HL Deb 03 May 1927 vol 67 cc31-53

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It has only one effective clause, the second being merely an interpretation clause. Its object is to check the undue multiplication of rabbits and rooks in any part of Great Britain to the detriment of farm crops or of timber. So far as rabbits are concerned, it in effect re-enacts the provisions of the Corn Production Act, which was repealed in 1921, and extends them to rooks, so far as they are applicable. The Bill authorises a county council—which is interpreted to include a borough council—or one of its committees, to serve on an occupier of land, whose failure to keep rabbits and rooks under control has caused or threatened damage to crops or timber, a notice to restrict their number, and if he fails to comply with the notice, it empowers the council to employ someone to diminish their number at his expense. If the value of any rabbits sold as the result of the exercise of these powers exceeds the cost involved in their reduction, the balance will be paid over to the occupier. Subsection (6) provides for meeting the council's administrative expenses in this connection. Subsection (7) prohibits the use of spring traps by the council's officer. As your Lordships know, there is a strong objection on the part of some persons to the use of such devices, and it is deemed unreasonable to employ on another person's land any instrument to which he might reasonably take exception. The latter part of the same subsection, which provides that rabbits and rooks shall not be vermin—a rather mysterious provision—is intended to exclude the use of poison for their destruction, as the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, disallows the use of poison except for the purpose of destroying vermin.

That is the Whole Bill, and although it might be contended in pre-War days that there was no sufficient reason for such legislation, it would be difficult effectively to press the same contention now, in view of the altered conditions prevailing over most parts of the country. The widespread splitting up of estates has resulted to a large extent in the discontinuance of the organised destruction of both rabbits and rooks, and there is an increasing tendency to let the sporting rights on agricultural estates to shooting syndicates, many of which have far less sympathy with the difficulties of the farming community than the old-fashioned landowners, who formerly retained the shooting in their own hands. Evidence from all over the country goes to show that there is an increase in the number of rabbits destroying both crops and timber, and in some parts of the country the same applies to rooks in respect of cereal crops. Let me pause to admit this. I think we must all agree that so far as rooks are concerned their depredations on farm crops are not very extensive unless they exist in excessive numbers. Their natural food is not corn or turnips but, very largely, insects: but it is admitted by ornithological experts that where they exist in excessive numbers there is competition for their normal type of food and they do turn to farm crops for food, sometimes causing excessive damage. There has in consequence been a strong and increasing demand on the part of farmers' organisations for a Bill of this character, the principles of which were accepted three years ago by the National Councils of Agriculture for England and Wales, which include both landowners and farmers, as well as the county administrators.

Under the Ground Game Acts, 1880 and 1906, any occupier has an inalienable right to kill and take ground game on his holding, and employ one man to use a gun for this purpose in the day time. But this does not suffice to keep within reasonable bounds what is becoming in many areas a serious pest, comparable in a lesser degree with what for at least a generation was the main deterrent to profitable farming in Australia and New Zealand. Of course, it may be said that many owners of rabbits and rooks do keep them within reasonable bounds for their own and their neighbour's protection. So far as these are concerned, this Bill will have no effect whatever, and consequently there is no danger—as may possibly be argued in the course of this debate—that county council officials will swarm over private property or invade any well-administered estate. It is in fact only the negligent or thoughtless minority who will be affected by the Bill, and I think that the county councils may be trusted to exercise their powers with wisdom and discretion. The county councils have, through the County Councils Association, expressed their willingness to administer the Bill when passed. The Land Agents' Society, moreover, who may probably be deemed to represent efficient estate administration, have, in a recent issue of their journal, the Land Agents' Record, expressed the hope that a Bill to this effect would be introduced at an early date and have a speedy and successful passage.

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me before sitting down to add one further observation, especially as it is proposed, I see, to move the rejection of this Bill from this side of the House. Proposals are being put forward by leading representatives of the other Parties in the State for the total or partial expropriation of agricultural landowners. We on this side of the House are still firm believers in the advantages, both to agriculture and to the State, of individual ownership, in spite of the many difficulties and embarrassments from which landowners are now suffering, and which I myself, as a country squire, can feelingly appreciate. But when, under rapidly changing conditions, incidents or consequences of such ownership appreciably affect the winning of a full output of food or of timber from the soil of this country it is not only in entire consonance with the traditions of our Party, but it is our patriotic duty, to provide a remedy. I hope that I may confidently rely on all those who wish well to the farming community to support the Second Reading of a Bill which, so far as I am aware, they are unanimous in demanding for their reasonable protection. I beg to move.

