Lords Sitting of 24 March 1904

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:—South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time).
And also the Certificate that the further proofs required by the Standing Orders Committee in respect of the following Bill have been given:—Bristol Tramways (Extensions) [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Richard Jaeger's Patent. Petition of Henry Ernest Victor Baron de Barreto, praying for leave to introduce a Bill for rendering valid certain Letters Patent granted to Richard Jaeger in respect of an invention for an improved process for the dry slaking of lime, and apparatus therefor; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
Victoria University of Manchester Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
North Wales Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Maidenhead Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H L.]; Weaver Navigation (Additional Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation (Constitution and Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaruan Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.; Alexandra (Newport and South
582
Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; viz.:—

E. Kimberley,

L. Sinclair,

L. Bateman,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Newton (chairman).

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 26th of April next at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Felixstowe Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; Kettering Improvement Bill; Norwich Water Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Common Scheme (Farnborough) Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 41.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  No. 3128. Russia (Odessa and district).
  No. 3129. Germany (Estimates for 1904).
  No. 3130. Nantes and district.

  AFRICA, No. 4 (1904).
  Correspondence relating to the recruitment of labour in the British Central Africa Protectorate for employment in the Transvaal (in continuation of "Africa, No. 2(1903)").
  WEST INDIES.
  Return of the exports of sugar and fruit from the British West Indies to England, Canada, and to all other countries, for the years 1899–1900, and 1902–1903. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities, and any annuities for terms of years, transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death which have been made within the year ended 5th January, 1904. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee and Appendix), made, and to be printed. (No. 36.). Minutes of Evidence laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. Bill reported, with an amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 37.)
NEW BILLS.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Act, 1894, was presented by the Lord Monkswell; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 21st of April next. (No. 38.)
  OPEN SPACES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to open spaces, was presented by the Lord Tweedmouth (for the Earl of Onslow); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 39.)

SITE FOR DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order); and Amendments proposed by the Chairman of Committee's Committee made.
Moved, "That the Standing Committee be negatived."—(Lord Windsor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): Why is it proposed to negative the Standing Committee?
THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): My Lords, I think it reasonable that the Standing Committee should be negatived because this partakes largely of the nature of a private Bill. It has been before me in the ordinary procedure, and I think it more appropriate that it should not go to the Standing Committee.
On Question, Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING].
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DUNBOYNE: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would very briefly explain the necessity for it and its object. I am aware that the particular kind of enactment of which the Act of 1901 is a part is a class of legislation on which your Lordships differ very much; but I do not think there will be any difference of opinion amongst your Lordships that when an Act of Parliament is passed it should be made effective and not be allowed to be evaded, as I think I can show the Act of 1901 has been. That Act provides that every holder of a licence who knowingly sells or delivers, or allows any person to sell or deliver, any description of intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of fourteen years, except in corked or sealed vessels, shall be liable to a penalty. These provisions are continually being evaded, for unscrupulous publicans have discovered that by forbidding their servants to serve children except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and by exhibiting a notice to that effect in the public house, they are not responsible if their servants supply intoxicating

