Lords Sitting of 23 May 1889

PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 84.)
Read 1a, and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 87.)
Reported from the Standing Committee on General Bills, with Amendments: Report received; Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 50.)
Reported from the Standing Committee on General Bills, without amendment: Report to be received to-morrow.
HARES PRESERVATION BILL. (No. 72.)

  SECOND READING.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYMy Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, it is hardly necessary for me to dwell at any length upon the necessity for the Bill, since two years ago the matter was fully discussed, and this Bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament by Colonel Dawnay. Many persons then advocated a close time for hares. As many as 14 Peers wrote letters in that sense to Land and Water, and others may have written to the Field, and there were many petitions in favour of Colonel Dawnay's Bill. Those sent in through the Sports Defence Association
  770
  contained 30,400 signatures, and a great number of other petitions were presented by the Members for the districts of the petitioners. One petition from Derby had 700 signatures of constituents of Sir W. Vernon Harcourt. The Bill, when introduced in the other House, bore the names of Colonel Dawnay, Sir John Lubbock, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Dillwyn, and Mr. Lawson. This Bill is the same as that which was introduced into the other House with one variation or alteration. The Bill of two years ago made the close time to extend from March 12th to August 2nd, whilst this Bill makes it extend from March 1st to September 1st. This is immaterial, as the duration of the close time is one for discussion in Committee. Speaking for myself, I could not be a party to legalizing the killing of hares in March when the breeding season is well advanced, and hares are proverbially mad and therefore unfit for food. My Lords, I think the additional days from the 12th of August till the end of the month would be a most reasonable extension, since the crops are often not off the ground by the end of August, and the farmers are then and later fully occupied with their harvest work. If on account of grouse shooting, commencing on the 12th of August, it were convenient in Scotland to commence shooting hares at the same time, Scotland could have a different time fixed for it. My Lords, I had the opportunity of going last Monday to the Central Market at Smithfield, and I only found three hares at a dealer's, who showed me that they were all full of young and not worth 2s. each. This dealer was indignant at such animals being killed and sent to market. I have heard but one objection made to

  771
  a close time for hares, and that is that in some parts of the country it is not required, and that the quantity of hares has not diminished. That, however, only proves that in those districts the hares have practically got a close time already, so that there the Bill would make no difference and would not be a restriction. My Lords, I move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)My Lords, with regard to the principle of the Bill, I see no objection to it, whatever may he said as to the particular dates which the noble Lord has adopted in it. I think, my Lords, if the Bill he read a second time, it might be well that it should be referred to a Standing Committee.
  LORD BELPERMy Lords, without desiring to induce further discussion on the matter now, I should like to point out one objection which may be raised. This Bill proposes to make the close time extend from March 1st to September 1st; but in June and July, when the crops are growing, hares are very often found to go considerable distances to get at them. They are very fond of growing crops, and a good deal of damage may be done in a very short time. Where many hares are preserved, it is the custom to kill them during those months to prevent the crops from being materially interfered with and suffering serious injury. But if this Bill passes in its present form there will be no power for the landlord or the tenant to kill hares on farms when they are injuring the crops. I therefore hope that if the Bill is now read a second time, it will be amended in Committee, so as to meet the objection that I have indicated.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYI move that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYWith regard to exceptions from the general principle, it seems to me there is an obvious duty of the Standing Committee to watch the drafting of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DERBYThere is no question, I think, as to the general principle on which the Bill is based. That seems to be accepted by both sides of the House. But it will be a fair question for the Standing Committee whether, in
  772
  the application of that principle, some exception may not be admitted; for instance, whether the prohibition to kill hares at certain seasons may not be relaxed or suspended in cases where it can be proved that they are doing damage, and where all parties interested agree that their numbers should be diminished. An Amendment to that effect may very well be made in Committee.
  EARL CADOGANMy Lords, I venture to suggest that it is extremely undesirable it should be thought, upon a Motion being made that a Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee, that therefore all discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill should cease. It appears to me that the question of principle, which is in reality the main point of this Bill—that is to say, whether or not there shall be a close time for hares, can be properly discussed at the present stage. There seems to be a misapprehension on the part of noble Lords that the moment a Bill is referred to a Standing Committee all discussion is to cease on the part of the House. I hope that will no longer be the case.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee on General Bills.

HORSEFLESH (SALE FOR FOOD) BILL (No. 88.)
Amendments reported (according to order).
LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I move as an Amendment on the Report, on page 1, line 8, after "place" insert "over or"; and in line 11 to leave out "over or upon such shop, stall or place," and insert "and so as to be visible throughout the whole time whether by night or day during which such horseflesh is offered or exposed for sale." Those words, my Lords, propose to carry out the suggestion made on the previous occasion upon the objection that the clause only provided for a conspicuous notice to be placed over the shop or place where horseflesh is sold, which would be visible in the daytime, but not after dark.
LORD NORTONMy Lords, I would point out that as the Bill now stands, if a person goes into a shop and asks for both mutton and horseflesh he could not legally be supplied.
EARL BEAUCHAMPThe words provide that if any persons asks fox mutton he may get mutton, and if he asks for horseflesh he will get horseflesh.
Amendment agreed to. Bill to be printed as amended; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next. (No. 88.)