Moved That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

, who had given Notice to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months, said: My Lords, my noble friend has warned us that if we object to this Bill we shall be encouraging those persons who desire to abolish individual ownership of land. All history teaches us that when you have an opponent you do not conciliate him or stop him by giving him a little sop. You will not stop Mr. Lloyd George and his land campaign by allowing county council officials to go upon a man's land and kill his rabbits and his rooks—if they can get near them. Nor will you placate the Labour Party, who have already intimated that the private ownership of land is to be abolished. My noble friend, as I understood him, suggested that there was something of this sort in the Corn Production Act. My experience of the Corn Production Act was that it was an extremely bad Act. The only good thing that could be said for it was that it gave a subsidy to farmers, and that was done away with. And therefore anything which reproduces the Corn Production Act ought, I think, at once to be rejected.

Clause 1 of this Bill says that if it is proved to the satisfaction of a county council that, by reason of the failure of an occupier of land to restrict the number of rabbits on his land, certain things occur, then they may authorise somebody to go on the land. If you look at subsection (3), you will see that where a county council has reasonable cause to suspect that circumstances exist in which their powers under this section ought to be exercised with respect to any land in their area they may authorise any person to enter on and inspect the land on their behalf. Therefore there is no need of any proof or of any complaint to be made to the county council; but if the county council, or a borough council, or any of their officials have cause to suspect that this thing occurs they may then send upon another man's land any number of people, who may wander about in his woods and on his land, endeavouring to shoot his rooks or his rabbits.

Let me first of all deal with the rooks. My noble friend says that rooks do a certain amount of harm. I read yesterday Fream's Epitomy of Farming, which I believe is a standard book. Fream gives a list of birds which are harmful to agriculture and of birds which are beneficial, and the rook appears in neither list; he is in the doubtful class. Let me give my own experience of rooks. I have a rookery—in fact, I am not at all sure I have not got two—and consequently there are a good many rooks about my land. My experience is that when you put in winter corn or spring corn rooks may, for about a fortnight, do a certain amount of damage. But they can be kept off to a certain extent by putting up two or three dead rooks—if you can shoot a rook. I have tried to shoot them, because my keeper said he could not get near them. I tried for two or three days, and I did succeed in shooting one. What my friends on the county councils will do I do not know, and how many cartridges I shall have to pay for I do not know, but I am afraid it will be a great many.

After all, do rooks do very much harm? At the end of March I began to sow a field with spring oats, but, owing to the wet weather, I could not do more than sow half the field. My bailiff said to me: "I have a man there trying to keep off the rooks, but they are doing an awful amount of damage." I was rather perturbed, because I had rather a bad sample of seed. What has happened? I have a beautiful plant, and the other day, when I was harrowing that part of the field which I had not been able to sow on account of the wet weather, I observed that the rooks were not on the spring corn, but were following the harrows. I said to my bailiff: "Look there, those rooks are following the harrows." He replied: "Yes, they are picking up insects and grubs." A little further, where I was ploughing, the same thing happened. Therefore I do not think it is by any means a certainty that rooks do the harm which they are supposed to do.

I mentioned that I have a rookery. Three or four years ago I had a letter from the owner of a farm which adjoins my boundaries, the nearest point of which is about two miles from my rookery. This gentleman, who does not live on the farm but about forty or fifty miles away, wrote saying that his bailiff told him that his crops were being injured by rooks which came off my land, because I never shot my young rooks, and he said that his bailiff would be very pleased to come and shoot my young rooks for me, and bring some friends to assist him. I replied that for twenty-five years my tenants had shot my young rooks as often as they liked, had killed as many as they liked, and had been allowed to bring their sons with them: all they had to do was to inform my keeper that they had come to shoot. No restrictions of any sort were put upon them. Therefore I said: "I am extremely obliged to your bailiff but I do not require his assistance."

Supposing this Bill had been in operation, this gentleman would have written to the county council and would have said: "I have a serious complaint from my bailiff. The food of the people is being interfered with"—that is the phrase used by my noble friend—"the food of the people is being interfered with because Lord Banbury does not shoot his rooks." I think my county council are very reasonable people, but I do not think every county council is reasonable. My county council must, I think, under the Bill, if they do their duty, either write to me or send an official to see what has been done. My noble friend says that agriculture is in a bad state. It is, unfortunately, but do we want any more of these petty restrictions under which officials come worrying you to ascertain whether you did, or did not, shoot your own rooks as hard as you might do? There is one other matter with regard to rooks to which I wish to refer. If noble Lords will look at the Bill they will see that rabbits must be killed where they are doing damage to a particular piece of land, but in the case of rooks the words are "is likely to be caused to any crops." Therefore, I might have people walking all over my crops to see whether or not a rook was doing any damage, and trying to shoot any rooks that they found there.

Let me now come to rabbits. Who is the great preserver of rabbits? Why, the farmer. I think Your Lordships will agree with me that if you go upon land let to a tenant, or if you send your keeper there to ferret or to shoot rabbits, the tenant will probably write and say he is rather sorry but that he thought the rabbits were left to him. I have found that to be the case on very many occasions. Now it is proposed that somebody else, not his landlord, should come and destroy the rabbits on his land. I do not think the farmers really understand what this Bill is and what it proposes to do. It is quite easy for one or two members of the Farmers' Union, sitting in London, to say they think this, that or the other. There were two or three occasions in the House of Commons when a similar Bill was introduced. I was then a member of the House of Commons and I saw that the Bill did not get any further. In 1922 the Coalition Government introduced a Bill of this sort, but they did not include rooks in it. I went to the Whips and pointed out how unreasonable such a Bill was and they, being reason able people, agreed with me and the Bill got no further.

I suppose there are occasions when rabbits in a wood in the hands, we will say, of Mr. A go upon the land of Farmer B. Farmer B can kill those rabbits. It is sometimes said that if he goes with a gun and shoots two or three of them the others run back into the wood and he cannot get at them. But he can snare them. He can go out at night with a long net and kill them by that means. He can do something further: he can go to his landlord and say: "The rabbits coming from this wood are so damaging my land that I must have my rent reduced." In nine cases out of ten that would be done and the rabbits would be stopped from going on his land without any Bill of this kind. Or he can go to his landlord and say: "Either you yourself must put up some wire netting or you must give me something to enable me to put up wire netting." Many years ago I rented some shooting. There was a long "shaw" about half a mile long and it was difficult to kill the rabbits in it. They got out of this "shaw" and did a certain amount of damage to the land of one of the tenants of the property which I rented. I asked the tenant to take a plough and run a furrow along the edge of the wood. I then bought, for a very little money, some rabbit netting, put that netting up and then told my keepers to turn the soil over upon it. We never had any trouble after that. The rabbits came out on the other side into the park and nothing happened. Such a thing as that can be done now.

I sincerely hope your Lordships will reject this Bill. It is one of those petty things which do no good to agriculture but encourage enmity amongst everybody concerned in the industry, which is so unfortunate at the present moment It is to be regretted that a Conservative Government should bring in a Bill of this sort. I know perfectly well what has happened. Some official in the Ministry of Agriculture has seen that a Bill was introduced in 1922 by the Coalition Government and as the Ministry has not done much good to farmers or to landlords since, they thought they had better do something and so they decided to bring in this Bill. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time any further, but I hope I have made such a good case against the Bill that you will support me in the Division. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southem.)

LORD LAMBOURNE

My Lords, I am glad on this occasion to be able to associate myself with that bulwark of the Constitution, Lord Banbury of Southam, who has given us a most interesting account of his dealings with farmers. My memory goes back to the time—I think it was about a year ago—when in this House, in conjuction with Lord Banbury of Southam, I ventured to bring forward a Bill in which I was very much interested. That Bill was almost unanimously rejected and we were held up to a great deal of opprobrium because we had had the impudence to bring a question of that sort before your Lordships and take up your time upon a subject which was said to be more fitted for a debating society than for this House. I have much too high an opinion of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to use against him some of the epithets that were employed against us, but I am bound to say that a more "twopenny-ha'penny." Bill than this has seldom been produced before your Lordships' House.

You employ a Minister of Agriculture, and the whole of the agricultural office, and I daresay more persons besides—parturiunt montes—and what have they produced? They have produced a very small measure and one which in my opinion is of precious little value. You are going to employ the county council to walk about our land and to interfere in matters which the landlord and tenant are perfectly capable of dealing with and settling between themselves. My noble friend acknowledged that most people are very careful and that in most cases no trouble arises, but, he says, we must always legislate for the thoughtless minority. I do not think our time should be taken up by legislating for the thoughtless minority.

My noble friend Lord Bledisloe also laid claim to an anxiety to protect individual owners and occupiers. I cannot say that we have had up to the present time a brilliant example of care for owners and occupiers, for on every possible occasion the Ministry has seemed anxious to take from us what few rights we possess over the land and what few rights the farmers and occupiers possess, and to hand them over to a committee of the county council or some body equally careless. From my experience I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam. If I have ever sent keepers to go and kill rabbits on a farmer's property the farmer has always said: "I hope you will leave me a few rabbits to kill for myself." He is quite capable of killing any rabbits that there may be on his land and he does not want to have the county council interfering with him.

