Lords Sitting of 13 July 1926

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DISORDER IN THE HOUSE.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, a Question of which I have given him private notice. My Question is: To ask His Majesty's Government if their attention has been called to the disturbances which were created at the Bar of this House on Thursday last by members of the House of Commons during the Royal Commission and the Division, and whether they propose to take any steps in the matter?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his courtesy. Your Lordships are always most careful not to use any language which would show the least disrespect to the House of Commons and in my reply to the noble Earl I shall, of course, be guided by that rule. You are, no doubt, aware that a Question was put in the House of Commons last night to the Speaker, calling his attention to the disorder which took place at the Bar and in the Galleries of this House last Thursday, and asking whether he was prepared to make any statement on the subject. The Speaker expressed his opinion on this deplorable occurrence in terms which I need not say leave nothing to be desired. He was speaking of the incident which took place before the Royal Commission, but I am sure he would have equally condemned what took place during our debate, and I am absolutely convinced that in what he said he represented the feeling of the vast majority of members of the House of Commons. In these circumstances I do not think that on the present occasion any action on the part of this House is called for, but I should not be doing my duty if I did not add that in my judgment no repetition of such interruption, either during our debate or at the time of the signification of the Royal Assent, could be permitted without immediate action
1000
by your Lordships, or, rather, after what the Speaker has stated, I may say by both Houses of Parliament.

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE (SALES ON COMMLSSION) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the sale on commission of horticultural produce, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

TEIGNMOUTH AND SHALDON BRIDGE BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (DEFAULT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 11) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 5) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Prohibition of certain methods of taking birds and of taking of birds on Sunday.
1. It shall not be lawful for any person—
(a) to affix, place or sot on any pole, tree, or cairn of stones or earth, any spring, trap, gin or other similar instrument calculated to cause bodily injury to any bird coining in contact therewith; or
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection 1 (a), to leave out "or earth." The noble Duke said: When this Bill was last before your Lordships, in 1923, there was a certain amount of discussion upon these words "or earth." At that time no one could give a definition of "earth." The words are very ambiguous and I think it would be far better to leave them out. Some people say that if these words remain it will be illegal even to set a rabbit trap. If no rabbit traps are allowed, it is easy to see what damage will be done to crops and everything else. There seems no particular point in these words. The words formerly used answer the purpose quite well, and I hope that the Government will accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("or earth").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: These words are merely a re-enactment of the law which is already in existence—namely, the Act of 1904, where those words are found. This law has reached its twenty-first birthday without causing any serious trouble or inconvenience, and there is no
1002
particular reason why any alteration should be made now. The words "or earth" are to be read in conjunction with the words "cairn of stones."
LORD LOVAT: The word "cairn" being a Scottish term I should have thought that it could be translated by a Scotsman.
LORD DESBOROUGH: It is in the Act that has existed for 21 years.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: In so far as this Bill concerns the Advisory Committee to the Home Office, we have no particular interest in this clause. The object of the Bill was to protect our birds, but it was made to incorporate certain other Acts which had previously been enforced and it contained the words of the Act of 1904. I think nobody would wish to repeal the Act of 1904 on humanitarian grounds and to prevent cruelty, and if it is to remain in force is it not better that it should remain in the same form of words which has now existed for 22 years? No grievance or complaint has arisen out of them. I should think it would be safer for your Lordships to retain the form of words that has stood the test of 22 years. I think it is quite clear that it has to be a cairn of earth and nobody thinks of making a cairn of earth in order to set a rabbit trap.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am afraid that my noble friend who spoke for the Government gave an additional argument for my Amendment. If this absurdity has remained for 22 years, surely it is advisable that it should be removed now. However, if the Government do not wish to accept this Amendment, I am not prepared to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Taking of birds for sale alive]:
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER had given Notice to move to omit all words after "It shall not be lawful for any person to take any bird for the purpose of sale alive." The noble Lord said: I have had the advantage of a brief discussion with my noble friend Viscount Grey of Fallodon about some of my Amendments, and in this matter, as in all others, I am only too anxious to follow his guidance. He

1003
suggests that the passing of my Amendment might possibly interfere with the beneficial operation of existing Acts with regard to the protection of birds. If that be so, I am quite willing not to move the Amendment that stands in my name, but I should like to say that I find it difficult to conceive of a more calculated inhumanity than that which consists in taking alive a thing which was specially created for liberty and imprisoning it for life in a cage.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Liberation of imported birds.
3. It shall not be lawful for any person without the leave of the Secretary of State knowingly to liberate imported birds of any species.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved to add to the clause the words "except partridges." The noble Lord said: My noble friend who moved the Second Beading of this Bill told us about the dangers of importing animals, and instanced the rabbits in Australia, which, he told this House, grew long nails and climbed trees. I only wish to say that Hungarian partridges have been imported into this country for many years and that their conduct has always been normal and perfectly exemplary. Accordingly I suggest that they should be exempted.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, at end insert ("except partridges").—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: I cordially agree with my noble friend's description of the harmlessness of the partridge, but I should like to point out to him that it is already exempted by Clause 17 from the definition of wild birds, and therefore nothing is gained by moving this Amendment. Hungarian partridges can be introduced without any licence being required from the Secretary of State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Classification of birds for purposes of Act.
4. Subject as hereinafter provided, for the purposes of this Act the birds specified in Part I and in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act are classified respectively as being in Category I and in Cate-
1004
gory II, and all other birds are classified as being in Category III; and references in this Act to those Categories shall be construed accordingly:
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved to leave out the first "Part'' and to insert "Parts," and to leave out "and in Part II" and to insert "II and III." The noble Lord said: My Amendments to this clause form a group which are designed to carry out a single idea, and perhaps it would save time if I were to deal with the whole of them in one statement. Broadly speaking, the object of these Amendments is to separate birds of prey from the other birds in the First Schedule. I make this suggestion in the best interests of the Bill, because I believe that as the Bill stands at present it will not be observed in certain areas of the country. In order to get real protection of rare birds, which, I am sure, is the thing that we all have at heart, I put this group of Amendments forward so that birds of prey—I have only indicated them generally and I am aware that exception might be taken to individual birds—should be put in a special category, that they should be dealt with locally and that licences should be issued locally by the popularly-elected county council, who have knowledge of local conditions, of excessive depredations by these birds of prey, on the one hand, or of a scarcity of particular birds, on the other hand. This should be under review by the Secretary of State who would receive regular reports as to how this portion of the Act was being carried out.
I argue this on three grounds—on the grounds of common sense, of the advance of rural economics and of respect for the law. I think anybody who looks at Category 1 will be really astonished at the mixed group of birds which it contains. One sees the eagle, one does not see the tomtit; one sees the hoopoe grouped alongside of the raven. We notice that the kingfisher, one of the most beautiful of our birds, is a notable absentee and one wonders if the framers of the Bill are more interested in fishing than in grouse shooting. Most astonishing of all is the inclusion of the raven. This bird has been shot in some counties to the number of four or five hundred a year since the War. Ravens do much harm to sport and the lambing interest and I think that in Argyllshire the whole community band themselves

1005
together to destroy this pest. Is it likely, then, that your farmers will apply for a licence in order to kill a bird such as this? I think it is improbable that much revenue will accrue to the Treasury in this direction. I therefore suggest that the raven and other such birds should be taken out of Part 1.
At the present time we are a poor country and there is no poorer section of the country than the rural portion of it. Is it right that any individual should be fined, possibly up to the extent of £200 a year, by being compelled to keep a peregrine falcon on his grouse land. This is a bird which not only kills for food but for sport. I am sure your Lordships have seen it kill one or two birds and not even take the trouble to see where they dropped. It is the finest flyer in the world, but to have this bird preserved, which certainly kills thirty or forty brace of grouse in the course of the year, might easily amount to a loss of something over £200 a year. I do not think this is a reasonable request to make of any one. This is not a matter which ought to be decided from a distance by the Secretary of State advised by a Committee of bird experts, who will naturally think much more of the preservation of birds of prey than of local interests. For that reason I suggest that these birds of prey should be put under the immediate control of the county councils.
Then there is the question of respect for the law, which surely counts for something. If this is to be a real Bill and properly observed let us only put in the Bill things which will command respect. It will strengthen the Bill if you have the local community acting with you in carrying it into effect. As the Bill stands at present that will not be the case. What is the objection that the Government may make to the county councils? County councils are bodies popularly elected representing every section of the community. They cover every district and every area and every interest within it, from the village shopkeeper to the land owner and from the farmer to the worker. Surely these are people who will be able to say whether there is a surplus of ravens or eagles or peregrine falcons in any area. They will issue licences at 1s. apiece, and it will not he necessary to write to the Secretary for Scotland in order to get
1006
authority, but you may get your licence from the clerk to the county council. I admit that my suggestion may make for slightly different conditions in various counties, but your Lordships will see that I have also put down a proposal that reports shall be made to the Secretary of State. In that way he would be able to control matters and see that the Bill is fairly administered. I think you are asking too much of individuals in the rural community in asking them to accept the Bill as it at present stands. If you base this Bill on administration by the popularly-elected county council you will be on sound ground, and have a Bill which will be carried out in its entirety rather than only in part and, therefore, subject to abuse.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line37, leave out the first ("Part") and insert ("Parts'') and leave out ("and in Part II") and insert ("II and III").—(Lord Lovat.)
LORD PARMOOR: I should like in a word or two to support what has been said by the noble Lord opposite. I mentioned to Lord Desborough, who is in charge of the Bill, a question as to how far this was a Consolidation Bill, and how far a substantial alteration of the law. I do not want to go into that again, but I am satisfied that it was intended by the draftsman to be in the form of a. Consolidation Bill. Since the Second Reading I have obtained from the County Council of my County the regulations issued with regard to the protection of various wild birds. I agree with Lord Lovat that it is very much a local question to consider and decide, but I find that the protection in Buckinghamshire is altogether different from that proposed in the Bill itself.
I will give one or two illustrations of birds already protected. There is the goldfinch, the kingfisher, the nuthatch, the tree-creeper, which was mentioned by Lord Buckmaster on the Second Reading, the golden-crested wren, and the lapwing. The last named is protected at all times, and Lord Buckmaster, I think, suggested that there was a diminution in the numbers of this extremely useful bird. In Buckinghamshire, on the contrary, it has increased enormously in recent years, to everyone's advantage. I do not want to go into this in detail, except that I think the suggestion made is a most useful one and that the system