585
liquors to children contrary to the Act. This, my Lords, was decided in the case of Emary and Nolloth. In that case intoxicating liquor was knowingly sold to a child under the age of fourteen—as a fact, the child was only nine years of age—in a bottle neither corked nor sealed, by a servant of the publican acting within the general scope of his authority and employment, but contrary to the expressed orders and without the knowledge of his master, who was himself in charge of the premises at the time and actually serving in the bar. It was held in that case, and no doubt rightly held, that the publican could not be convicted of "knowingly allowing" a person to sell intoxicating liquor in an uncorked or unsealed vessel to a child under the age of fourteen. Since that decision it has been found impossible to enforce the Act in many places, for notices such as I have described are constantly exhibited in public houses, and, when a child comes in, the publican has merely to turn his back or become engrossed in conversation with a customer, or go into the bar parlour and the child can be served and no one is responsible, the penalty being attached only to the publican and not to the person other than the publican who serves the child. This Bill is intended to meet that defect. It will not in any way interfere with the legitimate business of respectable publicans, and there are many, I am glad to say, who observe the spirit as well as the letter of the law; but it will affect those who might escape from the law and avoid it in the way I have described. This Bill merely provides that the publican and the person who actually serves the child contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1901 shall be made responsible for the penalties imposed by that Act, notwithstanding that any notice that the servants are forbidden to serve children contrary to the Act shall be exhibited on the premises. The Bill is intended to cure a defect which experience has shown to exist in the original Act. I have stated the facts simply and without exaggeration, and I trust your Lordships will allow the Bill to be read a second time. If noble Lords should be of opinion that the Bill goes a little too far in making the publican liable when his employee serves the liquor
586
contrary to his orders and without his knowledge, I would be willing to meet that objection at a further stage; but I trust that your Lordships will allow the Bill, as it now stands, to be read a second time, and that His Majesty's Government will give it their support so that it may not only pass your Lordships' House but be steered with safety through its course in the other House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Dunboyne.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have thought it right to communicate with the Court by whom the decision referred to by the noble Lord was arrived at. I quite agree that in some respects the law may be amended in the direction he desires. But I think the Bill goes a great deal too far. I think that in the circumstances the last two lines would be quite enough to pass into law, namely—
"The agent or servant actually serving or supplying such liquor shall be liable to the penalties aforesaid."
That could not be enforced in the case to which the noble Lord referred because the Act as it stands makes the only person liable to the penalty the licence-holder, and, of course, the servant, not being the licensed person, could not be properly convicted. To make the master liable in any event would be a mistake, and I could not assent to it. I think the noble Lord has a little misunderstood the decision in the case to which he referred. The ground on which the decision was arrived at, according to the Judges' view of what they decided, was that the master had given express orders to his servants not to do the act complained of. It was not a case of a master endeavouring to evade responsibility by pretending not to know what was going on. He was innocent of the act itself and had given most definite orders that it should not be done. Whether the Judges were right or wrong in the interpretation of fact is immaterial. That was the theory upon which they proceeded. If, however, a publican leaves a person in charge of his business so that he is his alter ego, then undoubtedly he would be responsible for

587
the act of that person. I think that the principle which the Court maintained in that case would be very much shaken if this Bill as it now stands were to pass into law. If the noble Lord is prepared to restrict the Bill to the last two lines which I have read, I am ready to assent to the Second Reading.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I am very glad to hear the observations which have fallen from the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, and I trust that the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill will agree to the suggestion which has been made. The legislation in question has done an immense amount of good already, and, if the loophole of evading it to which the noble Lord has referred is stopped, it will save the children of this country from the contamination of the public house. This Act, which has been, on the whole, extremely well worked throughout London, and has not been opposed by the brewers and publicans generally, is one of the most hopeful and useful pieces of temperance legislation that have been passed, and it would be a great pity if, by the rejection of this modified Amendment, it should be spoilt through the existence of the flaw explained by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I, therefore, hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
LORD DUNBOYNE: I may say that I shall be very pleased to accept the noble and learned Lord's suggestion and to limit the Bill in the way he desires, which can be done when the Bill reaches the Committee stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday, the 21st April next.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
THE EARL OF WEMYSS*THE EARL OF WEMYSS moved an Amendment prohibiting the use of a pole-trap "which does not instantaneously kill." In 1822, an Act was passed
588
to prevent Cruelty to Animals—horses, cows, sheep, etc. It was still referred to as Martin's Act, who was known as "the great philanthropist of beasts." His noble friend took a higher flight and sought to be known as the great philanthropist of birds. But there were birds and birds. Now the birds which his noble friend proposed by this Bill to protect were birds of prey which cruelly destroyed other creatures, and did a tremendous amount of damage to valuable property, to grouse and sheep. Lambs' tongues and sheep's eyes were the favourite food of many of these destructive birds. He had received two letters on the subject—one from a Mr. Cruikshank, who wrote from Glasgow, and the other from a gentleman in Edinburgh. Both of his correspondents were thoroughly acquainted with this subject. Mr. Cruikshank wrote that it would be a bad business for grouse moors if this Bill became law, as, on an extensive treeless expanse of a moor, it would be practically impossible for the keepers to kill down the peregrines and sparrow-hawks. The letter from Edinburgh was to the same effect. This correspondent said it would be a serious matter for many Scottish lairds, especially in the northern and western isles, where the peregrine falcon existed in great numbers. His correspondent pointed out, for example, that on the Island of Hoy, which ought easily to realise over 1,000 brace of grouse, only half that number were secured. And why? Six pairs of peregrines nested in the rocky precipices hundreds of feet in height so that they could not be reached by a gun. As these birds would not be attracted by a bait, the only method of catching them was by building cairns on the top of the cliffs, and capping with turf in which a trap was placed. This would be illegal if the Bill passed. His noble friend proposed by this Bill to render illegal the use of the pole-trap. Was there no cruelty through the use of other traps? What about rabbit traps, traps for foxes, and so on? He supported his noble friend in his desire to prevent cruelty where it could be done, and he believed a trap had recently been invented which instantaneously killed the bird caught in it. He had got one of these traps and had suggested to his noble friend