Then come the rooks. I think it is more than doubtful whether rooks do not do as much good as harm. I know perfectly well all the authorities which Lord Bledisloe and the whole of the office besides searched, but I am not at all convinced, and I do not think anybody who follows the movements of the rook tribe, the most interesting body in bird creation, will come to the conclusion that they do the damage which Lord Bledisloe is anxious in a Second Reading debate to prove that they do. I think that this Bill is uncalled for, that it is unwanted, and if I may say so (I do not wish to use an offensive expression) that it is useless for the particular purpose. As for farmers wanting it, I have heard of none. If you take the farmers all round they are perfectly content to manage their own affairs with their landlords and with each other. If Lord Banbury goes to a Division I shall most certainly vote with him and I hope that we shall get rid of this absurd measure.

LORD CLINTON

My Lords, I hope I may be pardoned if I express some surprise that in this twentieth century any noble Lord should rise in his place and pose as the champion of the rabbit. I believe that of all the curses with which agriculture is endowed the rabbit is absolutely the worst. It consumes crops which were never meant for its consumption and it poisons what it does not consume. In the counties which are fenced with banks it has caused damage to the extent of tens of thousands of pounds, which has to be made good. In the case of individual planting or planting in small quantities it doubles the cost. There is nothing whatever on the credit side of the rabbit. The rabbit never paid for his keep.

LORD LAMBOURNE

I was not pleading for the rabbit.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Nor was I. I hate rabbits. It took me four years trying to kill every rabbit on my land and I think I have done it.

LORD CLINTON

Then it was only the rook and I will say a word or two on that later. Rabbits of recent years have increased very much and they have increased since the passing of the Ground Game Act. In the old days the tenant farmer was loud in his outcry against the owner for keeping rabbits. To-day, whet he has a concurrent right, and only a concurrent right, he objects to the owner coming in and killing rabbits on the farm. I know cases in the South West of England where owners trying to keep rabbits down on farms have sent keepers to do it and have had men actually throwing up their farms. They like having the rabbits and object to the owner killing them. My noble friend Lord Lambourne seems to suggest that this is only a "twopenny-ha'penny" little Bill. Why then should he be at such pains to oppose it? The danger that is feared seems to be that the county council may send somebody into the noble Lord's covers and kill his rabbits. If that is so it seems to me it will be entirely the fault of the noble Lord himself in not keeping down the rabbits. My only fear is that the county councils, being goverened largely by farmers—farmers who want to keep up rabbits—will take no action at all. The Bill really only amounts to an effort to persuade county councils to do something against people who keep up rabbits. To that extent I look upon the Bill as really a very valuable piece of machinery.

I am quite sure that in the district in which I live rabbits are becoming a greater and greater pest and are doing very serious damage. The farmer objects to landlords killing the rabbits on the ground that the rabbits are his. Legally that is not so, but I think this measure lends some support to that idea because it is provided in the Bill that the county council, having killed rabbits, shall sell them at the highest price and after deducting expenses shall return the proceeds to the occupier. Really they do not belong to the occupier—he only has a concurrent right—but though I do not raise any objection to that, it does rather seem to support the theory that the rabbits are their own.

Rooks constitute really a doubtful point. Rooks in small quantities I am sure do good, but I am also sure that in large quantities they do harm. They are the worst egg stealers we have. They do good where they can get grubs, but if the supply of grubs gives out they are not very careful what they eat. That point may perhaps be dealt with in a later stage of the Bill, and I think probably one or two other Amendments may be suggested, but I hope that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

LORD OLIVIER

My Lords, I think the idea of this Bill must have arisen from a volume published some years ago called, I think, the Liberal Land Book, in which the special animal or creature that was aimed at as doing these depredations was the pheasant. If the noble Lord responsible for the Bill had included protection against the pheasant I should have said the Bill marched on all fours, or all threes, and was a more reasonable Bill. But a Bill which includes the rook and the rabbit and excludes the pheasant is not one which can commend itself to noble Lords on these Benches. As regards the general principles of the Bill I agree on the whole with Lord Banbury and the noble Lord who supported him, that it is not a Bill really worth passing. Lord Clinton has dealt with the case of the rook. When I was at the Board of Agriculture we went fully into the question of the rook and we found on balance that there was no overwhelming case against it: on the whole it was useful. Those who had studied bird life were strongly of opinion that the balance was in favour of the rook. I think the Bill is unnecessary and inopportune, and I am pretty sure that you are not going to get from county councils any effective action under a Bill of this sort. As regards the rook the Bill ought not to be passed, as regards the rabbit it is doubtful, and as regards practice it will be a dead letter. Therefore I do not think that at the present time it should have your Lordships' support. As part of a policy to give county councils power to deal with all agricultural questions clauses of this nature might be considered, but as an individual Bill it is beneath the notice of your Lordships' House.

LORD RAGLAN

My Lords, it was said by one of the speakers in the debate that county councils might be trusted to carry out the Bill properly. In the county in which I live, where the majority on the county council are so "red" that they have recently elected a condemned criminal as a county alderman, the county council is capable of using the facilities which this Bill offers for harrying political opponents. What is it this Bill does? It creates a new offence, the offence of harbouring noxious wild animals, and it makes the offence punishable not by the proper Courts but by county councils, which I submit are the most unsuitable bodies for that purpose.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I must confess that at first I was opposed to this Bill, but, on further consideration and after consulting a number of practical farmers, I came to the conclusion that it should be passed, subject to certain Amendments in Committee. The truth is that on well-managed estates rabbits, rooks and other vermin have been kept down in the past and will be in the future, and the Bill will not apply to them. But new conditions have arisen. Many of the old, well-managed estates are disappearing and there are a considerable number of cases of real hardship through the ravages of rabbits and rooks, while the provisions of the existing law do not protect people from their ravages or properly compensate them.

May I say a word about rooks, as rabbits have been fully dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton? Rooks do a great deal of good. They eat slugs, wire worms, leather jackets, insects and other pests, provided they are not in too great numbers. If they are in too great numbers they are driven away from their natural food and forced to eat eggs and corn. In certain parts of the country where rooks have become too numerous considerable injury to agriculture has resulted. The same result has followed in certain parts of the country where the number of starlings has enormously increased, and, because they compete with rooks for wire worms, slugs and other grubs, the rooks have been driven, to eat the seeds and do damage to agriculture in that way. Where the rooks are in such excessive numbers that they do damage, they ought to be kept down, and it is only where they are in such numbers that the Bill will apply.

I should like to read a short extract from an ancient Act of Parliament which Henry VIII, who in this matter is the predecessor of Lord Bledisloe, found it convenient to pass to deal with rooks. The Act was passed in 1533 and this is the Preamble:— For as much as innumerable numbers of rooks, crows, and choughs do daily breed and increase throughout this Realm … and do yearly devour and consume a wonderful and marvellous quantity of corn and grain of all kinds … so that if the said crows, rooks and choughs should be suffered to breed and continue they will undoubtedly be the cause of great destruction and consumption of grain"— the measure then goes on to enact that Everyone shall do as much as may be to kill and utterly destroy all manner of choughs, crows and rooks under pain of a grievous amercement. This is a good deal stronger than my noble friend's Bill. He is content to invoke the county councils. Henry VIII invoked everyone, and the amercement which was imposed was to be assessed by stewards of manors or by sheriffs or justices of the peace at their discretion. The Act was limited to ten years and, although it was continued by an Act of Elizabeth, it was repealed in circumstances which I have been unable to trace. There is therefore no Act at present for checking this increase of rooks. The case seems to me to be made out for dealing with rooks whenever they have grown to greater numbers than the land can support by means of their natural food.

If the Bill is passed into law it will require some amendment. In the first place the tribunal under the Bill for deciding whether there are too many rooks or rabbits is the county council. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has drawn a very touching picture of the county council who are going to deal with his land. Assuming that other noble Lords are in a more fortunate position, I do not consider the county council to be the proper judicial body to decide a matter of this kind. They have not the equipment, they cannot take evidence on oath, and cannot properly decide a matter which is often very complicated. Rooks often come from ten miles away and Lord Banbury might find the county council saying that they came from his rookery when, in fact, they came from a place miles away. Much difficulty may arise in deciding whether the powers under the Bill should be brought into operation or not and I would suggest that, if the Bill is read a second time, the tribunal for deciding this question should be the petty sessional court. The magistrates would be perfectly competent and would be a far better tribunal than the county council. If I am not mistaken, that is the view which has been taken on several occasions by the Association of County Councils.

Another point which I think will require attention is as to the time when and the place where the county council may authorise persons to enter upon the land. As the Bill stands, there is no limit or restriction whatsoever; the county council may authorise a person to enter upon the land and take steps to diminish the number of rabbits and rooks at any period of the year and at any time they think fit. Does anyone think it right that the county council should send their men with guns and traps into your coverts where breeding is going on and do an infinite amount of damage for which there is no compensation? I hope that, if the Bill is passed, my noble friend will put some restriction on the places and times at which the county council can authorise persons to go upon the land. If those conditions are applied, I think the Bill will be a useful one.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, as has been clearly expressed by every noble Lord, with the exception of Lord Clinton, the methods of the Bill are bad and unworkable and require amendment. It is my view that the Bill is right in principle but that the methods are entirely wrong, and that it will be an entirely valueless Bill if it reaches the Statute Book. The only one who has supported the Bill is Lord Clinton. The county councils would not destroy rabbits or rooks in the interests of the landlord. I quite agree that it is in the interests of landlords that there should be as few rabbits as possible, but surely the best way of getting farmers to destroy rabbits is not to ask the county councils to interfere with this matter. It is said that various bodies have supported this proposal, but I do not think that there has been any strong expression of opinion. It may be that a resolution was accepted by the Council of Agriculture for England, and I believe that I was present at a meeting many years ago when some such resolution was carried, but there has been no real agitation in the country. I move about a good deal in agricultural circles, but I have never heard any suggestion that so much damage was done by rabbits and rooks that the need of legislation was urgent. I think the very fact that the proposal is brought forward after so many years shows that there is no real demand for it.