1007
which leaves these matters of the protection of birds and of particular species to the county council is much better than the cast-iron provision proposed in the Bill, to say nothing of the fact that so far as Buckinghamshire is concerned it is a reactionary measure, and omits the protection of birds that we have already protected, much to our advantage.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, with regard to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, it is perfectly obvious that it would, to a very great extent, alter the character of the Bill, because it makes a new and special category for the birds of prey—eagles, falcons, hawks, ravens and so on—which we think is unnecessary. The object of the Bill is to protect, during the nesting season, those British birds which do nest here occasionally, and are getting rare, and are in some danger of extinction. Take, for example, the hobby, the merlin, and some others, it is considered that it would be a detriment to the countryside if these species were wholly to disappear, though, to a certain extent, they do damage. There is another point on which I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend, and that is that the county council would be the best authority to decide which birds should be slain, and which should not. There is already among the county councils an enormous difference of opinion with regard to all the categories of birds, and the regulations which they should be under. Our object is to get the regulations uniform and under some system. I am glad to see the noble Viscount, Lord Grey of Fallodon, in his place, because he has for some years very carefully and laboriously gone into all these matters, and is in a very unique position to give advice to your Lordships.
The Home Office do not approve of idea of making a new category for hawks. Supposing any of these birds do increase, to the detriment of the neighbourhood in any particular locality, Clause 7 provides a very simple and easy means of getting a licence to reduce their number. We venture to think that will be done much more simply and easily through the Secretary of State in England and Scotland respectively, who would be more open to applications than o would be the various county councils throughout the country. I am afraid,
1008
therefore, I cannot say that the Government look with any approval on this Amendment. I think the kingfisher will come later on, but the kingfisher is not at all a rare bird. The list of birds has been very carefully considered. It was not intended to be made too long, but it is a list of birds which in our opinion it would be an advantage to the country side not to have wholly extirpated. It will be very easy under Clause 7 to get a licence to kill them, if they become a nuisance.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, really criticises the Schedule and raises the whole principle of the Bill. I think the points he raised about the composition of Category 1 will come up better on some subsequent Amendments. Lord Lovat also touched on the whole position of the category. For myself, I propose in what I say to restrict myself entirely to the noble Lord's Amendment. His Amendment, I understand, does not challenge the categories, but he desires that certain birds, such as eagles, hawks, falcons, and ravens should, as regards the licence to destroy them, where they are a nuisance, be under the jurisdiction either of the county council or some local authority. The point which the noble Lord raises is a very real one, and one of considerable difficulty.
When the Advisory Committee were considering the Bill we were confronted with the fact that some of these birds are rare in certain parts of the country. The peregrine, for instance, to which the noble Lord paid a very just tribute as a bird of considerable interest, is in some parts of England a very rare bird, and it would be a great pity if it was destroyed by egg collectors or by people who shoot any rare thing which they see and it ceased to be represented as a British species in that part of the country. In other parts of the country the peregrines may be so numerous as to be a nuisance. The same applies still more to the raven. Undoubtedly, in many parts of the country the raven is a great nuisance, and is not in the least becoming a rare bird. If that was so generally it would not be in this category at all, but there are other parts, particularly in England, where, with great trouble, one pair of breeding

1009
ravens have been preserved as a matter of great interest to the locality.
It is exceedingly difficult to know what is the best way of dealing with these special cases. Therefore, if it is admitted that there must be some power of issuing licences to destroy birds such as ravens in districts where they are a nuisance, the question is, in whose hands the licence should be placed. It was considered that on the whole it would be best for the licensing to be with the central authority. We thought that the central authority, which, under this Bill is to have an Advisory Committee who would be in touch with the conditions of bird life in the country, would be in a position to act more promptly and more certainly than the local authority.
In England, for instance, the question of the peregrine does not present such difficulty as in Scotland, where it does present considerable difficulty. We heard of one breeding place of the peregrine which is on the route of homing pigeons. The homing pigeon societies in England have millions of birds, and it is a very harmless and innocent and wholesome pursuit to raise horning pigeons. There is one nesting place on the route of these birds, coming on a long flight, when the birds are tired, and at this particular nest in the course of two years they have found some 2,000 rings from the legs of horning pigeons taken by these peregrines. In a case like that undoubtedly the nesting place there should be put an
end to; but that is only one instance, and the deputation we had from the homing pigeon societies admitted that that was the only place of which they had seriously to complain. It is not at all certain that the county council of that place would be very accessible to representations coming from the homing pigeon societies, which might be quite remote from the county; but they could all go to the Home Office, and they could move the Home Office.
I think the fact that the jurisdiction remains with the Home Office would make it more certain, more rapid and more effective than if it were entrusted to a county council, which is not continually in session, and which might not be particularly interested in a matter which did not concern the locality. As regards Scotland, I cannot speak for the Scottish Advisory Committee, but I understand that both that Committee and the Scottish Office take the same view. As far as I am concerned, I shall be bound to support the advice of the Scottish Advisory Committee and the Scottish Office, and take their opinion that, on the whole, the licences would be more certainly, more effectively and more wisely issued by a central authority which has access to all sources of information, than they would be if the power were placed in the hands of the county councils.
On Question, Whether the word "Part" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Eldon, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hardwicke, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Howe, E.

Lindsay, E.

Annaly, L.

Bedford, D.

Lovelace, E.

Armstrong, L.

Northumberland, D.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Portland, D.

Morton, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Sutherland, D.

Russell, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Buckmaster, L.

Wicklow, E.

Carson, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Yarborough, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Bristol, M.

Clwyd, L.

Bute, M.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Chaplin, V.

Danesfort, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Devonport, V.

Darling, L.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Haldane, V.

de Mauley, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Hampden, V.

Desborough, L.

Airlie, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Ernle, L.

Bathurst, E.

Erskine, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Novar, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Ullswater, V.

Faringdon, L.

Bradford, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Chesterfield, E.

Gainford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Southwark, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Stanmore, L.

Joicey, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Strachie, L.

Kenyon, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Suffield, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Sumner, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Rathcreedan, L.

Templemore, L.

Latymer, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Teynham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomson, L.

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Rowallan, L.

Treowen, L.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Sandys, L.

Wittenham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Somerleyton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Ancaster, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Lovat, L. [Teller.]

Doncnster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Elphinstone, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Mar and Kellie, K.

Forester, L.

Newton, L. [Teller.]

Harris, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Parmoor, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Protection of birds according to categories
(3) This section shall not apply as respects the lapwing or the nest or egg of the lapwing.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There are two Amendments to this clause, in the names of Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon and Lord Buckmaster. I think that of Lord Buckmaster comes first, but I will secure the right of Lord Hunsdon.
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble and learned Lord said: This and two or three subsequent Amendments standing in my name are designed for the purpose of securing the protection of the plumage and the eggs of the lapwing. I do not suppose anybody doubts the value of this bird. I am not myself a member of any agricultural societies, nor can I speak with certainty as to what agricultural societies feel on this matter, but I am told that agricultural societies both in England and in Scotland are in favour of the protection which my Amendment will secure. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, who is in charge of the Bill, will no doubt be able to give exact information on that point. The value of the plover is, of course, known to everyone who has anything to do with agriculture, because it lives on wire worms and leather jackets and there is no other wild creature which is so beneficial for both pasture and plough lands. Every year
1012
the eggs of this unfortunate bird are gathered in basketfuls, brought to London and other big towns and sold for consumption to many persons who do not desire them for the purpose of sustaining their health but for the mere purpose of gratifying a temporary appetite. As between the interests of agriculture and the dietetic interests of these people I cannot help thinking that everyone will agree that the interests of agriculture should prevail.
It appears to me that the people who have framed this Bill have not really had any proper knowledge of the nature and habits of the lapwing. First of all, I observe that any person is liable to a fine who is found in possession of, or offering for sale, the nest of a lapwing. Any one of your Lordships who knows anything about the nature of the bird—and most of you do—knows that the man who could really produce and keep in his possession the nest of the lapwing would be really a person of very remarkable skill. He would probably have to bring a great part of the meadow or moor into this House in order to have this nest properly exhibited. However, I dare say the Department of Forestry, through the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, will tell us something about how people are allowed to pursue their operations and molest the nest of the lapwing in the course of their work I should be very glad if he would tell us how many times he has found a lapwing's nest at the tops of his trees or in any way placed so as to interfere with his forestry operations.
The ignorance of people in connection with this bird is no doubt exceptional,

1013
and of the people who eat its eggs I very much doubt whether there are very many, except persons who, like your Lordships, are familiar with the country, who have ever seen a plover wheeling or have ever heard it call. They do not care anything at all about either the beauty of the bird or the interests of agriculture. All they know is that here is something which they like to eat and which is rather expensive, and so they consume the eggs of this bird remorselessly during the nesting season.
The real thing to most of your Lordships here is undoubtedly the interests of agriculture, but there is another consideration which I do not think should be entirely absent from one's mind. If it once is established that this is really a useful bird, what is to be said on the ether side? I believe that if you placed before this House an issue which resolves itself into the question as to whether your Lordships will be in favour of simplicity or of luxury of life, there would be an unhesitating majority in favour of simplicity. That may not be the general view taken of your Lordships, but I am quite satisfied that I am right. That is one of the minor issues which my Amendment presents. I ask your Lordships to grant this bird complete protection and to remove from our shop windows what; to me, is always a painful sight—the masses and masses of their beautiful eggs gathered together for no purpose except to gratify a few people's appetites.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 6 and 7, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: My noble and learned friend opposite has gone rather beyond his particular Amendment, which is merely a drafting Amendment. He has gone on to his Amendment on Clause 6. I should like to suggest to him that he should drop the Amendment to leave out this subsection, because the subsection makes it quite clear that the provisions relating to the lapwing are entirely contained in Clause 6. We can hardly discuss the question of the lapwing on this Amendment, though I have no doubt we shall have a very interesting discussion later on about it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am willing to take my Amendment on any clause
1014
that the noble Lord thinks right, but, if you look at it, Clause 5 provides that the birds classified under this Act as being in Category II, and the nest and eggs of such birds—the lapwing is one of the birds—shall be deemed to be protected during the close season, and then it says that the section shall not apply to the lapwing. That obviously takes the lapwing out of the protection. I do not mind, however, when it is debated.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I will discuss the question of the lapwing now if it is the desire of the House, but the draftsmen of the Bill tell me that it would be very much better to deal with the matter on Clause 6. There is a great deal of difference of opinion with regard to the lapwing and as to whether it is right or not to eat its eggs. The Home Office has no very strong views, but the representations which were made to the Committee were to the effect that no very great harm was done to the lapwing by taking its first clutch of eggs; that is to say, taking the eggs up to April 15. Those eggs, as a rule, do not do very much owing to disturbance by the operations of husbandry and they are really too early to be very much good. In this Bill it is practically stated that you can take the eggs of the plover, or the lapwing, up to April 15, but if, after April 20, you are found in possession of plover's eggs you suffer certain penalties. On the other hand, it is quite true, as my noble friend has stated, that there is no, doubt that the plover, or lapwing, is a very great friend of the farmer. That is the view of the Farmers' Union, who were very anxious that the lapwing should be wholly protected and its eggs not used for food at all. His Majesty's Government have no very strong view on this subject, and if it is desired that the eggs of the lapwing should be wholly protected they would not, as a Government, offer any opposition. It is obviously a matter for discussion and decision by the vote of this House.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has stated what the history of this clause has been. There was a Departmental Committee, under the Chairmanship of the late Mr. E. S. Montagu, which inquired into the whole subject of bird protection, and it reported that the taking of lapwing's eggs before April 15 was not

