HL Deb 26 March 1896 vol 39 cc156-9
*THE EARL OF STAMFORD

said, that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it was desirable that he should give their Lordships a preliminary explanation with regard to its provisions. The Measure had been brought forward at the instance of the Society for the Protection of Wild Birds, which was an association that had exercised a most beneficial influence upon legislation of this character. He might assure their Lordships that the Bill did not in any way interfere with the scope of the Bill which had been carried through that House last year by his noble Friend the Earl of Jersey, but which, owing to a misadventure, had failed to pass the other House of Parliament. He hoped that that Measure would again be brought forward during the present year. The present Bill aimed at remedying one or two defects in the original Wild Birds Protection Act of 1880. It had been found that in the neighbourhood of London a great nuisance was caused by professional bird catchers and other unauthorised persons trespassing, and, by means of nets and traps, endangering the future existence of many interesting and valuable species of wild birds. The aim of the Bill was to extend protection to these birds in the Metropolitan Police District that was to say, within a radius of 16 miles from Charing Cross. The provisions of the Measure, if it became law, might be adopted by any Council of a county or of a borough, and could be put into force by an order of the Secretary of State. Outside of the Metropolitan police district the offence of trespassing in pursuit of game was punished most stringently, and nets and traps might be seized, but the provisions of the game laws were not operative within that area. Under the provisions of the Wild Birds' Protection Act of 1880, an offender must be caught in the act, and there was no power to seize nets or other implements used in catching birds. The subject had received the attention of the Association of County Councils, and the feeling appeared to be generally entertained that some additional check ought to be placed upon the depredations of these unauthorised persons, not only on account of the nuisance they caused, but also on account of the cruelty exercised towards the birds themselves, and the danger there was of the possible extinction of some of the species. The County Council which was most especially concerned in this matter was that of Middlesex, which had taken preliminary action in the matter. The Bill had been submitted that afternoon to the consideration of the Parliamentary Committee of that Council, and it was only about an hour ago that he had heard that the Committee had approved of the Measure, and had recommended it to the consideration of the Council. There had not been time for him to hear from many of the local authorities as to what view they took of the Measure, but he had heard from the Council of the county borough of Croydon, who had approved of the, Bill, and only regretted that its proposals were of so limited a character. In order to meet the possible criticism that the proposal in Clause 2, Sub-section 1, line 18, which related to the case of a person being in company with another, having nets, etc., in his possession, was too strong, he might remark that that provision was not intended to draw within the penalty imposed by the Bill any innocent bystander who might be watching the proceedings of the bird catchers, and if the Measure were read a Second time he proposed to Amend that Clause in Committee. He begged to move that the Bill be read a Second time.

LORD BELPER

said, that as representing the Home Office, which dealt with matters relating to the protection of wild birds, he should like to make a few observations. He believed that the noble Lord was perfectly right in saying that there was a strong feeling among certain classes residing in the Metropolitan police district which appeared to be shared by the County Council, namely, that some further protection was required for wild birds, and he believed that it was generally admitted that the Act on the subject which was carried some years ago had not had quite the effect that was expected. But even then he doubted whether their Lordships would consider that the provisions of the Bill were such as they could accept without very serious consideration. Those provisions were not only very far reaching, but they went to unnecessary lengths and introduced some novel principles of law. The second clause, which dealt with trespass, made some very sweeping alterations in the law of trespass, and empowered not only the owner or the occupier of land, but their servants, to seize nets and other implements of bird catching. He did not think that the noble Lord himself quite appreciated the effect that the clause would have, because under it, if a man were carrying a canary bird in a cage and got off the footpath, he and all who were with him would be liable to penalties. There was another clause, Clause 5, which was of some importance. That clause gave power to the Secretary of State to extend the provisions of the Bill to all counties and any other places; but the Secretary of State did not wish to have that burden put upon him. He thought from what he had said their Lordships would see that there were strong objections to the Bill as it stood, and he would further point out that another Bill on the same subject was introduced last year by Lord Jersey. That Bill passed through nearly all its stages in their Lordships' House, and in Committee Amendments of which the Home Office approved were embodied in it. He understood from Lord Jersey that he intended to bring his Bill in again this Session, and to proceed with it. He, therefore, thought it was quite clear that their Lordships, whatever their opinion might be on the Bill now before them, would not deal with two Bills having the same object at the same time. Lord Jersey's Bill went on very different lines to the present Bill, but he would suggest that, if their Lordships did not reject this Bill on Second Reading, the consideration of it should, at all events, be postponed, so that if it was thought desirable to put any of its provisions in a modified form into any Bill that might afterwards be introduced, the two might be amalgamated. He did not know whether the noble Earl would be prepared to accept that suggestion, but he was bound to say that that seemed to be the only satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

LORD HERSCHELL

thought that the criticisms which the noble Lord opposite had passed on some of the provisions of the Bill were perfectly just, but to his mind there was an additional objection, and it was this. The Bill provided for its immediate application to London, while, as regarded the rest of the country, the counties could determine for themselves whether they should have it or not. Why the London County Council should be considered quite unworthy of being heard on the question of the application of the Bill to London, while all the rest of the country was to judge for itself, he failed to see. It seemed to him rather hard to say that the rest of the country should be allowed to legislate for itself, but that only Parliament should legislate for London.

THE EARL or STAMFORD

said that after the expression of opinion on behalf of the Home Office he was willing to take the course suggested by the noble Lord, and would move that the Debate be now adjourned.

Further Debate adjourned sine die.