As regards the administration by county councils, there seems to me to be serious objection to it. I may point out, as a member of the County Councils Association, that this question has been before us and that the executive was very half-hearted in the matter. If Parliament puts this duty upon them, they are, of course, ready to carry it out, but the general feeling is that it is hardly the business of county councils, which are not judicial bodies, to investigate these matters. The noble Lord who spoke last referred to this as a judicial inquiry, but the county councils have no power to administer oaths. The matter would go before the agricultural committees, and they would merely have hearsay evidence before them. If rabbits and rooks are to be destroyed in this way, it surely ought to be done after judicial inquiry. This Bill provides that the county council shall have power to inquire, not only what damage is being done, but also where it is likely to be caused, to crops, trees, fences or pastures. That seems to me a very large order. You will have a roving inquiry by officials of the county councils to see whether it is likely that rabbits or rooks are in future going to do damage to property which is not being so damaged at the moment. To my mind the Bill is illogical in this respect and is not conceived in a proper judicial spirit.

The further criticism has been made that it is not clear that no expense will fall upon the local rates. All of us who have to pay heavy local rates will feel strongly on this point. How is the cost going to be provided for? There is a provision that the cost shall be provided in part by the sale of rabbits, but noble Lords know that the best time for destroying rabbits, if you really want to get rid of them, is to shoot, trap and dig them during the summer, when they are perfectly valueless and no good for sale. You are not to be allowed to use traps, even in the holes. That, again, creates a great difficulty, and the county council officials will have to use wires. There may be a very serious objection to wiring, because in many cases the wire set to catch a rabbit simply catches a pheasant. You may say that this can be guarded against, but who are the people who are going to be employed by the county councils to catch rabbits? The Bill provides that they may employ any person that they like. Some county councils, for the sake of economy, will employ people in the district who are unemployed, and even in some cases the village poacher, who will take care that, he catches hares, pheasants and, it may be, partridges as well. Then again, there are many large tracts of woodland that were cut down during the War and have not been replanted. These have formed a jungle which it is impossible to get through. How would the county council deal with a hundred acres of this kind of land? They would have to clear the jungle at enormous expense. Is it likely that they are going to be paid for this by the sale of rabbits?

No doubt the noble Lord will point out that there is a provision in the Bill by which the county council can bring a civil action against the owner of the land that has been cleared by the council, or in cases where they have employed men to dig out rabbits. Surely it is hardly the business of the county council to have to bring civil actions against owners of property in this matter. I cannot help thinking that it would have been much better if, instead of throwing the onus upon the county council, the Government had thrown it upon the owner of the land on which these rabbits and rooks are found, so that, if it is proved in a county court that damage has been done, the owner may be liable to pay for that damage. I cannot see why you should constitute the county council a judicial body in this matter. Why should not the man who has suffered damage from rooks or rabbits have a civil remedy by going to a court? He cannot do this now, because rabbits are farœ naturœ and there is no remedy for trespass, but it seems to me that the aggrieved person should be given power to go into a county court and prove his case for damages against, the owner of the land from which the rabbits come. This seems to me a much more reasonable method.

The noble Lord referred to statistics, but he told us of no cases in which great damage had been done. I should have thought that when he came here to ask your Lordships to assent to this great interference he would have come armed with a large volume of facts showing how acres of wheat and corn, oats and barley, had been destroyed by rabbits and rooks, and giving evidence that there was a real grievance and that the food of the people had been seriously diminished. The noble Lord did nothing of the kind, nor did he do anything to prove his case that rooks had done an enormous amount of damage. We all know that the noble Lord is a great agriculturist. I am a small agriculturist in my way, and I know that on my own farm, instead of doing damage, the rooks do an enormous amount of good. I have often noticed when I have put in spring corn that the whole field has been covered with rooks and I have had a splendid crop afterwards. We all know the danger from wire-worms. The rooks were eating the wire-worms and not the corn, and to my mind it would do a great deal of harm to allow rooks to be indiscriminately slaughtered because of the objections raised by some committee of a county council. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that some years ago the Board of Agriculture, as it then was, made an investigation regarding rooks and published in their journal the conclusion that it was very doubtful indeed if they did more harm than good. It will be interesting, when the noble Lord replies, if he can give any evidence of extensive damage by rooks.

