HL Deb 13 July 1926 vol 64 cc1001-33

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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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, 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—

  1. (a) during the close season to kill, injure or take, or to attempt to kill or take any lapwing; or
  2. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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: