (All agreements in contravention of right of occupier to destroy ground game void).

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

proposed an Amendment, to the effect that the landlords and tenants should be authorized to make voluntary agreements, notwithstanding that, by the clause, it was declared that all agreements in contravention of the right of the occupier to destroy ground game should be void. He believed that to authorize such voluntary agreements would bring the Bill into harmony with the general spirit of the law and restore freedom of contract. He did not move the Amendment in the interest of any particular class, but in that of the agricultural community taken as a whole.

Moved, in page 2, line 27, to leave out ("or which") and insert ("unless it"), and after ("occupier") insert ("what he declares in it he considers and.")— (The Earl of Feversham.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he could not accept the Amendment, on the ground that if agreements such as it contemplated were possible, there would have been no necessity for the present Bill. At present, the occupier was in theory entitled to the ground game; but, upon agreement with the tenant, the landlord could reserve to himself the right to the ground game. It had been found that the power given to the landlord to reserve the right to the shooting had been used by him in such a way as to take from the occupier the power of dealing with the ground game. The Amendment struck directly at the root of the Bill, for the object of the clause was to interfere with freedom of contract, and, to make void all agreements in contravention of the occupier's right to destroy ground game. Therefore, if the Amendment of the noble Earl were accepted, the Bill would be so much waste paper, as landlords would insist on the tenants making agreements with them in respect of the ground game on pain of losing their farms. They had already, by an amendment of Clause 2, made it clear that amicable agreements between landlords and tenants would not be illegal, though they would be void—that was, not enforceable at law. The present discontent would be sure to continue and increase if the Amendment were accepted.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

said, he believed there was a general feeling in the country that the Bill would be so much waste paper. However that might be, he had no doubt that whatever form the Bill might ultimately take, there would be verbal agreements entered into between landlords and tenants, which there was no doubt or reason to suppose would not be honourably observed by the latter; and he thought it would be best to legalize such arrangements by making them part of the Act.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

opposed the Amendment. He did not think the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) would be able to persuade the agricultural tenants of England that the Bill was waste paper, although the good understanding at present existing in some parts of the country between landlord and tenant would undoubtedly make it void, for it gave to the tenants an inalienable right to kill ground game, a right which nobody could prevent them from exercising. He could not see any objection to a verbal agreement, because the Bill gave to the tenant a sure and certain means of protecting himself. It was absolutely necessary that the tenant farmer should have the protection the Bill gave him, more especially as it did so without interfering with the good relations which subsisted between landlord and tenant. If the Amendment were accepted, the Bill, as had been observed, would be waste paper, and might as well be torn up.

THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBE

said, he quite agreed that in a great part of England the Bill would not be required; but, owing to the urgency with which it was pressed, he had voted for the second reading. But, while admitting that some interference with freedom of contract might, in this case, be necessary to give effect to the Bill, he thought the clause under consideration carried it much too far-—further a great deal than was either desirable or necessary. It was true that in the case of a tenant to whom a lease was granted, the landlord and his lessee might enter into a separate and distinct agreement; but that observation did not at all apply to the case of a tenant holding from year to year; for, in all such cases, the landlord had only to intimate that if his requirements with respect to game were not complied with, notice to quit would be served. The Bill, therefore, as it stood, was a direct encouragement to lettings from year to year, and was, in that respect, adverse to the interests of the tenant farmer. He could testify that the feeling among the tenant farmers with whom he was ac- quainted was that the Bill was unjust and illiberal.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, they were really discussing over again the principle of the Bill, which was discussed on its second reading. If the Bill were to have any practical effect at all, it was because, on grounds of public policy, it was held to be necessary for the Legislature to interfere with the freedom of contract as between landlord and tenant. If they passed a Bill purporting to do that, and afterwards inserted a clause, in whatever form or disguise, allowing the landlord and tenant to contract themselves out of it, they were simply making nugatory what they had already done. It would have been much better to have rejected the Bill altogether than to send it down to the other House with a clause that rendered it of no effect. Yesterday, they passed the second reading by a very large majority; but it was absolutely certain now that if they passed that Amendment, the Bill would be rejected "elsewhere," because it would be merely waste paper. He was bound to say that he did not now think this Bill of so stringent or restrictive a charater as it had appeared at first sight to himself when he first came to consider it, and as it appeared to be thought by many of their Lordships. If he intended to criticize the measure as a whole, he would say that its weak point was that it seemed to hold out expectations of doing more for the tenant farmers than in practical working they would be able to realize. A good deal had been said as to the kind of practical agreements which would modify the operations of the Bill. Let them look first at the case of the tenant at will. He did not contemplate an impossible case, when he said a landlord might evict his tenant because of a quarrel about the game on his farm. They might all feel that that would be unjustifiable on the part of the landlord. But there was nothing to prevent him saying to the tenant—"Hitherto all the game has been mine; now Parliament has given it to you. With that right I do not interfere; but if you exercise it, I will exercise my equally indisputable right of re-considering our relations." The landlord would practically retain nearly as much power as he had before. Then, in case of leases, they were not interfering with existing leases, but only dealing with leases hereafter to be made. If they supposed the landlords were in a position to dictate their own terms, they might say to their tenants—"If I find the game is not interfered with, you may trust to my honour for a recompense. If I find the shooting is left undisturbed, I will make you an allowance for every head of game I find on your land." What was there in the Bill to prevent a contract of that kind? It did not divest the farmer of his right. It only afforded him a valuable consideration for not exercising that right. After a close and careful consideration of the Bill, he did not feel that its operation would be found in England—he did not pretend to know the arrangements of Scotland—to have the disturbing effect, in the relations of landlords and tenants, that were popularly supposed would flow from it. He confessed that he was surprised that the tenant farmers were prepared to accept this as a settlement of their grievance. If they were satisfied, he did not think it was for that House, which might be held to represent the landlord interest, to complain. He was quite sure if they rejected the Bill, or altered it in such a manner that it would be equivalent to a rejection, they would not have done with the question; but, that next year, they would have other demands of the same kind made upon them in a much more stringent and unpleasant form. He advised them to let well alone, and accept the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he had no desire to make a second reading speech, his views having been expressed by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Beaconsfield) in a speech which was conclusive in favour of the second reading. The 3rd clause was the main clause of the Bill, embodying its principle, and the Preamble was the justification of the Government and of the measure. It was admitted that in some parts the over-preservation of ground game was detrimental to agriculture and to husbandry. Anyone with a practical knowledge of farming was aware that, subject to competition and affected by the depression of the last few years, which they had borne with patience, it was impossible for farmers to farm at a profit to themselves, or with advantage to the landlords and the country, if the land they farmed was to be subjected to the devastations of hares and rabbits. That was the justification of the Bill. The proposal to interfere with freedom of contract was the part of the Bill which he disliked most; but he could not admit that the proposal was to be compared, as it had been, with that of the late Government. That was, however, a matter altogether outside the question. Granting the injury done, the tenants had a just right to expect protection. How was it to be given? It was proposed to give it by interfering to a certain degree with freedom of contract. Was any other plan suggested? If not, then this must be entertained. To accept the Amendment would be exactly like taking the mainspring out of a watch. If there was to be agreement at all, he did not see why the agreement was to be outside the lease. Agreement was possible under the law as it stood; but, in some cases, it was found insufficient to protect the tenant, and it was necessary to make the alteration proposed by the Bill. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) that the Bill would not confer such benefits on the farmers as was expected, and that in a great portion of the country it would not operate at all, the tenants already having satisfactory arrangements with respect to game; but the Bill would have this good effect, that it would give the tenants security that their crops would not be wholly damaged by hares and rabbits. For these reasons, he should support the clause as it stood, and he should be sorry if any alteration were made in it.

EARL STANHOPE

hoped the noble Earl (the Earl of Feversham) would not press his Amendment. It seemed to him to destroy the principle of the Bill, and he, for one, would feel obliged to vote against it. Although he (Earl Stanhope) did not admire some provisions of the Bill, in his opinion some limitation on the quantity of ground game was clearly necessary in parts of the country.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

My Lords, yesterday I advised your Lordships to read the Bill a second time. What has happened since? The Bill has been much improved since that time by Amendments on two important points which I impressed upon the consideration of your Lordships. It appeared to me of importance that there should be a substantial restriction of the use of the gun instead of the provision of the Bill introduced by the Government. That has been carried by your Lordships, to-night, by a decided majority, and has been discussed by Her Majesty's Government in a tone and temper which induce me to believe that they will not, upon reflection, look upon their defeat upon that subject with feelings of a very sore and mortifying character. The other point upon which many of our Friends felt strongly, and which was brought under consideration by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ilchester) in a speech of considerable ability, has been also carried by a considerable majority. Having obtained these two results, having realized the two main objects we had in view, what are we asked to do now by the Motion of my noble Friend (the Earl of Fever-sham)? It is a repetition of the debate on the second reading. There is no difference whatever in it, because we all know perfectly well, no one better than my noble Friend who makes this Motion, and who is well conversant with these affairs, and has had considerable Parliamentary experience, not in this House only, that if this Amendment is carried the Bill ceases to exist. So far as the action of this House is concerned, I think it would be unwise and inconsistent in your Lordships, having agreed to the second reading of the Bill for grave reasons, and having succeeded in obtaining Amendments on those points in which we deemed they were required, not with difficulty, but by decisive majorities—I think it would be unwise if your next step should be to rescind, as it were, everything your Lordships had agreed to, and to wander into a repetition of the debate on the second reading upon an Amendment of my noble Friend which, if carried, must defeat the object the Government have in view.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

said, that after the appeal which had been made to him, he would not persevere with the Amendment.