If this Bill is read a second time I have given Notice to move that it be referred to a Select Committee. It seems to me that this would be far the best way of dealing with it. There is no hurry in this matter and the question could be thoroughly thrashed out by a Select Committee that would hear evidence and go into details that cannot be considered by your Lordships on the Second Reading, thus making quite certain that no injury was done to any one. They might well consider whether rooks might not be struck out of the Bill altogether. They could consider also whether it would not be better to provide for civil action instead of establishing a semi-judicial body like the county council, who certainly are not anxious to undertake this work. I shall be perfectly ready to vote for the principle of the Bill, as I believe will my noble friends beside me, if the Government will tell us that they are prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee so that the question may be thoroughly thrashed out. If they are not ready to do so, I shall be obliged with some reluctance to vote against the Second Reading.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

My Lords, I have listened to almost every word of this debate except the opening words of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, and I should like in the first place to offer to him my congratulations upon having come back to the House after his rather serious illness. I am quite sure there is no member of this House who would want to have the reputation of desiring to maintain a conception of private property which would allow us to keep upon our land animals which were really noxious to our neighbours and to the food supply of the country. I quite agree that great difference of opinion has been revealed in the course of the discussion amongst your Lordships as to some of the provisions of the Bill and notably as to the particular remedy which is suggested. I would submit, however, that the real principle of the Bill is that your Lordships' House is asked to say that no man is to be allowed upon his property to keep rabbits or rooks which do damage to his neighbours and to the food supply of the country.

I cannot believe that there is really any difference of opinion amongst any members of your Lordships' House upon that broad principle. I need not say that it is entirely in accordance with the almost universal precedent of modern legislation. I do not suppose there will be found in any assembly men who are more careful of the rights of individuals than are to be found in this House, but yet, over and over again, have I been witness of and taken part in debates and decisions wherein the rights of individuals, where they trench upon the rights of others, have been restrained. That has happened Over and over again in the case of rights of property. We have seen, in repeated acts of legislation, that although we maintain, and properly maintain, the rights of property of individuals, yet we do not allow them to go to such an extent as to be injurious to others.

The Bill is a very short one, and if you look at the whole of the first page of the Bill I think there will be practically no difference of opinion that such excesses as are dealt with ought to be restrained. That is the principle of the Bill, and I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to agree to the Second Beading. I agree that there are differences of opinion upon detail. As to rabbits, I have not heard a single word from any noble Lord in defence of the rabbit. There was a certain doubt in the case of Lord Lambourne, but upon being pressed I gather that he hates rabbits as much as anybody else. Lord Banbury kills every rabbit he can see. Lord Clinton, who is one of the greatest authorities upon agriculture in this House, has nothing to say for the rabbit. I think we all agree that, except where it can be carefully segregated and so cannot get upon the land, the rabbit is nothing but a nuisance.

I should very much regret if it should go out to the country that in a Division in this House a majority of your Lordships had been in favour of maintaining the rabbit, with all his wickedness, upon your land. I think that would be a very unfortunate decision and one that would tend to misrepresentation of the real sentiments of your Lordships, as experts in the management of land, both agricultural land and forest land—for rabbits are equally noxious in both. Therefore I think it would be a very unfortunate thing if a decision of this House could be quoted as in favour of maintaining, for the purpose of second-rate sport—for that is what it really is—the over-production of rabbits, with their destructive habits on trees, plantings and crops.

As to rooks, I admit that there is a difference of opinion. I am not, however, quite so confident about it as my noble friend Lord Lambourne appears to be. I have just been shown a statement by a very high agricultural authority, tending to show that although rooks, when in few numbers, do good, yet, when they are in large numbers, they do harm. I ask your Lordships to remember that this Bill is not directed against the small rookeries—I should be very sorry if anything were done to damage what is one of the glories of the countryside—but where, owing to want of care and proper consideration for others, the owner or occupier of land allowed a large and excessive number of rooks to be bred, there alone, according to the principle of the Bill, would any action be taken. I admit that there is a little doubt about the rooks.

Then comes the remedy, and noble Lords have criticised rather severely the fact that the county councils are imported. I am not going to express a very confident opinion about this, but, so far as the county councils with which I have any connection are concerned, I cannot say that I have any apprehension that they will misuse the powers with which they are to be entrusted. I am confident that the county council of which I have the honour to be a member would exercise its powers in a very judicial spirit indeed, and with very great consideration for the interests, and even the susceptibilities, of the owners and occupiers of land over which it proposed to operate. I can, however, readily understand that many of your Lordships might wish to have a more judicial authority imported, to come to a decision as to whether particular land or a particular occupier is so much in fault as to call for a remedy.