1015
detrimental to the total results of the breeding season; that the earlier nests were necessarily disturbed by agricultural operations, harrowing, for instance; and that birds nesting a second time have a better chance of hatching their eggs and rearing their young. Therefore, allowing eggs to be taken up to April 15 was not really detrimental to the numbers of the species. But what is really very important is this: that the sale of lapwing's eggs should be restricted. Lord Parmoor said the lapwing was increasing in Buckinghamshire. I wish my experience had been the same. On the north-east coast of England I know that years ago in the autumn lapwings were in innumerable flocks.
LORD PARMOOR: In Buckinghamshire the lapwing's eggs are protected throughout the year.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Lord Parmoor pointed out that lapwings were increasing in Buckinghamshire and I am delighted to hear it. But my point is that, in the part of the country that I know, where in the autumn flocks of lapwings used to cover the fields and were numbered by thousands, now they are only numbered by dozens. I think the great cause of that mischief is probably not in this country, but in the great breeding grounds of the lapwing in other countries, where the eggs are taken and imported to be sold in the London market. Therefore it is most important that the sale should be prohibited. I have given your Lordships the reason why the protection in the Bill is partial. The Bill looks solely at the preservation of the bird as a breeding species in this country, but I think total prohibition of the sale of eggs—having regard to the mischief which is done in foreign countries where eggs are taken for the London market—would be beneficial on the whole.
The farmer wants the bird, particularly in the autumn. These flocks to which I have referred used to cover the fields and do a great deal of good. Since this Bill has been introduced the Home Office has had numerous representations, I think, in favour of the absolute protection of the lapwing and its eggs all through the year. The Farmers' Union expresses itself in favour of the protection of the bird and its eggs throughout the year. It means, of course, that
1016
we should not be able to eat plover's eggs in the future. The question seems to lie between renouncing the eating of plovers' eggs and the demand which comes from the agricultural community. I think the agricultural interest deserves consideration in this matter. The opinion of that interest is very strongly expressed—undoubtedly the lapwing is one of the best friends of the farmer—and if it is left to the House I shall vote for total protection.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think all agriculturists will agree with what my noble friend Viscount. Grey has just said. The lapwing is protected at the present time in a very large number of counties both in England and in Scotland, but, contrary to the experience of my noble friend, Lord Parmoor, I have not found that it has had the result of increasing their numbers. That is because, although the birds are protected, eggs are still sold. I know that I used to collect a few plovers' eggs and eat them. I do not do that now, but other people collect ten or twenty times as many as I used to collect and they are sold in the market. It is no good trying to preserve the plover unless the sale of eggs is prohibited. The question is whether the sale should be prohibited altogether, as most of the farmers' unions suggest, or whether it should be prohibited after a certain date, as many who have had great experience suggest. There is not really a very great deal in it. The one thing that is important, I think, is that the law should be the same throughout Great Britain and that there should be this prohibition of the sale of eggs. Whether that should be a total prohibition or only after the date specified in the Bill may be open to question, but I am quite convinced that throughout the whole of the country agricultural opinion is very strong on the point that agriculture suffers to a large extent from the diminution of this very valuable bird.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rise for the purpose of keeping our proceedings straight. I am not an authority on the subject, but I understand that my noble friend in charge of the Bill, although he takes no strong view as to the merits of the Amendment, is strongly of opinion, on the advice of his draftsman, that this subsection ought not to be struck out. The noble and learned Lord who is also a great authority takes a contrary view.

1017
I think, perhaps, he would be safe if he left himself in the hands of the Parliamentary draftsman. Then, if necessary, this particular subsection can be dealt with at a further stage of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having left the House free to express an independent opinion without control by Government direction, but I cannot help thinking, after what the noble Marquess has said, that there is a third set of people to be considered, those who have to construe Acts of Parliament. Let us suppose we are construing this Act of Parliament and we find in Section 5 a definite statement that birds are to be protected daring the close season as specified in the Schedule which contains the lapwing. Having got so far we find a subsection which says that the section shall not, apply to the lapwing. That is the first thing. Then Clause 6 says it shall not be lawful to do other things to lapwings. It is plain the Bill will have to be re-drafted. I am quite willing to take the Amendment on anything the noble Lord desires, with the certain knowledge that when that Amendment is accepted it; will be necessary to recast this Bill on the Report stage. My own belief is that these Amendments, which I have rather carefully drafted, carry out the whole thing logically, and that the others do not.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am quite ready to bow to the superior knowledge of my noble and learned friend, and if he is satisfied that we shall not get into any difficulties later on, whichever way the decision may go, I am quite ready to accept it on the understanding that the noble and learned Lord will help me to consider the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD BUCKMASTER: With great pleasure.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask if this nullifies Clause 6 entirely?
LORD BUCKMASTER: If the Committee will forgive me, the position is this: If you want to make this thing plain, I think that the first thing to do is to remove the exception in Clause 5, and then you have to amend Clause 6 so as to prevent its partial application,
1018
since it applies now for a limited period of time. My subsequent Amendments are designed for that purpose.
LORD DANESFORT: May I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, that, if it is the desire of the House to protect the eggs of plovers at all times, the better course would be to put the lapwing in Category I in the First Schedule, in which birds are protected at all times? At present the lapwing is in Category II, in which birds are specially protected only in the close season. That point would arise, I suppose, when we come to the Schedule, but in the meantime, if we desire to put the lapwing in Category I and to have it protected at all times, I do not for the moment see any necessity for Clause 6.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The reason is that Category I protects a bird from all attacks I am suggesting only that you protect plovers' eggs from sale, and this would leave people at liberty to shoot plovers in the autumn if they thought right. If you put them in Category I you could not do that. Having regard to the number of plovers and (I am glad to say) their extreme vigilance, the shooting of them is not a very serious matter.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I understand that the three Amendments standing in the name of my noble and learned friend would practically result in entirely prohibiting the taking and the sale of lapwings' eggs.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The sale is the thing that I want to touch, but I think taking may be included.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I think it includes both. As I have already said, the decision will be left to your Lordships without any direction from the Government.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am quite willing that it should be confined to sale, and, if my Amendments go beyond that, I am perfectly ready to do what I can to provide that the subsequent Amendments shall apply only to sale.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Special provisions with respect to the lapwing.
6.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person—

(a) during the close season to kill, injure or take, or to attempt to kill or take any lapwing; or

(b) during any part of the close season after the fourteenth day of March to sell any lapwing for human consumption, or to have ally lapwing in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption.

(2) Subject as hereinafter, provided, it shall not be lawful for any person, except in the ordinary course of farming or forestry operations, during the close season to take or knowingly and wilfully to disturb any nest or egg of the lapwing:
Provided that notwithstanding the foregoing provision any such nest or egg may, on any day before the fifteenth day of April in any year, be taken or disturbed by the owner or occupier of any land on which it is, or by any person belonging to his household or in his service or authorised in writing signed by him to act on his behalf.
(3) It shall not be lawful for any person—

(a) to sell or expose or offer for sale or to have in his control or possession any lapwing or the skin or plumage or any part of any lapwing killed or taken or any nest or egg of the lapwing taken in contravention of this section; or

(b) on and after the twentieth day of April in any year to sell for human consumption, or to have in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption, any egg of the lapwing, whether taken in contravention of this section or not.

LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to leave out "subject as hereinafter provided." The noble Lord said: I think this is consequential. Subsection (2) of Clause 6 says:
"Subject as hereinafter provided, it shall not be lawful for any person, except in the ordinary course of farming or forestry operations, during the close season to take or knowingly and wilfully to disturb any nest or egg of the lapwing."
It is necessary to leave out "subject as hereinafter provided" because the limitation has been removed. The following Amendment also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("subject as hereinafter provided").—(Lord Buckmaster.)
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 26.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "or any nest." The noble Lord said: I wish to call your Lordships' attention to this reference to the nest of the lapwing because, as the noble and learned Lord opposite has pointed out, there is no such thing, and therefore there is not much use in legislating concerning it. Nobody will be able to sell or offer for sale something that does not exist.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("or any nest'').—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
LORD BUCKMASTER LORD BUCKMASTER moved to omit from paragraph (b) of subsection (3) the words "on and after the twentieth day of April in any year." The noble and learned Lord said: This is the most important of my Amendments. It provides for omitting the words "on and after the twentieth day of April in any year." That provision now goes out altogether, for there is complete prohibition, and the subsection will now run:
"It shall not be lawful for any person…to sell for human consumption…"
and so on; and that is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, was anxious to secure.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, leave out from the beginning of line 34 to the first ("to") in line 35.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Licences to kill and take birds, etc.
7.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have power to grant a licence to any person exempting the holder of the licence from any of the provisions of this Act relating to the killing or taking of birds of any category, or to the taking or disturbing of the nests or eggs of birds of any category for any scientific purpose or for the purpose of the protection of property, crops or fisheries, or for any other special purpose approved by the Secretary of State.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had given Notice to add to subsection (1): "Provided that no licence granted under this section shall entitle the holder thereof to enter on any land without the consent of the owner." The noble Duke said: The Secretary of State can grant a licence for the taking of eggs
"for any scientific purpose or for the purpose of the protection of property, crops or fisheries, or for any other special purpose approved by the Secretary of State."
These words are very wide, and it has been thought—this is not my own Amendment—that some qualification is required. I do not know if the Government will accept my Amendment. They may propose another in its place, and it may be that the proviso would be better if the words "or occupier" were added at the end.
LORD DESBOROUGH: On the part of the Government there is no objection to my noble friend's Amendment. It was never contemplated that the grant of a licence would authorise its holder to trespass.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: May I ask whether it would be well to add the words "or occupier"?
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I think it would be very desirable to add those words. Is there any objection to adding them now?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If it is your Lordships' desire, I can, of course, put the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, at end insert ("Provided that no licence granted under this section shall entitle the holder thereof to enter on any land without the consent of the owner or occupier'').—(The Duke of Buccleuch)
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Penalties.
(3) In addition to any other penalty which a court has power to inflict for offences against this Act the court before which a person is convicted of any such offence may order that any bird, nest, or egg, in respect of which the offence was committed shall be forfeited, and, if they think fit, deposited in a public museum,
1022
and may order that any gun or other instrument in respect of or by means of which the offence was committed shall be forfeited or otherwise dealt with as the court may direct, and may also order that any certificate or licence under this Act, held by the person convicted, shall be cancelled, or shall be suspended for such period as may be specified in the order, and where any certificate or licence under this Act has been so cancelled, or during any period when a certificate or licence is so suspended, no other certificate or licence granted under this Act to that person shall be valid.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "may" ["may order that any bird, pest or egg"] and to insert "shall". The noble Lord said: This clause now declares that—
"In addition to any other penalty which a court has power to inflict for offences against this Act the court before winch a person is convicted of any such offence may order that any bird, nest, or egg, in respect of which the offence was committed shall be forfeited,"
and so on. I say that in a case where any person has been convicted of an offence against this Bill, and has got a clutch of very rare wild birds' eggs, which may be worth £20, besides inflicting a penalty of £5 the eggs or nest or Wild bird ought to be forfeited. Therefore propose that the word "shall" should be substituted for "may".
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: The Government have every sympathy with the object of my noble friend, but they would much prefer that he did not press his Amendment, because they think that it would be better on the whole to leave the discretion to the Court. Circumstances might arise in which the Court might be unwilling to convict, if it necessarily followed that the eggs or other things were forfeited. That is the view of the Government.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Surely the noble Lord's advisers, if I may say so with all respect, confuse the two things. It is perfectly true that if you have a penalty which involves a large money fine and you impose upon the Court the absolute necessity of inflicting it, that frequently leads to a reluctance to convict. But where, as in this case, an

1023
offender has a collection of eggs, directly the conviction has taken place there is nothing left to do except to order that they be forfeited, because it would be impossible for the Court to have come to the conclusion that a conviction should take place unless they thought that the offender was unlawfully in possession of the eggs. To say to the man: "You have taken such risk, and have so nearly broken your neck climbing a tree, that therefore you can keep your eggs," would be to destroy the effect of the section, and I think the word "shall" should be introduced.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am not unwilling to accept the Amendment if it be pressed, although it is really against the advice which I have received.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Definitions.
17. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say:—
"Close season'' means in the case of the woodcock the period from the first day of February to the thirty-first day of August, both days being included, and in all other cases means the period from the first day of March to the eleventh day of August, both days being included:
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in the definition of "close season," to leave out "August" and insert "July." The noble Duke said: I had not intended to bring up this question again, but I have received a number of representations from various parts of Scotland protesting against the special provision in the Bill with regard to woodcock. At the present time throughout Scotland, I think I am right in saying, and certainly it is so in my part of the country, there is a large increase continually taking place in the breeding of woodcock, and where things are going well under present conditions I think it is best to leave things alone. Certain people, however, seem to be of opinion that things might be improved upon, and therefore they have put in the Bill a provision that in the case of woodcock the close season
1024
shall not end until August 31. Great exception to that extension from July 31 is taken in many places. It is held that if this is the law, instead of helping to increase the number of those who breed woodcock, it will have the exactly opposite effect. A large number of people now take an interest in the protection of woodcock, in the hope of being able to shoot a few before they leave the country, but if they have no possible chance of shooting any then it is thought that they will have no possible interest in breeding them.
Then there is another question. Why should this bird have special protection? For that I have heard no real case made out, and as it seems to me that we are getting on very well at the present time, in my opinion it would be much better to leave the law as it is; that is, that the close time should end on the last day of July. I know that large numbers of people say that no one wants to shoot woodcock in August, and still less to eat it then. For my own part I have no desire to do either. There are, however, numbers of people who do. I think that the last time that I brought this matter forward my noble friend opposite compromised to a certain extent. There is, however, exception being taken as regards this, and so I have put down two Amendments. The first one I am now moving. If your Lordships thought fit to pass that Amendment it would mean that woodcock might be shot both in England and Scotland after July 31. On the other hand, if you thought that this Amendment should be confined to Scotland, I have put down an alternative Amendment to Clause 18, and if that is accepted the effect will be that woodcock will be protected in England until September 1 and in Scotland until August 1 only. I think that there is a great majority in favour of this Amendment, and that there are only a few who want the time put to the later date. As I have already stated, I have put down my Amendments because of representations which I have received from a large number of people in different parts of Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 7, leave out ("August") and insert ("July").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: With regard to this Amendment, the object of which is to curtail the close season for woodcock, the Departmental Committee considered the matter at great length and recommended September 30—a very much later date. Woodcock, as the noble Duke knows, are double-brooded, and it is not at all rare to see woodcock with eggs in August. Therefore I do venture to submit that to begin shooting on August 1 would be a rather early and immature proceeding. I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment, and will feel that this bird on ought to have the same protection as the partridge.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: What the noble Lord has said may be the opinion of the noble Lord's advisers, but it is not the view of those who breed woodcock. I have heard the argument before about woodcock being double-brooded, but if the birds are only just out of the eggs the dogs may find them, but the birds will not be shot, and the numbers that are shot now are really very few. I am very keen to encourage the increase of woodcock, and I think the clause as it stands is likely to do more harm than good.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: The date in the Bill, the end of August, is really a compromise date, because a gentleman who is very fond of shooting and who also lives in Scotland has represented to us that the date ought to be the end of September, on the ground stated by Lord Desborough. It is a matter of opinion, and the noble Duke opposite is as well able as or better able than I am to form an opinion. He says that if the close time for woodcock is to last until. August 31, instead of July 31, it will cause such resentment among certain owners of land that they will cease to protect the nests. My own feeling is that date, August 31, ought to be kept, and that woodcock ought not to be shot early in August.
The noble Duke said that if woodcock were breeding in August the dogs might find them but they would not be shot. I have seen woodcock breeding in August. It has generally been in woods, where people would not be shooting in August at all, and they would not come under the notice of sporting dogs. I have, in the middle of August,
1026
seen a woodcock carrying in its claws a young bird, one of its own young which was unable to fly. If woodcocks could be shot in August what would happen would be that that particular woodcock, if it had risen before anybody who was shooting, would have been shot, and it would have been discovered afterwards that it was carrying one of its own young birds. On the whole, I think it would be better that the woodcock should receive the protection which is given to other game and not be exposed to be shot till its breeding season is really over.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON moved, in the definition of "close season," after the first "included," to insert "and in the case of wild duck from the first day of February to the thirty-first day of July both days being included." The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment is to secure that the close time for wild duck shall cease on July 31, instead of on August 11, as is contemplated in this Bill. A great many people cannot shoot duck at all unless they are more or less "flappers" and they will be very much annoyed if they do not get the chance. The real point is, I think, that it is the custom, and, I suppose, the law also in Scotland to shoot them on and after August 1. I think it is a great pity to change the law, because it is very likely, if you did, that you would not be obeyed. It is, indeed, very likely that nobody would know of it, to begin with; and, if they did know of it, I have known cases in Scotland where the law is not obeyed.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 8, after ("included") insert the said words.—(Lord Hunsdon of Hunsdon.)
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: One of the days proposed for the ending of the close time originally was August 31, but shooting has been so common in August that the date of August 11 was adopted in the Bill as a compromise date. I think it is much better that the close time for all these birds in Category III should be made as uniform as possible, and August 11 for birds generally would be a better date than August 1. I think

1027
it would be a great pity to make the wild duck an exception. After all, when the interest in sport is being considered, I think the fact that the young wild duck's power of flight is so limited in August as to make it a very easy shot is rather a reason for keeping August 11 as the date and giving the bird a little better chance than it would otherwise have.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: In this instance I would like to support the contention of Lord Hunsdon, speaking purely from the point of view of sport in Scotland. It is not quite as unsporting as one would imagine from the remarks of Lord Hunsdon. Generally speaking, you would probably never get a shot at duck again for the rest of the season if you missed an opportunity early in August. Yet they form some of the best of sport—and we depend a good deal upon our sport in Scotland for our livelihood. If you did not get the ducks fairly early you certainly would never get them again. They sit in the middle of a loch and there is no means of getting them there, and they probably go down afterwards to the coast. It is not as if ducks were dying out. There is no shortage of wild duck, and I honestly do
not think that they require protection. I know no bird that is better able to look after itself than the wild duck.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Does the noble Lord propose to keep in his Amendment the words "the first day of February" as well?
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: No.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Then that is all right.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I propose to leave this an open question to the House.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: The sole object of my Amendment is to bring the close time to an end for ducks on July 31, instead of August 11.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Lord desires the Question to be put in this form:—"To insert after the word 'included' 'and in the ease of wild cluck to the 31st day of July.'"
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 54.

CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.) [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Balfour, E. (L. President.)

Faringdon, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Yarborough, E.

Hanworth, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Sutherland, D.

Hampden, V.

