Sitting of 25 June 1890

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  DIRECTORS' LIABILITY BILL.—(No. 300)
  Bill, as amended, further considered.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to move at the end of Clause 3 to add—
  "Or unless he proves with respect to every such incorrect or misleading statement that it was in reference to some matter or thing which was known to one or more of the other Directors and not disclosed to him."
  The object of this Amendment is to provide that, in the event of misleading statements having been made by individuals which were not disclosed to the Directors generally, an individual Director to whom such statements were not made known should not be damnified. I submit that this is a reasonable protection to persons who are induced to become Directors, and unless such a provision is made I do not see how any individual is to protect himself against a false representation.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 4, at the end of Clause 3, to insert the words "Or unless he proves with respect to every such incorrect or misleading statement that it was in reference to some matter or thing which was known to one or more of the other Directors and not disclosed to him."—(Mr. Murphy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: No doubt the case to which the hon. Member alludes may be a hard case, but I think that every Director before he gives his name to a prospectus is bound to do something to ascertain the truth of the statements he is putting forward. Even if he is not personally guilty it is better that he should suffer than that the public should be defrauded. If these words are inserted a Director will simply plead ignorance. I take it that a man who gets £200 or £300 a year for the mere use of his name should not be absolved from the consequences of any misleading effect which the use of his
  1882
  name may have had, so far as the public are concerned.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. He must have forgotten what the provisions of the Bill are, and that they require every Director, before giving the sanction of his name, to have made every reasonable inquiry and examination. Surely, in regard to a statement made in a prospectus with a view to obtaining money from the public, it is not too much to require that those authorising it shall have made reasonable inquiry before they allow their names to go forth.
  MR. ISAACSON: I, for one, must oppose the Amendment in every possible way, on the ground that it would legalise the very thing which the Bill is intended to prevent.
  MR. KELLY: I also think that the words of this Amendment would afford too much protection to a careless or oven a fraudulent Director. It would open the door to endless fraud, for a Director would not only take no steps whatever to obtain information as to the misleading statements in the prospectus, but might even, if a substantial man, take care, by making an agreement with his impecunious colleagues on the Board, that the statements should not be disclosed to him, with the effect, if this Amendment were assented to now, of his being thus enabled to evade all liability for them.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I have placed the following Amendment upon the Paper—to add at the end of Clause 3 the following words: —
  "(c.) In this section the word 'expert' includes any person whose official position or special knowledge gives authority to a statement made by him, and the expression 'misleading statement' means a statement which is so made as by suppression of fact or ambiguity to create a false impression."
  A general concurrence of opinion has been expressed that some Amendment in this direction is required, in order to provide some legal definition of the word "expert," which has never received any

  1883
  judicial interpretation. In order to meet some formal objections which have been suggested to me, I propose to leave out the word "position," and to substitute the word "professional" for "special," and to move the Amendment in that modified form. As to the second part of my Amendment, the expression "misleading statement" is equally without judicial interpretation, and the fear is that, every Director would be at the mercy of any discontented shareholder, who would say that he had, in fact, been misled by the prospectus, and that therefore it must be considered to have been misleading.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 14, at the end of Clause 3, to insert, as anew Sub-section, the words—
  (c.) "In this section the word "expert" includes any person whose official or professional knowledge gives authority to a statement made by him, and the expression "misleading statement" means a statement which is so made as by suppression of fact or ambiguity to create a false impression."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. WARMINGTON: I think it would be a matter of convenience if my hon. Friend would consent to divide the Amendment, seeing that different considerations apply to the first part from those which apply to the second. If my hon. Friend will, in the first place, move his Amendment down to the words "by him" I will not personally make any objection to it, as it seems to me that it may be a guide as to the definition of the liability.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I am quite willing to divide the Amendment, as suggested. I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw it, with the view of moving the first half down to the word "him."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 14, to insert the words "In this section the word 'expert' includes any person whose official or professional knowledge gives authority to a statement made by him."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: I certainly regard this Amendment as a very important one, and a very serious doubt occurs to me
  1884
  with regard to the propriety of passing it. When the subject was under discussion some time ago there was a distinct pledge given to the House by the President of the Board of Trade that when the Bill was taken into another House those in charge of it would take care that a definition of the word "expert" should be inserted, so as to meet the objections which have been urged in this House. I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the words originally placed on the Paper, "official position or special knowledge," would be preferable to the amended version which he now proposes. I do not think that the words "official or professional knowledge" are broad enough to meet the objections which are made to the use of that very indefinite word "expert." Personally, I should like to retain all three phrases—"official," "special," and "professional." I think that all three are needed in order to give the full meaning of the word "expert," and I would venture to suggest to my hon. and learned Friend, and to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, that the real meaning to be assigned to the word "expert" is of such vital importance that it would be advisable to have a conference with the President of the Board of Trade on the subject.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: We have discussed this question seven or eight hours already, and voted upon it three or four times. I therefore think the time has come when the House should arrive at some definite conclusion. It does not seem to me that the Amendment will do either good or harm, for it simply includes in the Bill that which the Court itself would have introduced by way of construction.
  MR. WARMINGTON: In answer to the objection of the hon. Member for North Kensington, I may say that the President of the Board of Trade has already considered these words and has assented to the form in which they are moved.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I desired to convey no imputation whatever upon the good faith of the President of the Board of Trade. On the contrary, I am satisfied that whatever pledge he has given he will fulfil.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I cannot see that there is any objection to the Amendment, and I think it is only right we should let the House of Lords know what we mean by the word "expert."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words—
  "And the expression 'misleading statement' means a statement which is so made as by suppression of fact or ambiguity to create a false impression."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  (1.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 97.—(Div. List, No. 155.)
  MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest to the hon. Member for Longford that the Amendment which he has upon the Paper might be better proposed in the form of a sub-section of Clause 3, otherwise notice would be required for a new clause.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The object of the Amendment I am about to move is one that I trust commends itself to the promoters of this Bill, and I hope it will be agreed to. We know that the modern so-called boom in shares began with the Guinness boom, in connection with brewery shares, in October, 1887. That boom was greatly stimulated by the Conversion Scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The public invested in those shares since the date which I propose to appoint in this section. In 1888–9, the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed an Act requiring a certain amount of Stamp Duty on every £100 worth of shares. Therefore, if this Bill is to do anything to meet the difficulties in the way, and to capture fraudulent promoters, it ought to date from the year 1886. What is the good of locking the stable door after the steed is stolen? What good will it do to shareholders in Allsopp's to know that in future it will be impossible for a man in the position of Lord Hindlip to do what he did in connection with these shares? The Conservative Party have now declared themselves strongly in favour of the brewery interest, and all their money is invested in brewery or distillery shares. I sug-
  1886
  gest that it is vital to the general body of the public, in whose interest the Licensing Bill was introduced, that the Amendment should be adopted in order to prevent swindling by fraudulent promoters, largely in connection with these brewery shares. The matter is not confined to brewery shares. The Conservative Party is largely a warlike party, and we know very well that in connection with the Hotchkiss Gun, the Gatling Gun, and the Nordenfeldt Gun, and a number of other public companies* the grossest frauds are being perpetrated. I venture to say, since the days of Adam, if Adam was connected with company promoters, no greater fraud has been known to the public than in connection with the Gatling Gun Company. All these companies are shadowed forth to the public as companies that have paid an enormous interest, and anybody who will read their prospectuses will see at a glance that if this Bill is passed it is, as I say, locking the stable door after the steed has been stolen. I should ask, what satisfaction is it if I invested my money, say in Lord Hindlip's brewery, and he has pocketed his three millions, to find, when it comes to wanting the money back, that, as J. Gould said when he was asked to turn up the money that he had got in connection with the New York frauds, "it had gone where the woodbine twined." That is exactly the position of so large a number of the gentlemen connected with company promoting. I am happy to say that my losses have been very slight from the whole of them. So my action in this matter is purely disinterested. I view the matter from a very practical point of view. Take water gas. It was boomed to the world as a tremendous commodity which would knock out of time the electric light, and coal gas, and every other illuminant. £5 shares went up to £20, and then suddenly dropped, and everybody concerned got about £2 for their £5. Ought not the gentleman connected with that fraud to be unearthed? I suggest that it is a very remarkable piece of legislation, which proposes, after all the wrong and mischief has been done, to say that in the future only, forsooth, shall the remedy be applied. Then there was the leading case of Warner's Safe Cure. The £10

  1887
  shares went up to £50 before the dealers in them knew where they were. And Mr. Warner and his gang of American sharpers plundered this country in the most marvellous American manner. When companies of this class are allowed to do this sort of thing, there must be something rotten in the state of Denmark. The hon. and learned Gentleman who is promoting this Bill has put down an Amendment to earmark his intentions, and to provide that the Bill shall only deal with all future swindles. It is a remarkable course for the hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue. I suppose the reason is that he has read so much of the doings of Warner and Lord Hindlip Allsopp, and all that class of persons, that he decided that, in future, persons in the peerage, who are connected with the brewing interest, shall be punished, and that the Peers in the past who have committed frauds on the public are to go scot free. That, in my opinion, is to take a course which cannot commend itself to the common sense of the House. I really think it is a remarkable state of facts that the English public do not turn and rend these company promoters, whose iniquity steams every day in the financial and leading newspapers. And to think that a Peer of the realm should pocket £3,000,000, and then, when it comes to be examined how many pounds ho has allowed to remain in the company, it is found that only a paltry few thousands are invested, the remainder of the £3,000,000 being invested in Goschen or Government Stock. That is not a credit to the commercial status of this country. The fact that this gentleman and his friends are not torn to pieces by the indignant public shows the very remarkable state of numbness to which the public have been reduced by this system. If there is a class who deserve protection it is the class gulled by these circulars. I must say the fact of Members of Parliament lending their names to this system of company promoting is little less than a scandal, and this House, if it goes on, will become little less than a sty of guinea pigs. Of course, a Member of Parliament ought to be allowed, like any other man, to follow any business he choooses, but what I condemn is that the "M.P." should be blazoned forth and used as a bait to trap
  1888
  the unwary. The widow or the investor down in the country, when they see the respected name of their Member, or of some Member of the Tory Party, just made a Peer because of his connection with hops, published in association with some company, are inspirited with confidence, and invest their money. If Members of Parliament lend their names to public companies, the very name Member of Parliament will become almost as odious as the name Deputy has become in France. We know that in Prance a Bill was introduced to prevent Deputies lending their names to such companies. I do not know whether the Bill has been passed into law, but at any rate it has had a most salutary effect on the French community, and most of the crawling guinea pigs have been sent about their business by the electors. Of course, a number of these companies may be perfectly sound, and I believe a number of them are; but what I contend is that the great office to which we are elected in this House should not be turned into a simple connection with the promotion of companies. I see strings of Members of Parliament, dozens of them, connected with public companies. If you turn to the directory of Directors, you will find whole strings of Peers and Members of Parliament whose names are connected with these companies. Therefore, I say that what ought to be dealt with is this question of promotion in the past. It is not sufficient to deal with this evil as if it was a future evil. The mischief is done. The Conversion Scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer let loose £100,000,000 for the purpose of investment. Guinness's boom opened the eyes of shareholders to investments offering the chance of 15 and 20 per cent. We ought to deal with the evil as one which commenced upon a given date. It would not do to go back to the days of the Glasgow Bank, or any case of that kind. There is a particular time which, in my opinion, ought to be taken as the starting point of fraud, and on this ground I beg to move the Amendment in the form which you have suggested, Sir, from the Chair.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words—
  "Provided always, that this Section shall apply to any prospectus or notice issued since

  1889
  the first day of October, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  (1.20.) MR. WARMINGTON: I cordially concur in the observations of the hon. Member for Longford, but, at the same time. I must explain my position in this matter. In Grand Committee I gave an undertaking that the action of the Bill should be prospective, and I believe I am bound, so far as I can, to insist that the Bill should be prospective. I have an Amendment on the Paper, however, promising that the Bill should come into force as soon as possible, and I propose that the Bill shall apply to notices and prospectuses issued after 1st of October, 1890. I am afraid, therefore, I shall not be able to support the Amendment of the lion, and learned Member, but must ask the House to allow the Bill to stand as it is, with prospective action, and to come into force as soon as possible.
  MR. ISAACSON: I cannot possibly sec how the measure can be made retrospective. But if it only takes effect from 1890, I feel sure that it will do a great deal of good. I read a calculation the other day that in five years something like £180,000,000 had been absolutely wasted, or, I may say, the public have been defrauded out of that enormous sum by bogus companies. I am extremely sorry that Members on both sides of the House should lend their names to companies day after day. I should have thought the Members of the Government would have had enough to do to attend to the business of Parliament, and I do think they ought not to take these offices. I remember some time since the Honduras Loan was brought out for 8s.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I rise to order. The point is that this Bill should be retrospective from the 1st October, 1886.
  MR. ISAACSON: I do not say the hon. and learned Gentleman is connected with a case of that kind, and I should be very sorry indeed to say so. The only thing I feel is this, that the public ought to be protected, and this Bill does not go far enough to protect the public in the matter of loans. This Honduras loan was brought out at 107,
  1890
  and it dwindled down to 13, and the man who brought it out had to leave the country.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the retrospective character of this Amendment.
