SECOND READING. (Hansard, 17 June 1884)

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES),
in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to meet the charges which were brought against those who opposed the Bill introduced into their Lordships' House recently by 553 the noble Lord (Lord Balfour). It was said that in some places where pigeon-shooting was practised gross cruelties were inflicted on the birds. He was sure everybody was desirous that such cruelty should be put down, and the object of the Bill was to enable that to be done. The Bill provided that where cruelties were practised for the purpose of making the birds fly in certain directions when released from the traps, heavy penalties would be incurred; and to meet the great difficulty which had been experienced in this matter—namely, the want of facilities for detecting the cruelties, Justices of the Peace were empowered to give an order to proper persons to attend the meetings for the purpose of ascertaining if such practices were resorted to.

§ LORD ABERDARE
said, there could be no doubt that cruelty was practised in connection with pigeon-shooting. Birds were blinded in one eye, their wings were broken, or some of their feathers were pulled out. Sometimes they were brought to be shot at in such a miserable state of exhaustion that they failed to fulfil the purpose for which they were intended in consequence of their being too weak to fly. The present Bill was very inadequate and imperfect. By the 2nd clause it was proposed to subject to a penalty of £5, for every bird mutilated for the purpose of being shot at, any person who should use any ground for the purpose of shooting birds from traps or other appliances. According to his interpretation of the clause, a bird might be cruelly mutilated, and yet the keeper of the ground would not be punishable unless the bird was liberated for the precise purpose of being shot at. The 3rd clause proposed to enable the police to enter the ground and examine the birds to be shot at in order to enable them to discover cases of mutilation. No power, however, was given to punish those who might be guilty of such mutilation. There had, under the existing law, been many cases in which men had been found guilty of mutilation upon evidence obtained after birds had been shot at. Under this Bill the police would not be empowered to examine birds after they had been shot in order to discover previous mutilation. The 2nd clause 554 said that the bird must be injured be as to effect its flying. The case of a bird blinded in one eye would, therefore, not be met. Then the Bill would not touch the man who shot at a mutilated bird, unless it could be shown that he knew beforehand that the bird was mutilated. Surely if the bird was shown to have been mutilated it would not be too much to assume that the man who shot at it had knowledge of the mutilation. The noble Earl seemed to think that the Bill would do a great deal of good by allowing application to be made to the magistrate for permission to two persons to enter ground set apart for pigeon-shooting. That provision, however, would be of little use, for the mere approach of a respectable person to such locality was enough to excite suspicion among those engaged in shooting. Any person not having "villain" or "knave" stamped upon his face would be set down at once by those so engaged as an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. He held that the present difficulties of detectives in obtaining conviction would not be diminished by this Bill, which he objected to, because it would be taken as giving the sanction of the House to a course which their Lordships collectively did not approve. Pigeon-shooting was a sport defended by very few. Nobody thought it manly, for it was not conducive to health or to the formation of virile courage. On the other hand, it was hopelessly and irretrievably surrounded by vicious circumstances. The evils with which it was accompanied would not be got rid of except by a measure much more stringent than that now proposed.

§ EARL COWPER
said, he was of opinion that the principles upon which the present Bill was framed were right. He congratulated the noble Earl who had proposed it upon his former opposition, to a very ill-considered measure on the same subject. That measure proposed to put an end to an amusement because it was connected with some abuses, and it reminded him of the action of certain people who shut the public out of their parks, because some scoundrel or other once cut flowers, or did some other objectionable thing. There was something hypocritical in the attempt that had been made in their Lordships' House to stop pigeon-shooting on the ground of cruelty; for if properly con- 555 ducted the sport was not more cruel than many of the sports in which their Lordships indulged. He did not suppose that there was any sensible man who thought that their Lordships were not anxious to put down cruelty. He would only add that he regarded the objections to the Bill as almost verbal, and considered that alterations could easily be made in Committee to render the action of the police more effectual.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
thanked the noble Earl for having introduced this Bill, and said the objections which had been urged against its machinery could be remedied when the Bill went into Committee.

§ THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)
said, he should be happy to consider the objections which had been urged by the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare), and he would endeavour to meet his views by Amendments in Committee.