Jessel, L.

Wellington, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Kenyon, L.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Bath, M.

Novar, V.

Lovat, L.

Bristol, M.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Abinger, L.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Ancaster, E.

Annaly, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)

Bathurst, E.

Armstrong, L.

Bradford, E.

Biddulph, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Donoaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Hardwicke, E.

Sandys, L.

Lucan, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Savile, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

de Mauley, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Mayo, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Suffield, L.

Midleton, E.

Desborough, L.

Teynham, L.

Morton, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Eldon, E.

Howe, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Airlie, E.

Lindsay, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Beauchamp, E.

Lovelace, E.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Chesterfield, E.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Russell, E.

Spencer, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Latymer, L.

Stradbroke, E,

Bledisloe, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wicklow, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Carson, L.

Olivier, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Clwyd, L.

Parmoor, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Danesfort, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Darling, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haldane, V.

Ernle, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ullswater, V.

Erskine, L.

Rowallan, L.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Shandon, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hemphill, L.

Sumner, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Hindlip, L.

Templemore, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Treowen, L.

Arnold, L.

Joicey, L.

Wittenham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment, agreed to accordingly.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in the definition of "close season," to leave out "March" and insert "February." The noble Lord said: The Amendment that stands in my name is designed to protect further those birds mentioned in Category II. Many of these birds pair during February. I am thinking at the moment more especially of the mallard and the snipe which, I think, always pair then; in fact, the mallard has actually been known to lay in February. I think I am correct in saying that these birds always pair during February, sooner or later, according to the mildness or otherwise of the weather.
As regards wild duck in general, I am perfectly well aware that other species of wild duck than the mallard pair and nest later than the month of February; but I think it would be very difficult to discriminate between the different species because there are many other birds mentioned in Category II of the First Schedule which I think deserve further protection. I will not go through the whole list, but many of them are by no means too common now in this country. I heard the noble Lord in charge of the Bill say, earlier this evening, that the kingfisher was comparatively common. That, may be the case in some parts of England, but in other parts of England that I know the bird is not common at all; in fact, it is getting very much rarer, which I think is a great pity. It is a very cruel thing to allow those birds to be shot or taken during the mating season and if this Amendment is agreed to I think it will have the approval of all true sportsmen as well as of a great many people who are interested in the preservation of wild birds in England. I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment moved:—
Page 11, line 9, leave out ("March") and insert ("February").—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD DESBOROTIGH: I admit that there might be a great deal to be said for making the close time for all birds begin on February 1. At the same time I should like to remind my noble friend that the close time at present begins on March 1 and has done so for the last forty or fifty years. I think stronger arguments than he has brought forward would be necessary to secure its alteration. I will not go into details, but the alteration would be very unpopular with a very large section of the community, and, save in exceptional circumstances, February 1 is too early.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: In view of what my noble friend has said, while expressing a little disappointment that he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, I do not desire to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Application to Scotland]:
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, after paragraph (b), to insert: "(c) 'Raven' shall be omitted from the First Schedule." The noble Duke said: I do not desire to move the first of the two Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper—after paragraph (a), to insert "(b) In Section 17 for 'thirty-first day of August' there shall be substituted 'thirty-first day of July'—but I am moving the second. I placed that. Amendment on the Paper because, although the raven still remains in Category I in England, it ought to be transferred to Category III in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has already explained to your Lordships what an enormous

1031
amount of damage to agricultural interests the raven has done and is doing in Scotland.
There have been very numerous representations from flock-masters, especially in the Highlands. It may be said that there are certain parts of Scotland where it is desirable that the raven should be excepted. I think there are, but even if this Amendment is carried it will be perfectly easy to except them because, by Clause 4 of the Bill, the Secretary of State is able to transfer birds from one category to another as respects any specified area. Therefore, if, in any part of Scotland, it is desired to except ravens, it will be quite possible for the Secretary of State to do so in respect of that particular area, even if my Amendment be carried. As showing the ravages which these birds inflict, I may say that in 1922 they killed, in one part of the North of Scotland, no fewer than 366 lambs; in 1923, they killed 352; in 1924, they killed 262; and, during a part of 1925, they killed 227. That was only over a comparatively small area. If the ravens are allowed to have this protection the farmers in that particular area might almost as well give up trying to have lambs at an. There are certain places where the raven should be protected. I have myself always protected ravens' nests in certain places, but in the North of Scotland the complaints against these birds are very numerous indeed. It is purely in the interests of agriculture that I ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 15, at end insert ("(c) 'Raven' shall be omitted from the First Schedule").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: We discussed this interesting bird at an earlier stage of the proceedings. It was put in the protected Schedule owing to the fact that from the greater part of the British Isles it had disappeared. The raven is a bird that has died out in many places and it was hoped that by placing it in the protected Schedule this interesting bird might re-appear in certain districts where it will not be a nuisance. At the same time I would remind the House that Clause 7 gives power to have the bird destroyed if it becomes a nuisance.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to support the noble Duke in regard
1032
to the raven's depredations. Speaking from my personal knowledge I can say that in the high-lying hill districts of the Highlands it is extremely difficult to kill the raven and, now that the country is becoming more and more wooded, the numbers of this bird are increasing. To say that there is any danger of it dying out is absolutely absurd. They do an enormous amount of damage. Every day I can see twenty or thirty of them flying over my house. There is no danger whatever of this bird becoming extinct and it certainly is not one that should be put in a specially protected category. It is quite able to look after itself.
LORD LOVAT: I hope the noble Duke will press his Amendment. I think it is quite unfair to those areas where great damage is done by birds such as the raven that they should not be able to protect their flocks, simply because of the wish of some gentleman in the South to get an occasional glimpse of a raven. I would suggest that if gentlemen wish to keep ravens they should keep them at home in a cage, and should allow the bird to be destroyed where it is undoubtedly doing a great deal of harm to the agricultural interests. I do not see any reason why we should be mealy-mouthed about this. The raven is also doing a great deal of harm to the sporting interest in the northern part of Scotland. The sporting interest represents one of the most important industries we have. We have high poor laud which, notwithstanding the views that are sometimes expressed in another place, we cannot turn into wheat land and I fail to see why we should not be allowed to use this land in our best interest. I therefore trust that the noble Duke will press his Amendment.
LORD OLIVIER: May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether this clause applies only to Scotland?
LORD DESBOROUGH: Yes.
LORD OLIVIER: In that case would not those persons who wish to observe this bird in the southern part of the country be adequately safeguarded?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: If my Amendment is accepted it will only affect Scotland. The raven will still be protected in England.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to
Clause 19 agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
  CLASSIFICATION OF BIRDS.
    PART I.
    Birds in Category I (specially protected at all times).

PART II.
Birds in Category II (specially protected during the close season).
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in Part I, after "Kentish plover" to insert "kingfisher." The noble Duke said: I do not know whether this Amendment will be accepted. There are several demands that it should be. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, alter ("Kentish plover") insert ("kingfisher").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: I cannot accept this Amendment. The kingfisher cannot possibly be classed as a rare bird. In a great many cases it does infinitely more harm than the raven. I remember trying to bring salmon to the Thames and I stocked a number of streams with that interesting fish. The fish mysteriously disappeared, although no kingfishers were found there. We had some wire nets put up and no fewer than sixty kingfishers committed suicide upon them. That shows that although you may not see the kingfishers they are not by any means rare birds. There are many birds which have a, much greater claim to go into the protected Schedule than the kingfisher, and the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY moved in Part I, to leave out "Falcon (all species)." The noble Viscount said: My reason for moving this Amendment is different from that of my noble friend Lord Lovat. It seems to me that in this Bill we are taking great trouble to secure the preservation and protection of wild birds and we have put in lines to exempt altogether the hawk tribe from being destroyed. Our action in this matter seems to me to be quite anomalous.
1034
There are plenty of these birds all over England and Scotland and it does seem to me an anomaly that we should have to do something to secure their protection. I move this Amendment to exempt falcons from the first category and I propose later to leave out harriers also. I do this so that people may be able to protect their poultry and small game from the depredations of these birds. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("Falcon (all species)")—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I hope your Lordships will not accept this Amendment. The greatest amount of damage that is done by hawks is done by the sparrowhawks, and damage is also done by the kestrel occasionally. The sparrowhawk and the kestrel are exempted from the protection which this Bill gives. So far as that is concerned, the notoriously mischievous hawks, of which the kestrel is hardly one, receive no protection. If the noble Lord's Amendment is carried we shall have hawks like the hobby, beautiful and comparatively rare, which have no protection. One is told that in the case of these rare hawks the places where they nest are marked down to enable egg collectors to add to their collections. I think that if you exclude from protection all hawks, including the harriers, which do very little damage to game, it would be a serious blemish on the Bill. They are not numerous enough in any part of the country to do damage to game, but some people have gone to a heat deal of trouble to restore them as a breeding species.
LORD DESBOROUGH: May I say on behalf of the Home Office that they think that protection should not be removed from falcons, harriers and hawks of all species. I hope my noble fiend will not persist in his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Following my own unguided inclination I had prepared quite a long list of birds that I was anxious to put into the First Schedule. I then had the privilege of an interview with Viscount Grey, who treated me so severely that I eliminated all except the golden-crested wren. I certainly thought the size and charm of that bird might

