GROUND GAME BILL—(No. 211.) (Hansard, 1 September 1880)

§ VISCOUNT HARDINGE
said, it was extremely important that their Lord- 950 ships should insist upon the Amendments which they had made; but there was one Amendment passed last night which he thought might be modified. He referred to an Amendment moved by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ilchester) with regard to a "close time" for rabbits. He thought, in reference to hares, that they stood in a different category. It would be quite possible to exterminate hares, and it would only be fair and reasonable to give hares a certain amount of protection, especially as farmers were fond of coursing. But with regard to the rabbits, when it was said, as it was said last night, that a "close time" for rabbits was necessary, in order to secure the protection of winged game, he thought they were going a little too far. He was of opinion that they should insist upon the Amendment that they had made to the Bill; but, at the same time, it was very undesirable to overburden the Bill with restrictions that could not be maintained. With reference to the Amendment providing that only one gun should be used on a farm, that was adequate, he thought, and should remain in the Bill. He wished to avoid a collision with the House of Commons upon the matter; and therefore he proposed on the third reading, to move to substitute the word "hares" for "ground game."

LORD DENMAN
said, he had opposed the Bill on the second reading, and would continue to the end to oppose it, however bitter the end might be. He had wished to speak instead of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) who had said the House would stultify itself if, after voting for the second reading, he had voted against the Judicial Peerages Bill which was supported on its second reading by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby); but in consequence of remarks by the right hon. Gentleman now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) as to this House tinkering the Bill, it was thrown out on the third reading, and that noble Earl thanked him for his consistence.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
called attention to the fact that there was a mistake in the printing of one of the Amendments which had been made in the 6th clause, in reference to the employment of poison in the destruction of ground game. He thought it should be made quite clear that poison 951 could not be placed in rabbits' holes; and he hoped, on the third reading, an Amendment would be brought in to make the clause definite upon the matter.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, it was evident that the intention of the Bill was that poison should be prohibited altogether, and he would agree to an Amendment making the clause clearer upon the matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
said, the difficulty would be met by inserting the words "or employ" before "poison," in Clause 6.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
said, he wished to obtain some further information from the noble Earl. It appeared that Clause 2, as it now stood, gave the occupier very extensive rights where he was in possession at the passing of this Act, and the power to exercise those rights. As he read it, the clause reserved to the occupier the right to kill ground game to any extent, as though the Act had not been passed. Clause 6, however, took away from occupiers, and all landowners, certain powers; and he should like to hear an explanation of what appeared to be an apparent discrepancy between the 2nd and the 6th clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, that the 6th clause was applied generally and specially, while the 2nd was not. He would be ready to confer with the noble Lord upon the matter to see if a verbal Amendment could be made, making the matter clearer than it now was.