* 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.
§ 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.