1035
enable it to creep into the Schedule without anyone objecting at all. I have, however, had a further interview with Viscount Grey and he has explained that if I move my Amendment with regard to this bird and with regard to others that I desire to put into the Second Schedule, I shall dislocate the Bill. As I appreciate very much both the value of the advice and the enormous value of his assistance, I feel I must sacrifice the whole of my birds and let them be left to the tender mercies of bird-nesting boys. I should like, however, before abandoning them altogether, to explain that it was not I who was responsible for wishing to insert in the Second Schedule a bird called the whitechat.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in Part II, to leave out "Wild Goose (all species)." The noble Duke said: There are complaints by farmers that these geese eat down their wheat just as if it had been grazed by a big flock of sheep. Under this Bill they will not be allowed to shoot them after February 24 except by paying a licence of £1 and risking penalties of £500. They will not be able to protect their awn property and crops except by going to a Government office with the usual delay, paying a pound for a licence and risking penalties of £500. I am informed, and I think Viscount Grey will agree with me, that the only place in which these geese breed is somewhere in the Hebrides. That could easily be dealt with by a Schedule, if necessary. If my Amendment is accepted it will not have the effect of doing any damage to these geese—they are pretty well able to look after themselves—and it will give the farmers the satisfaction of feeling that we are doing something to protect their crops from being destroyed by these birds.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("Wild goose (all species)").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: The object of this Amendment is to allow owners and occupiers to shoot geese during the close season. The Government do not view the Amendment with any great favour. There are very few geese that do nest in this country. I suppose the grey lag is about the only one. If owners and occupiers were allowed to shoot geese
1036
in the close season it would be very difficult to carry out the close season for ducks.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to know how many wild geese are killed in a year, and what is the immense damage that is being done by sportsmen to these geese?
LORD DESBOROUGH: And I should like to know what is the immense damage to crops referred to?
LORD LOVAT: I hope my noble friend will go on with this Amendment. Almost right along the east coast of Scotland geese assemble in great flocks in March and April and some of them, such as the brent geese, are there quite late in the year. They do a certain amount of damage and have to be scared off the crops. I think the idea that if they are not shot some of these geese are going to alter the whole of their habits and come to nest in Scotland is one of the most extraordinary ideas I have heard. I am quite sure that Lord Grey will not associate himself with the idea that if we do not shoot in March and April geese which do not nest and never have been known to nest in the British Isles, they will alter the habit formed long before crops were thought of.
VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: Some inquiry was made about this, but I have not been able to ascertain that serious damage is done by brent geese. I have not heard of their doing damage to craps. I should have thought that the only damage would have been done by various kinds of grey geese, which do go on the fields in the autumn. It is very desirable that the grey lag geese should be protected. We cannot very well distinguish between the varieties of grey geese, and say that one grey goose may be shot and others not. I should have thought that it would be better to leave it to the Scottish Office to deal, by the system of licence, with cases where these wild geese do damage, rather than to allow the shooting of wild geese generally for a month later than is the case at the present time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

HEATHER BURNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
TEE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, this Bill was introduced in another place by a private member and obtained both Second and Third Readings without opposition. His Majesty's Government have now decided to adopt it and hope that, having regard to its importance from the point of view of food production, it will be passed this Session. It follows on the Report of the Game and Heather Burning Committee of 1921, which went into the matter carefully in the light of experience of War-time Regulations on this subject, and to a large extent it gives effect to the recommendations of that Committee, which was so ably presided over by the Duke of Buccleuch. Its purpose is to enable heather burning to be carried out more efficiently than at present with a view to the improvement of sheep pasture, but actually its provisions will be of no avail unless the heather is burnt systematically.
Under the present law heather burning is permissible only from November 1 to April 10, with a fortnight's extension for high, wet moorlands. This Bill permits heather burning from October 1 to April 15, and provides that the proprietor of any land, or the tenant with the permission of the proprietor, may burn heather until April 30, or in the case of land in deer forests over 1,500 feet above sea level, up to May 15. Provision is also made whereby, in the event of the proprietor refusing to grant permission, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland may, if completely satisfied as to the expediency of so doing owing to the situation or altitude of the land or for other sufficient reasons, authorise a tenant to burn heather up to May 15. On that, point I may assure your Lordships that the intention is to employ only senior officers on the Board's staff, men with practical experience and knowledge of hill grazings, or, if circumstances call for it, a man who is specially skilled in those matters, brought, in from outside altogether and not being a member of the staff of the Board.
The other main provision of the Bill is the conferring of power upon the Board
1038
of Agriculture for Scotland to regulate heather burning in cases where the tenant is precluded by the terms of his lease or otherwise from burning heather
"in such manner or to such extent to him necessary or expedient."
Before making the Order the Board may conduct an inquiry and consider any representations lodged with them and, in making the Order, the Board have to prescribe conditions subject to which heather may be burnt and must have regard
"to the interests of the proprietor, of the tenant and of any other person whom they may deem to have an interest."
The justification for the intervention of the Board of Agriculture in these matters is, of course, the importance in the national interest of protecting food production in Scotland. The question as to the period fin heather burning was discussed at length in the Committee stage in another place. Amendments to allow heather burning up to April 30 and in deer forests above 1,500 feet up to May 31 were negatived, but the Bill was amended so that heather burning up to April 30 by the proprietor, or with his permission, or on the authority of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, should not be confined to high and wet moor lands.
It is hoped that the provisions of the Bill will be of real service to agriculture. It is understood that farming opinion in Scotland approves the Bill, though in this as in other matters a more drastic alteraton of the law would no doubt have been welcomed in some quarters. Both the promoters of the Bill and the Government have been anxious to secure, consistently with the national interest, a fair balance between the interests of the proprietors and those of tenants. I believe that certain noble Lords who have great knowledge in these matters will have Amendments to move on the Committee stage. I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Government will welcome the consideration of those Amendments and wish to deal fairly in all respects with all parties interested in this matter. An Amendment has been drafted to deal with the forestry point of view, and to protect woodlands from any danger of fire caused by indiscriminate heather burning. This, I believe, will be avoided under this Bill to the satisfaction of the Forestry Commission and, I believe, of my noble friend

1039
Lord Lovat, who originally raised this point with me. Any other Amendment will be gladly welcomed by His Majesty's Government, and accepted if it is possible to do so in conformity with the spirit of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I desire very briefly to call your Lordships' attention to one aspect of this question which did not receive adequate consideration in the Committee of the House of Commons in which this Bill was considered. I refer to the question of how the burning of heather up to the dates mentioned in this Bill will affect the preservation or destruction of wild bird life in the districts in question There are many people who consider that the dates fixed in this Bill up to which burning is allowed are too late—that April 30 is too late for lowlands and May 15 gives too long a period for land above 1,500 feet. It is only with reference to those higher lands that I desire to say a word or two.
The omission to deal with this aspect of the question is perhaps all the more remarkable considering that your Lordships have been occupied to-day with the preservation of the wild birds, whose interests have been neglected, as I venture to think, in this Bill. May I quote a few words from an article by Dr. Eagle Clarke, who wrote in the Scottish Naturalist in November, 1917, in the following terms:
"The Highland deer forests are the most promising haunt for the preservation of wild life in the British Isles. They are, in fact, natural reserves."
These are the very districts dealt with in the part of the Bill that refers to land over 1,500 feet above sea level. This distinguished person goes on to tell us of some of the birds that are to be found in these districts between 1,500 feet and 2,000 feet. They include the curlew, the red grouse, the lapwing, of which we have heard so much to-day, the snipe, the mallard, the teal, the little grebe, owls, both tawny and long-eared, the buzzard and the black-throated diver; and your Lordships will notice that very nearly all the birds to which I have referred are birds that are specially pro-
1040
tected either in Part I or Part II of the First Schedule of the Bill with which your Lordships have been dealing to-day.
May I suggest for the consideration of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, which will have to deal with this question of allowing the burning to go on until May 15, whether some words ought not to be put into the Bill that in giving their decision as to how long burning shall be allowed to continue, they shall have regard, as far as possible, to the preservation of this bird life? The precise form, perhaps, the Scottish Board of Agriculture will consider, but that some such words should be put in I think your Lordships will agree.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion pass without saying that I very much regret that the Government should have thought necessary to take up this Bill, which I understand was introduced by a private member, and to pass it through Parliament under their own auspices. The noble Duke, in the short speech which he made as to the reasons for the Government's action in this matter, told us that it was in the interests of food production. I suppose that owing to the great facility given for the burning of heather it was thought that there would be a larger supply of grass for sheep grazing. I am very doubtful whether this great increase in food production which is anticipated by the noble Duke will take place. I know a great many areas in Scotland where, during the War, under the Defence of the Realm Act, tenants had the power to burn heather indiscriminately. Vast tracks of heather were burnt with the only result that a little, sparse, bad-looking grass came tip on which it was possible to keep only a very few sheep. That there was any large increase in the number of sheep grazed I do not think will be contended.
On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to admit that in the case of certain classes of land, by continual burning and the heavy stocking of sheep, you may get rid of the heather altogether, and get a fair amount of grass. That kind of land, however, is not of any great extent and I do not believe that there is a very large area where an increase in our flocks may be expected. The noble Duke has given us no information on that point at

1041
all, and I think that this Bill has largely been forced upon the Government by the action of a certain number of large sheep farmers, who, during the past few years, have been more prosperous than any other class of farmer in the United Kingdom. I happen to know that because I am one myself. In addition to the power given in this Bill, for which I think no sound reason is advanced, the Bill also contains the old fault of breaking existing contracts. These men, a large number of whom during the last ten or fourteen years have had an exceedingly good time in farming, are to be allowed to break contracts into which they have entered with their landlords that the heather burning should be in the hands of the landlord. Clause 2 now gives the tenant power, in order to break the conditions of his lease, to go behind the landowner's back and to get permission to burn heather just as he likes.
It is perfectly known to all of your Lordships in this House that the grouse shooting in many parts of Scotland is worth two and three times what the grazing is worth. Of course the noble Duke may get up and say it is in the interests of food production, but even then it is doubtful whether grouse, which is an exceedingly valuable bird and very good to eat, is not also, when bred in large numbers, a valuable form of food production in this country. It is a question whether the extra number of sheep which it is hoped to raise will make up for the elimination of what is, perhaps, the best eating bird in the whole of the British Isles. We have just been spending some of our time, perhaps very profitably, trying to preserve a great many birds of which I have never heard, and of which I honestly confess I never want, to hear again. Having spent, I think, nearly two hours of this evening in considering a Bill for the preservation of these wild birds, of which I suspect that a good many of your Lordships are in the same ignorance as myself, we are now asked to pass a Bill which will have the effect of banishing from our Isles one of the birds of which we ought to be very proud.
Your Lordships may feel inclined to ask why, holding these views, I do not put down an Amendment to reject the Bill on the Second Reading. I do not do
1042
that for the simple reason that, unfortunately, one's powers are very limited. If an evilly-disposed tenant wishes to do harm, of course he can do a very great deal of damage for which the landowner can get very little redress. When I first looked at the Bill I thought there was something to be said for it. I rather hoped it would have stopped at the first clause, but unfortunately such is not the case. I hope that in Committee some noble Lords from the North will be able to suggest Amendments which to some extent will allow the owners some little control over their property, and that the effect of the Bill will not in the result be so serious as I honestly fear it will be. I hope, too, that the measure may not have such dire effect as I fear, owing to the good will of the tenants themselves. As I read the Bill, however, it places the whole control in the tenant and the landlord is only to be a rent-receiver.
LORD LOVAT: I am glad to hear that after representations made by the Forestry Commission the Government has decided to take notice of forestry in this Bill. As the Bill was originally drafted the words "woods," "plantations" or "forests" did not appear in any part of it. This was a privately drafted Bill and, as is often the case in Private Bills, was not conceived on very broad lines. It was more concerned with the differences of interest between landlord and tenant than as to how it would affect the general interest of the community. One of the greatest enemies of forestry is fire. In the small State forests which at present exist in Britain there were one hundred and twenty-six fires last year. In countries like America something like two million acres of timber are burnt in a dry season, while all who have travelled in the south of France know the great fires which occur on healthy land there, in the Esterels or Landes.
I trust that the Government will see that at this late hour sufficient protection is given not only to State forests, but also to those landowners who wish to plant in the neighbourhood of moorland. The forests of the future, which are going to be run by the State will, if the programme accepted in 1919 is continued, amount to an area of 1,700,000 acres, and their value ultimately will be