Amendment, (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD DENMAN

said, that tenants who had had the privilege of killing the ground game, had been known to abandon it and desire its resumption by their landlord. He (Lord Denman) had given Notice of the following Amendment:—In page 2, line 30, after ("void") insert— ("But where a tenant requests his landlord to destroy the ground game for him, nothing in this Act shall prevent such a protection to the tenant's crops as will be thereby afforded"); but as he could not hope to carry it, he did not intend to proceed with it.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Exemption from game certicates) agreed to.

Clause 5 (Saving clause).

On the Motion of The Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment made: —In page 2, line 41, insert after ("contract") ("bona fide made for valuable consideration".)

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

wished to withdraw the Amendment of which he had given Notice, in page 3, line 2, after ("land"), to insert— Provided that where such right is vested as aforesaid in the owner of the land, and such owner has not leased the sporting rights over such land to a third party, the occupier may give notice in writing to the owner of his intention to avail himself of the provisions of this Act, and the owner may thereupon give notice to the occupier of his intention to determine the lease or other contract and the tenancy shall become a tenancy at will, though he considered it unfortunate that those occupiers who would be immediately affected by the Bill would be only those who were already in a position to make satisfactory terms with their landlords.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

said, he would not be a party to anything that affected existing rights. Undoubtedly the clause had excited considerable dissatisfaction from the fact that existing leases, some of which were for 19 years, were not brought under the operation of the Bill. The Bill proposed to interfere with future contracts; but to interfere with existing contracts, while they gave no money compensation, would be against all principle, and, as far as he knew against all precedent, in this matter. Having said so much, he must also say he thought it would be a wise concession on the part of the landlords to voluntarily enter into some arrangement with their tenants under existing leases in regard to the exercise of the right of keeping down ground game. It would be very inconvenient if, on one side of a hedge, one farmer had the right to kill ground game, while, on the other side, another farmer was not yet possessed of that right.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

did not think it was impossible to have made the Bill applicable to existing leases. The question of compensation might have been considered by some Court of Law, or arbitration constituted for that purpose. He could only express his hope that the proprietors would have the good sense and morality to open, in this matter, a wide door to the tenantry who were under long leases, and nearly at the commencement of them, and that long before the expiry of the existing agricultural contract, the whole tenantry of the country would be admitted to the benefits of the Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, there was nothing in this Act to prevent the landlord contracting with the tenant that during the existing lease the latter should be entitled to exercise the rights given by the Act. The Amendment would enable the landlord and lessee to contract themselves out of the Bill.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

said, the tenant could not compel the landlord to allow him its benefits.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Prohibition of night shooting, spring traps above ground, or poison).

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH,

moved, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 20, to leave out ("or otherwise"). He said that landed proprietors and others might take a gun out in the evening to shoot wild fowl, and if they came across a hare or rabbit they might like to take a shot; but if the words he proposed to omit were retained, that would be an absolutely illegal act. He hoped, therefore, the Government would consent to have the words omitted.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the clause had been placed in the Bill as a concession to the Opposition in the other House. It was desired that there should be a prohibition as to using firearms at night, and, on the understanding that the clause should be made general, it was inserted in the Bill. He did not think their Lordships would desire that an owner should have the right to shoot at night, and the tenant not have that right.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD

moved the insertion, after Clause 6, of the following new Clause:— Where a person who is not in occupation of land has the sole right of killing game thereon (with the exception of such right of killing and taking ground game as is by this Act conferred on the occupier as incident to and inseparable from his occupation) such person shall, 'for the purpose of any Act authorizing the institution of legal proceedings by the owner of an extensive right to game, have the same authority to institute such proceedings as if he were such exclusive owner, without prejudice nevertheless to the right of the occupier conferred by this Act.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he had no objection to offer to the insertion of the clause.

Clause agreed to; and added to the Bill.

THE EARL OF GALLOWAY

said, he would not press his proposal that the Bill should not be extended to Scotland.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 211.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he proposed that the House should meet to-morrow at 2 o'clock to consider the Report.