The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, has put down a Motion for a Select Committee. He would like to have this Bill considered more carefully before it is passed into law. I think it is true, as he said, that there is no great hurry for this Bill. If it were towards the end of the Session I do not know that it would be wise for the Government to consent to a Select Committee, which might result in the Bill being shelved altogether, but there is no such danger in the case of the present Bill, and if your Lordships desire that matters of great importance in the Bill should be the subject of further inquiry, before the Bill passes through your Lordships' House, His Majesty's Government will not resist that Motion. Therefore, if I have any intimation from your Lordships that you would prefer, after the Bill has been read a second time, that it should be referred to a Select Committee, so that the question of whether the county councils should be replaced by some other authority, or the question of how far rooks are as pernicious as rabbits, may be further considered together with other topics, and thoroughly threshed out, then His Majesty's Government will not resist such a Motion. But I very much hope that the House will carry the Second Reading, for I am afraid that if the Bill were rejected public opinion, and especially a certain section of public opinion, would undoubtedly say that the House, which is sometimes called the House of Landlords, in order to maintain the sporting rights of its members, had done its best to allow a certain injury to be inflicted upon the food supplies of the country.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I am very happy indeed to accept at once the offer which has been so handsomely made by the noble Marquess. All opposition on the part of my noble friends and myself is, of course, withdrawn in view of the offer which he has been good enough to make of a Select Committee to go into the whole matter. I particularly welcome the decision of the noble Marquess because I cannot feel that it is quite fair to condemn the rook unheard. More evidence should be brought in support. We have not heard counsel either for or against the rook, therefore I am very glad to think that we are not expected this afternoon to condemn him altogether. May I also mention one other matter, without any idea of prejudging the questions which will come before the Select Committee? There is this weak point which might be considered by that Committee. We have had it stated, and I

believe it to be true, that the rook travels ay good many miles to get his food. If he does this damage it seems to me he may very often not have the same regard and respect for the county council divisions as is held at the Ministry of Health, and there is no provision in this Bill by which, if the rook is in one place, he can be prevented from committing his depredations in another place. So if the rook is eventually condemned and found "guilty" it may be necessary to strengthen the Bill in this direction. That, no doubt, will come under the consideration of the Select Committee.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I heartily accept the views put forward by the noble Marquess. I think he exaggerated the danger that any obloquy would fall on this House, if the Second Reading were not accepted. Personally I should have voted against the Second Reading but for the statement the noble Marquess has made. I believe that the rook does do harm. But the whole machinery of this Bill is perfectly ludicrous. As regards the rabbit, although I agree with Lord Clinton, it is the tenant more than anybody else who is interested in the rabbit question. It is not a landlord's question, it is a tenant's question. But I think it is a ludicrous Bill. It will put some further charge on the rates, which farmers certainly do not like. Having regard to what the noble Marquess said, however, I shall support the Bill if it goes to a Division.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I beg to move, That for the remainder of this Session leave be given to Lord Merthyr to vote in his place in the House.

On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 32.

CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Wellington, D. Plymouth, E. [Teller.]
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Beauchamp, E. Bertie of Thame, V.
Clarendon, E. Chaplin, V.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Cranbrook, E. Peel, V.
Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) Ullswater, V.
Lovelace, E.
Sutherland, D. Onslow, E. Worcester L. Bp.
Askwith, L. FitzWalter, L. Knaresborough, L.
Bledisloe, L. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] Merthyr, L.
Clinton, L. Muir Mackenzie, L.
Clwyd, L. Gainford, L. Olivier, L.
Cottesloe, L. Glenarthur, L. Sandhurst, L.
Crawshaw, L. Hampton, L. Stanmore, L.
Danesfort, L. Harris, L. Strachie, L.
Desborough, L. Hayter, L. Teplemore, L.
Wargrave, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Bedford, D. Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Lawrence, L.
Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.
Bathurst, E. Biddulph, L, Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly)
Derby, E. Carew, L. Mowbray, L.
Midleton, E. Carson, L. Newton, L.
Morton, E. Desart, L. (E. Desart.) Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Churchill, V. Hanworth, L. Raglan, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.) Saltoun, L.
Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Hindlip, L. Sandys, L.
Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L. Savile, L.
Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) Wyfold.
Annaly, L. Lambourne, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative accordingly, and Bill read 2a.

LORD STRACHIE

I beg to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Strachie.)