1043
certainly well over £100,000,000 or £200,000,000. At a time when we are legislating for land which is to be in the neighbourhood of some of these great forest areas, it is important that adequate steps should be taken that the danger of fire is kept as small as possible. During the last two months, we have had many representations from tree planters in Scotland that this will add a very considerable risk to the tree planting industry. I do not wish to associate myself with opposition to the Bill, provided that forestry is adequately safeguarded in the way that the noble Duke who represents the Government says that it is to be safeguarded.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, two or three months ago a certain noble Lord, a member of this House, informed me that the Secretary of State for Scotland was introducing a Bolshevist measure on heather burning. I must confess that if our friends the Bolsheviks never burn anything worse than heather—or should I say anything more desirable to burn than heather?—I shall have found my first and only argument in favour of that particular cult. For a good many years we have had desultory talk on the subject of heather burning, coinciding with the meetings of the Farmers' Unions and General Elections. But as the matter is of little more than academic interest to the generality of those most concerned, and would not turn fifty votes in the country, it has so far been severely left alone by various Governments, and has not been dealt with until the present day. At the same time, there is no smoke without fire, and it is possible in the first place that there may be isolated cases of injustice; and in the second place, as the law at present stands, in wet years and on the high ground it has been difficult to get burning done in the time allowed.
With regard to questions of injustice, even if they are few, I think the Secretary for Scotland has done wisely in trying to meet them. For we all know that a small personal grievance is very often exaggerated and used as a lever for quite different ends. I am all in favour of this Bill, so far as it removes any legitimate grievance and so far as it safeguards certain points which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat.
1044
With regard to the second point, there are certain orators who on the correct occasions go about suggesting that landlords do not wish to burn the heather on their lands, in order to encourage sport and injure the sheep-farmers' stock—the only animal which apparently is the special concern of a great benign Providence. The contrary, of course, is the case, as is well known to your Lordships.
In nearly every shooting lease a special burden is put upon the shooting tenant if possible to burn his ground, so that there may be young heather for the grouse and grazing for the deer; and what suits the sheep-farmer equally suits the landlord. In my own experience the difficulty has been rather to get the sheep farmer to burn the ground than the reverse. If you want to get it burned it has been found best in practice to insist that the shooting tenant should undertake the job. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred where there is also a sheep farmer, on most well managed estates, there is happy co-operation between the farmer and the landlord or shooting tenant. If there is a difficulty I think it really lies in trying to get what I may term the two sections to go in for a style of burning that suits both parties.
You have to remember, first of all, that the land is the property of the landowner, and it is only correct that his rights should be considered. On the other hand, it is necessary that, to get the best advantage out of the grazing for the food supply of the country sufficient of the moor should be burnt to provide young grass for the sheep. We have to remember the enormous amount of money that is brought into the country by sporting subjects, and the very considerable contribution which they make to the rates; and we therefore have to look upon not only the sheep but also the deer as an alternative crop, and grouse as a sort of catch crop on both, in order to get the best advantage out of the land. All this means that the land has to be burned scientifically, and not in a haphazard way. A sheep farmer with only a couple of shepherds has usually not got the labour to control the fire. The result is that if it were left entirely to the shepherds they would probably drop two or three matches about the place and let the whole country burn out; whereas, if the two sections

1045
work together and the shooting tenant helps with labour, the work is more scientifically carried out.
The Grouse Disease Committee, of which some of us were members, and which issued its Report some years ago, showed very clearly that sheep, within limits, were of advantage to a grouse moor, and not the reverse. I can quote a case in my own knowledge of a moor which a few years ago carried 750 brace of grouse as an average, and whose average has now been lowered to 40 brace, simply because a sheep farmer had stripped the moor of all heather. That the proprietors naturally want to prevent. It was of very little advantage to the sheep but it had a very detrimental effect on the financial resources of the district.
The Secretary for Scotland has, I think, tackled the matter courageously, and given a fair judgment in the matter, and for that reason I am going to support the Bill. There are many criticisms which I could make, but I think its advantages, if it is going to secure peace and get this perpetually festering sore out of the way, compensate for its disadvantages. I am not qualified to speak for the Lowlands, but in the Highlands the free extra days given will do no harm, and the additional ones, if properly controlled by the Board, as I think is provided for in this Bill, will not do harm to any high-lying wet districts, but will actually be of advantage.
I could put some awkward questions to the noble Duke who has moved the Second Reading on the question of deer forests. I might ask him, What is a deer forest? I might say, If it is a deer forest, in what way would it affect the sheep farmer, and why is he dragged in? Why is it necessary to talk about deer forests in the Bill at all? I might point out that under this Bill deer forests over the 1,500 feet level may be burned, but if they are sheep farms they cannot have the extended time of burning under the Act, whilst grouse moors over 1,500 feet will apparently get off scot free. I am not asking the noble Duke to alter this; I thoroughly agree with the Bill. I can almost visualise proprietors of grouse moors in this altitude asking for a special indulgence in certain years, to have the same privilege of late burning on certain patches as is given to owners
1046
of deer forests. But these are all points which I think your Lordships need not trouble about or take seriously, as few-people will be affected.
Two points I think have to be elucidated, points of which I understand the Secretary for Scotland is aware and with which he may yet deal, first, it is not clear who is; the tenant within the meaning of the Act in respect of crofter townships. In that case it seems to me that it must be the Crofter Committee, acting for all the crofters in a common grazing, and that in some way the Land Court, which is the existing authority, must be brought in. The second point is that special provision must be made with regard to the safety of neighbouring woodlands, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has pointed out. A large area of Scotland has recently been planted and is highly inflammable, and badly controlled burning might do many thousands of pounds' worth of damage.
Two minor points that I want to make in conclusion are, first, that I think there should be an addition of words to Clause 1 to the effect that the Board must take into consideration any representation made by the proprietor. At present they are not bound to do so. This seems to be implied, but I think it might be better to have the words inserted in the clause. The last point that I would make is that there should be an addition to Clause 1 of words making it obligatory on the tenant to notify the proprietor of any application he makes to the Board. I think that is only fair and right. Otherwise, I beg to support the Bill and, while everybody may not have got exactly what he wants out of it, I hope that both sides will take is as an honest endeavour to meet the reasonable views of both parties.
THE DUCK OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, as I was Chairman of the Game and Heather Burning (Scotland) Committee I should like to say something about the Bill introduced by the noble Duke. As I understand it, the Bill is a compromise between landowners and tenants and I should like to remind the noble Duke that the Committee over which I presided, which sat for some time and wag a very representative one, made certain suggestions. But the Bill goes far beyond what we suggested, and it seems to me that if the Government

1047
desires to keep proper control of the heather burning it ought not to go very much off the line laid down by my Committee.
One objection to this Bill is that which is offered to many Private Members' Bills—that the drafting is not what it should be. It was altered, I understand, a good deal in Committee in another place and no one now knows exactly what it means. That is nearly always a disadvantge of Private Members' Bills which have been amended as compared with Public Bills in which Government draftsmen have had a hand. As regards the power to burn, many people argue that the tenant farmer is the man who ought to do the burning because he knows what to do and is not likely to injure his farm. But it has been already pointed out that the landowners' interest is a permanent interest, whereas the tenant farmer may have only a temporary interest, though I am glad to say in many cases that his temporary interest continues for a good many years. But unless proper care is exercised, there is not only a danger of the fire going too far but even of its spreading to other people's plantations.
It is suggested in the Report of my Committee that the general permission given to burn up to April 30 under Regulation 2 M. (10) should not be made permanent, but that the normal limit of burning should be the 15th of April. The Committee recommended, however, that the power given to proprietors to burn or to give their tenants permission to burn up to April 25 on "high and wet muir lands" should be continued, but should not go beyond that date. On that point the Committee said:—
"We are led to this conclusion "—
that the normal limit of burning should be the 15th April—
"not only by the evidence laid before us as to the time at which the nesting of grouse becomes general, but by the consideration that on most hill sheep farms lambing is in full progress before the end of April. We are thus disposed to add five days to the period normally permitted under the Act of 1772–73."
The few days left beyond that date make the burnings late enough at any rate in the South of Scotland. When, during the War, permission was given for burnings
1048
up to May 1, the lambing was greatly interfered with in one place that I know. The fire raged for three days and affected a number of farms. Your Lordships will readily see that there may be considerable danger to sheep and lambs in such cases.
It seems to me that it is in Clause 1 that the Bill goes wrong to the greatest extent. That clause, I think, is difficult to understand. The Game and Heather Burning Committee reported that a grazing tenant who had failed to obtain an extension from the proprietor should be entitled to apply to the agricultural executive committee for a permit to burn up to April 25. That refers, of course, to tenants to whom the landowner had handed over his right to burn. When the Committee reported the agricultural executive committees were in existence, but they were abolished some years ago. It was on their Report that the permit was granted by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, but seeing that those committees have disappeared the only body left to deal with the matter is the Board of Agriculture. If a complaint is made that the owner has not burned sufficient heath the Board, under the Bill, may make an order regulating the burning of the heather on the land in question if it is satisfied that it is expedient so to do. If the Board of Agriculture has already inquired and satisfied itself that more heather ought to be burnt it seems to me that it is in a position to make an order. On the other hand, unless proper inquiries have been made it cannot possibly do that.
As to the extension of the Bill to the autumn I was glad to hear what the noble Duke said in moving the Second Reading. Many people, of course, look upon the question of heather-burning as purely a game question. In the North of Scotland the game question is very important and the sheep question is in some cases comparatively unimportant. On the other hand, in the South of Scotland it is the sheep question to which attention has to be paid. Land may be very greatly damaged by over-burning, more even than by under-burning, which, of course, is more easily corrected. The greatest care ought to be taken in giving permission to burn. I once had a tenant who, on leaving the farm, admitted that he had not been round the farm lands or