589
in charge of the Bill (the Marquess of Granby) that he should come and inspect and sit upon this trap, but he had not been to see it. This was a Bill to protect birds which cruelly destroyed other creatures. If it became law, and it was impossible to catch birds of prey by the use of the traps in question, so far from cruelty being diminished, it would be very largely increased; because every one of these birds of prey tortured and killed large numbers of other useful birds. He therefore moved his Amendment, the purport of which was that no trap should be allowed which did not instantaneously kill any bird which came into it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, Clause 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'instrument' to the word 'any' in line 8, and to insert the words "which does not instantaneously kill.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss).
THE MARQUESS OF GRANBYpointed out that the Bill had gone through all its stages in the House of Commons, and as it had already reached its Third Reading in their Lordships' House he sincerely hoped the Amendment would not be pressed to a Division. The Bill itself was a very simple one, and had met with a considerable amount of approbation in the country. The Amendment would by its extreme severity of action militate against the general operation of the measure, which deserved every consideration at the hands of those who desired to abolish what might be called unnecessary trapping. With regard to the letters Lord Wemyss had quoted, he might say that for a long time past he had forbidden the use of these traps on grouse moors with which he was connected, and had not found the slightest diminution in the number of grouse. The keepers had not experienced any difficulty in keeping down birds of prey. The adoption of the Amendment would lead to vexatious prosecutions, because it was absolutely imposssible to guarantee that every bird would come down on to a particular trap at a particular angle, and any person who had a grudge against any landowner or keeper and saw a bird trapped, might say that death was not
590
instantaneous, and that the bird struggled for some time after it was caught. On many grounds it would be exceedingly unwise to overload the Bill with a provision of the kind proposed, which would make it unworkable and nullify the general good that it would do. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHhoped the House would not accept the Amendment moved by Lord Wemyss, which would take away with one hand all that was given by the Bill with the other. If the Amendment was carried, any pole-trap might be used provided that on the pole, tree, or cairn was fixed a trap which instantaneously killed the bird that settled on it. But how was that to be arrived at? He had seen the traps to which the noble Earl referred. The way in which instantaneous killing was arrived at was by giving such a bend to the claws of the trap as to catch the bird in the body, by which means the fife was squeezed out of it at once. That was a capital arrangement, and, provided that they could assure that a bird of a particular size pitched on to a trap of a particular size, the bird was caught in this way; but it by no means followed that the trap was successful in other cases. A pole-trap was described in the Memorandum of the Bill as a steel spring trap with teeth, generally fastened by a chain to the top of a pole in a clearing of a wood. That was perfectly true so far as some portions of the country were concerned, but frequently a pole or cairn was set up in an open moorland, and owing to the fact that it was the only perching place in the vicinity, not merely birds of prey but every kind of bird perched upon it. All sorts of birds, many of them very harmless, were caught in these traps. His noble friend had said that the preservation of grouse depended on the maintenance of these traps. He could assure him that he was entirely wrong. There were moors after moors throughout Scotland where the keepers were strictly enjoined not to use these traps at all, simply because they caught so many more birds than they were intended to catch, and on which the grouse were fully preserved. Noble Lords, he was sure, were anxious that

591
some of the rarer birds of prey should not be destroyed altogether. He did not suppose there were any birds so frequently caught, or so much injured by these traps, as peregrines and eagles in the open moorlands. He did not think his hon. friends in the other House who were responsible for this Bill were either sentimentalists or people who did not care for sport. Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Sydney Buxton, who backed the Bill, were both distinguished naturalists—they were both sportsmen and neither of them could be called a sentimentalist. The Bill was not intended to pander to any mere feeling of sentiment, but to meet a real desire on the part of a great many people throughout the length and breadth of the country, and he did not believe that the passing of it would interfere in the least with the successful preservation of game, although, of course, in certain places other methods would have to be adopted in order to catch verminous birds.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexpressed the hope that the Amendment would not be accepted. He had tried the so-called instantaneous-killing trap and could assure the House that it resulted in more cruelty than the other traps. In nine times out of ten it failed to do what it was sold to do. If the Bill passed, as he hoped it would, there would be perfect liberty to trap on the ground. He had consulted an experienced vermin trapper and had been assured that it would be quite easy to get rid of mischievous birds by trapping on the ground.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that as it appeared to be of no use dividing the House upon his Amendment, he would be content to let it drop.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(The Marquess of Granby.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS (FUNDS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No 40.)
House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.