LARCENY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT (USE OF FIREARMS) BILL. (No. 30.)
House in Committee, on re-commitment (according to order).
LORD BRAMWELLMy Lords, I desire to call the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a matter which I mentioned in Committee, but too late for practical consideration. The clause is applicable to persons found guilty of offences referred to in sections mentioned in the Schedule. One of these mentions the burglary committed by a person who, being in a house, commits a felony, and then breaks out. This offence would be committed by a man who went into a lodging house, paid for his bed, but, tempted by his neighbour's coat, stole it, and opened the door and walked away before six a.m.; and if there was a pistol in the pocket of the stolen coat he would be liable to be flogged. I was too late in Committee, and I now ask your Lordships to allow me to mention this (I say it most sincerely) for the sake of the Bill, because I think this will jeopardize it. With regard to persons breaking out of a house, thereby committing burglary, and being subject to punishment, I suppose there must have been some reason which made the law call this breaking out a burglary. I may tell your Lordships that the class of case which I have almost exclusively met with coming within that description is that of a tramp who has gone into a common lodging-house. Being tempted by his neighbour's coat or some other property which he can carry away, he has opened a door and walked out before six o'clock in the morning. Well, that would be a burglary; it is a breaking out after having committed a felony in the house; and as the matter now stands a man who is convicted of such a burglarious act, if there happened to be in his possession a pistol, it might be, in the pocket of the coat he had stolen, would
774
be subject to a conviction for having committed a burglary, having firearms in his possession, and would be subject to be flogged. When I stated that objection in Committee it was overruled for the reason I have given; but I would ask now whether that is intended? It is said that it is not conceivable that any Judge would, under those circumstances, order a flogging. Any Judge in his senses, I should say, would decline to do so under such circumstances. Then why give him the power? That seems to me to be the sovereign answer to it. If the power is given to a man in possession of his faculties he will not exercise it. Then do not give him power to do it. It is possible a Judge might say, "I should not have had the power given me to do it unless it had been thought right that I should sometimes use it." I think, therefore, that your Lordships should exclude from the Bill that provision which I have mentioned. The objection is not confined to the 2nd Clause in the Schedule, because there are others which are open to the same kind of objection. My Lords, I really do not like to move an Amendment, because the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill is thoroughly conversant with these matters, but I think the possible operation of the provisions ought to receive his attention. It seems to me these things in the Bill imperil the other provisions in it which I think your Lordships assent to in principle.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNMy Lords, in answer to the observations of Lord Bramwell, no doubt the Section 51 of the Larceny Act does refer to breaking out as being a felony as well as breaking in. If a person having entered a dwelling-house with intent to commit a felony, and having committed such offence, shall break out at night, he shall be found guilty of burglary. I cannot see why it should make very much difference in his guilt if he is there for the purpose of committing a burglary; and this Bill will only apply to persons found armed with a pistol or other firearms. In the case put by the noble and learned Lord, it would be for the Judge or jury to say whether the accused was in possession of a pistol when he committed the burglary, and the infliction of whipping would be a matter of dis-

775
cretion with the Judge or jury, and if the power were taken away some serious cases of burglary by persons carrying firearms would be exempt from the operation of the Act. I cannot imagine that in the case of the supposed unhappy burglar stealing a coat, in the pocket of which there happened to be a pistol, he would be charged with having a pistol in his possession while committing a burglary. I do not think the position is one which is likely to occur, and if it did it would be for the jury to say whether the man had a pistol in his possession at the time of committing the burglary.
LORD BRAMWELLI should like to make one remark. The noble Earl has misread Section 51. The second part of it would apply to a man who had entered a house with the most innocent intentions, but being tempted by something he sees, steals it. Merely opening the door after committing the felony is a sufficient breaking out, and, therefore, the clause would apply to the case I have mentioned.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI should like to call the attention of the House to one point. I thought the object of the Bill was to diminish the chances of persons being terrified by burglars with firearms in their possession; but as the Bill stands it would apply, not only to dwelling-houses, but to persons breaking into churches and chapels or other places of Divine worship, which, however serious an offence, does not involve terror to occupiers. While I have a great horror of persons committing sacrilege, there would not be danger, probably, to anyone.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNMy Lords, the noble Lord has given his own interpretation of the reading of my Bill. He says, very truly, as I stated on the Second Reading, that the object of the Bill was not only to reassure the occupants of dwelling-houses, but also to lessen the risks of the police, who are exposed to serious danger when called upon unarmed to arrest persons who carry firearms. Many cases have occurred in which the police, when gallantly performing their duty, have been shot down by armed burglars. I cannot doubt that there have been many cases where burglars have been enabled to escape owing to the possession of firearms which they were
776
carrying while committing burglary. In the case referred to of burglars breaking into a church or chapel, though there could be no danger to occupants, there might be danger if anyone were going there early in the morning when any attempt to arrest the burglars might be stopped by the menace of a loaded revolver. That was the case which I had in my mind when I prepared the section.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI should like to make this further remark upon what the noble Earl has said with regard to the danger of the police in arresting armed offenders. That danger is not confined to burglars, for I can mention a case of horse-stealing in which the police were fired at by the horse-stealers.
LORD FITZGERALDMy Lords, owing to technicalities of procedure with regard to the practice in the Standing Committees, I have to state that I will, on the Third Reading, move certain Amendments on Clause 1 which I was unable to move in the Standing Committee. It is one of the rules of the Standing Committee that once a measure is agreed to and passed by the Committee, you cannot fall back upon it for the purpose of amendment. It so happened that the 1st Clause was passed with very little objection, and it was not until a later period that several objections arose, which were met by the statement that you had already passed that clause, and cannot now fall back upon it. If the Committee had power to go through the Bill a second time, I venture to say that those objections would have to be disposed of. I wish to set this matter right, and I have kept back the objections which I have until the Third Reading.
Bill reported without Amendment, and to be read 3a to-morrow.

TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT (1847) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 38.)
Bill reported without Amendment, and ordered to be read 3a to-morrow.

ECCLESIASTICAL OFFICES.
Return showing the names of the Secretaries of the Archbishops and Bishops, of the Registrars and Deputy-Registrars, of each Diocese of England and Wales, with the date of the appoint-

777
ment, distinguishing those whose appointment has been confirmed by the Dean and Chapter; the duties performed by each; the fees or other emoluments received in each year from 1880 to 1888 inclusive; Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Earl Beauchamp.)

PHOTOGRAPHIC PLATES AND CUSTOM HOUSE OFFICIALS.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the Custom House regulations with respect to undeveloped photographic plates, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider the existing regulations reasonable. I have a tale of horror to relate to your Lordships. A friend of mine who landed at Plymouth recently from the steamer Doric, which came from the Canary Islands and other places, had, together with his fellow-passengers, to submit to the dreary farce of having his luggage examined. Among this luggage was a box containing undeveloped photographic plates, and this box the Custom House officials insisted on having opened for examination. Explanation and entreaty proved useless. The officials had apparently taken into their heads that the photographs might be of an indecent or improper character. The passenger asked for a dark room where he might without injury display his plates, but there was none such, and he had to wait in Plymouth until the next day, when the box was opened in the dark room of a local photographer, when nothing was discovered by the suspicious Custom House officers more suggestive than a picnic party lunching on the cratur of an extinct volcano. I have every sympathy with the Custom House officers in their desire to prevent the importation of indecent photographs, but if the precautions that they were determined to take in this instance are deemed necessary, a dark room ought to be provided where passengers with undeveloped plates amongst their luggage might have been examined without their being spoiled. My friend writes to me as a practical man, not at all in anger but in sorrow, complaining that in the Custom Houses there are no conveniences afforded in these cases for carrying out instructions
  778
  which apparently emanate from some persons in London who are totally ignorant of the science of photography; accordingly, valuable photographs may be irretrievably spoiled, and if these regulations are to be carried out in the Custom Houses, an ordinary dark room should be fitted up for the purpose. I do not wish to say how far it is incumbent on the Government to adopt this suggestion or whether they should establish a dark room in every Custom House in the country; but until this is done it seems to me the regulations are not only exceedingly unreasonable, but exceedingly vexatious, and I should be very glad to hear from the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government that they share that opinion.
  LORD DE ROSI am very glad that the noble Lord has brought this subject forward, because it is one of great importance to people who are in danger of having their plates entirely destroyed. Professional photographers visit Switzerland and other countries and bring home plates which are developed in this country. They produce the beautiful photographs which are to be seen in shop windows and exhibitions; and it is very hard that they should have their labour, trouble, and expense wasted by the action of Custom House officials. There should be some means of developing the plates at the different places; or a person should have the opportunity of stating on oath that what he had were bonâfide photographic plates.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, it falls to my lot to defend the Government on this occasion. I can only say that this particular Customs official appears to be a man of inconceivable stupidity, and I hope that the adventure related by the noble Lord will not happen in the future. This is the first I have heard of the matter. I did not know in the least from the notice on the Paper what was the cause of these sensitive plates being exposed to the light; I imagined that it might be dynamite. The protection of decency is a very worthy pursuit, but it should be pursued with some discretion. However, it is not necessary to make any very elaborate preparation in order to avoid these mishaps in the future. Regulations have been issued to all Custom Houses that if sensitive plates are to be examined they should be examined in a dark room by

  779
  a red lamp. I do not think it is possible that such a misadventure as that to which the noble Lord has referred can happen again. I am sorry that the knowledge of advancing science has spread so little among certain branches of Her Majesty's Service that it should be necessary to issue such regulations.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report form, That the Committee have added the Lord Belper to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Hares Preservation Bill.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow a quarter pat ten o'clock.