1049
inspected the ditches and did not know their condition. It would be perfectly absurd to give such a man permission to burn heather. I have other cases, not very many, where complaint was made of the heather not being properly burned. One was the case of a very good tenant and the agent was instructed to go there. The tenant was unable to point out the places where the heather had been improperly burner, but other places which had not been mentioned were found where it had not been properly burned.
I am afraid it is not by any means the case that sheep fanners do take this great interest in heather burning that has been represented. On the whole, there is general give and take in this matter and, broadly speaking, I believe the interests of the grouse and of the sheep in my part of the world are not very far apart. Personally, I have to look at both sides of the question, because I have a considerable amount of hill land in my own parish. I do not know whether it is less burned than that of neighbouring farmers, but certainly I have not suffered from under-burning. I think this Bill should make quite clear exactly what is meant, and I hope the Government will look into the first clause: it seems to me somewhat ambiguous. At any rate, I do not quite understand it. I trust also that the Government will favourably consider any Amendments that we may suggest to remedy what is complained of without inflicting any very great hardship on anybody.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, His Majesty's Government are very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken upon this Bill, and I can assure them that the suggestions which they have made will meet with full consideration before the Committee stage. Any Amendments that noble Lords themselves feel disposed to put down will have our most earnest consideration. With regard to the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Ancaster, I think he was in a little doubt—though I may have misunderstood him—as to whether the increase in food production would be very material as the result of this Bill. The Bill is based upon that expectation, although in certain respects it differs from the Report of the Duke of Buccleuch's Committee. In
1050
certain respects, however, it is based upon that Report and, in the opinion of that Committee, the steps which we now propose would increase the stock of wool and mutton in Scotland. Really we are acting upon that Report, which had the advantage of the evidence of the greatest experts who were available at that moment.
That Report also pointed out that in certain places in Scotland—perhaps not a great many places—there was a great deal of under-burning of heather. That perhaps does not apply everywhere, but in certain districts one can see that it is so. The Report, on the whole, strongly advocated heather burning, although, it may be, in a slightly different way from that which this Bill lays down. The reason is that agricultural executive committees existed at that time and they no longer exist; consequently, the Board of Agriculture is the only power left which can deal with this question and to whom an appeal can be made. The Report of the Committee on Grouse Disease, over which Lord Lovat presided some years age, has also pointed out that there was under-burning and that high heather was very often a cause of disease The existence of high heather shows the lack of burning. I think it was my noble friend Lord Ancaster who stated that this this was entirely in the farmers' interests. That is not so. Nearly everybody agrees that a proper system of heather burning is good for grouse, not perhaps in the same proportion or to the same degree as for sheep, but I believe a very useful via media may be found by which both grouse and sheep may be benefited by judicious heather burning.
There is no doubt that in certain cases heather burning has been neglected and it is at that that this Bill mainly aims. I agree most strongly with my noble friend the Duke of Atholl when he told us that it is the shooting rents which pay the rates and not the agricultural rents. That is absolutely true and one has to keep it in mind. As the noble Duke pointed out there are one or two anomalies in the Bill. There are in all Bills, or, at least, in a great many Bills. We invite the noble Duke to bring forward any Amendments to deal with the point that he raised. Such assistance would be of very great help to His Majesty's Government. Lastly, I should

1051
like do say that the Board of Agriculture, as your Lordships may be aware, are not likely to insist upon anything until after due consideration of the interests of all the parties and after receiving the very best advice from unbiased sources. There is a feeling that sometimes there may be unfairness, but I can assure noble Lords that the Board of Agriculture are not likely to be accused of that in the future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALE OF FOOD (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which was appointed for to-day) postponed.
AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Second Reading (which was appointed for to-day) postponed.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Appointment of Commissioners.
(2) If and whenever a vacancy occurs among the Commissioners, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a person to fill the vacancy, but the name of every person so appointed shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days after the appointment, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then within ten days after the next sitting of Parliament.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"(2) If and whenever a vacancy occurs among the Commissioners, His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint a person to fill the vacancy, but every such order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, within ten days after it is made if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, then within ten days after the next sitting of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is purely a drafting one and in no way affects the substance of the Bill. The
1052
words of the subsection in the Bill as it stands follow precedent, but the view is taken that the expression as to laying the name before Parliament is not very proper. The Amendment therefore proposes, in effect, that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, by Order in Council, to appoint a person to fill the vacancy, and that the Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament with the name included. As this is a more satisfactory method of procedure I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Privilege Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
SECRETARIES OF STATE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RE-ELECTION OF MINISTERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH FAMILIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether replies have been, received from the self-governing Dominions to the communications addressed to them by the Colonial Office during the autumn of 1924 on the subject of the naturalization of the children of British subjects born abroad during the period of the War, and if the answer be in the negative, what further steps His Majesty's Government propose to take in order to remove the disabilities under which these children are suffering owing to the hostilities in operation at the time of their birth.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships at any great length in asking this Question,

1053
because I have already raised the subject on three occasions in this House and on all those occasions I have been fortunate enough to secure the sympathy of noble Lords on both sides of the House. When the Labour Party was in power my noble friend Lord Parmoor asked me to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject, and although, when I asked the Question last year, my noble friend Lord Desborough apparently had not such complete reliance on my ability to introduce suitable legislation, he, at any rate, was extremely sympathetic on the subject.
As I understood at that time he considered it was not a matter merely of national concern, but rather of Imperial concern, so that it was necessary to consult the self-governing Dominions, and communications had already passed with them in the autumn of 1924. It is now one year and nine months since those communications were made, and I venture to submit that there has been sufficient time not only for the matter to be considered by the Dominions but also for a reply to be received from them. I cannot speak with authority, but I have reason to believe that replies have been received from all the self-governing Dominions, with the exception of one. I am sure that that great Dominion is not really negligent of the interests of her fellow subjects in other parts of the Empire. It may be that by the pressure of other matters this has escaped attention. I venture to suggest to the Government that they might remind this Dominion that an answer is desirable.
I hope my noble friend who replies to this Question will not tell me that it is going to be referred to the Imperial Conference, because, although it is a question of very real importance to a certain number of His Majesty's subjects, I think it is not of sufficient importance to make certain that it will be considered at that Conference. Moreover, I saw a statement in the newspapers that owing to Election troubles in the Dominion to which I have referred it may not be represented with the same authority as other Dominions will be represented at the Conference.
I should like to call the attention of the Government to the fact that, while we have been sleeping, the children who are specially affected by this legislation,
1054
or the want of legislation, have been growing up. The question affects children who were born between August 4, 1914, and the summer of 1919. The eldest of these children will be now nearly twelve years of age and the younger ones eight years. The time is coming when a great many of them will come to this country for their education, and there is a certain amount of humiliation, both to them and to their parents, that they may not enter as British subjects, but have to undergo all the preliminaries of answering questions which are necessary in the case of aliens in order to satisfy the authorities here that they may properly be admitted.
I know the question is very acutely felt by many of our very loyal fellow subjects abroad who are doing good work for British trade in various parts of the world. I have had endless communication from individuals, and resolutions have been passed by British Chambers of Commerce in various parts of the world. I do hope that the answer of the noble Lord will be of a nature which will let these people know that the matter is really receiving the consideration of the Government, that they fully realise that it only affects a small number of people, that it can easily be relieved, that it does not affect the general question of nationalisation, and that they will do their utmost in as short a time as possible to relieve the anxiety of those parents who fear that their children will never become in the same position as the natural born.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I am afraid the premonitions of my noble friend are very likely to be realised. As he is very well aware, the question of nationality is now an Imperial question. I am happy to inform him that replies have been received on the subject from the Governments of all the self-governing Dominions with the exception of the Government of Canada. The proposal that the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, should be amended so as to provide facilities for the acquisition of British nationality by the children of the third generation born abroad of British parents during the War is among the nationality questions proposed for discussion at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. Any decision as to the possi-

1055
bility of legislation on this subject must, I am afraid, be deferred until that Conference has been held.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether there will be any opportunity for those deeply interested in this matter, such as British Chambers of Commerce which represent British communities in foreign towns, to make some representations to the Imperial Conference?
LORD DESBOROUGH: I will ascertain the answer to that question and will let my noble friend have it. I am afraid I cannot answer it off-hand.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUEES OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we adjourn I should like to announce to your Lordships that I have put down the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill for to-morrow for Second Reading. It was, of course, only read a first time to-day. The reason for the proposed procedure is that, unless this Bill can be passed into law in the course of a very few days, the West Ham Board of Guardians will be without any money at all to carry out their duties even on the most economical lines. Therefore the
1056
Bill is of a very urgent character. It will be put down for Second Reading tomorrow, but it will come after the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, upon the incident that happened last Thursday.
I am given to understand that the debate on that Motion is likely to take some little time and in these circumstances the Bill will come on very late for Second Reading. I am afraid I shall be under the absolute necessity of asking your Lordships to take the Bill tomorrow at whatever time it comes on, so that I hope you will be prepared to sit after dinner if it is absolutely necessary. I need not tell your Lordships that it is with the greatest reluctance that I put this burden upon the House. I think your Lordships will recognise that I have very seldom done it and I hope you will see that it is only because of the urgent necessity of the case.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I think the course proposed by the noble Marquess is certainly the best in the circumstances. If he will allow me I will defer until to-morrow any criticism of the circumstances which force your Lordships to take such a step.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.