  MR. ISAACSON: I am anxious to obey the orders of the Chair. I do not see how this Bill is to be made retrospective without filling the Law Courts, and giving employment to some 150 gentlemen of the long robe.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I could wish for many reasons to vote with my hon. and learned Friend, but to adopt this Amendment would be a departure from the usual course of legislation. I believe there is no instance, or, at any rate, the instances are very rare, in which penal legislation has been made retrospective. Besides, if you antedate its operation why stop at 1885? Why not carry it back 10 or even 20 years? The one safe ground to take is to make the measure prospective.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out the weak spot in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Longford is apparently directed against one or two companies to which ho has strong objection.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Two or three hundred companies.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: The hon. Gentleman particularly specified Allsopp's, and he reproached this side of the House for investing all their money in brewery shares. I have never had a brewery share; therefore, I can speak impartially. The hon. Member throws all the blame on the Directors. He goes a good deal further than even the Bill, which proposes to make the liability of the Directors unlimited. That is a serious matter enough. But the hon. Member would allow, no Member of Parliament to be a Director.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have no objection to his being a Director; but I object to the "M.P." being used for the purposes of advertisement.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: That would hardly make any difference. Everybody knows whether a man is a Member of Parliament or not, and to take away the "M.P." from his name would be of very

  1891
  little consequence. But I would point out that the hon. Member himself has a good deal of private business, and yet he finds time to attend to business in this House very effectually. Members who are lawyers and physicians pocket fees for the advice they give. Why should Members of Parliament, with their business know ledge, be prevented from going into these companies. Why should a Member be denounced as a guinea pig because he takes fees for attending to the business of public companies? Nobody reproaches the lawyer or the physician for pocketing his fees. No doubt we should all like to be born millionaires, and then we should be like some of the hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, who have such a vehement antipathy to Directors. Some hon. Members habitually speak of Directors as criminals.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question is solely as to the retrospective action to be given to the Bill.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I would point out, with great respect, that the hon. and learned Member was allowed to make a very strong attack on Directors generally, and especially on Members of this House who happen to be connected with public companies, and I claim very respectfully the right to say a word or two in justification of the action of Members of this House, who give their leisure time to the direction of companies. Throughout this discussion hon. Members have spoken of Directors in the freest terms. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell), for instance, habitually speaks of Directors as sinners. [Cries of "Order."]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of order in addressing himself to the general question of the conduct of Directors. The question before the House is whether the provisions of this Bill shall be made retrospective.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: I will not say anything further on that point, but I thought that if it was my duty to correct the false impressions that were conveyed by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Longford. He was loudly cheered when he denounced Directors generally. He seemed to work the House up to that state of mind which reminded me of a sentence of Macaulay's—
  1892
  "We know no spectacle more ridiculous than that of the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already called the hon. Member to order on the ground that he is transgressing the rules of Debate. I must ask him to pay attention to the ruling of the Chair.
  MR. J. M. MACLEAN: It is difficult to restrain one's indignation at the attacks that have been recklessly made by the hon. and learned Member for Longford upon the reputation of perfectly innocent people, and it is rather hard that hon. Members are not permitted to reply to them. With regard to the hon. and learned Member's proposal to make the operation of the Bill retrospective, and apply the Bill to Companies already in existence, I may say that in the cases to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred the shareholders were as much to blame as the Directors. People, we know, go down on their knees and entreat Directors to make them an allotment, and then, if anything goes wrong, they turn round and abuse the Directors, expecting to get their losses back again. That is a thing which the House should thoroughly apprehend. This is not a question that concerns the public at large, but merely the shareholders and Directors in particular companies. I should be sorry to see the Bill made retrospective to all companies. There are a thousand millions invested in these companies, which are successfully carrying on some of the great industries of the country, and the men who direct them deserve thanks instead of being held up to reprobation as criminals.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not differ in any way from the sentiments which have been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Longford, but I am not going to follow the hon. and learned Member in his remarks, because you, Sir, evidently are of opinion that some of the points he raised ought not to be discussed in this Amendment. I imagine that the hon. and learned Member in making those remarks, had in view the justification of his proposal that the House would adopt what, I admit, would be the rather exceptional course of making the provisions of the Bill retrospective. I do not think there is very often much blame attaching to the class

  1893
  of Directors. The question before the House is, whether we should be justified, on account of the blame which attaches to some Directors, in adopting this course, which is extremely unusual in English law. I, myself, must lie under the imputation of the hon. Member for Oldham, as I am suffering from one of the periodical attacks of morality, and I think it is a very good thing that the House of Commons has taken this matter up. I have voted steadily in favour of the most stringent provisions of this Bill, because, I think, it is high time that the public should be protected against the schemes of unscrupulous persons. In my opinion, the position of Membership of this House is often grossly abused, and is used for the purposes of advertisement. I do not, however, wish to do or say anything, or to make any imputation, against anyone who may happen to be a Member of this House, and who may happen, in the regular course of his life, to be a Director. That, I think, is a circumstance no one can condemn, but what I do condemn is the use of Membership of this House to advance the interests of Directors of companies. The question is whether we should, in the present Bill, do that which really would amount to what was called in the olden days a "Bill of Attainder," which had a retrospective action. I think that in doing that we should be departing from the usual course of legislation in these matters. It would be taking a very grave view of what is, unquestionably, a very grave subject. I hope that the Bill, as it stands, will be sufficient to restrain the practice complained of, and which I hope the great majority of the House are disposed to condemn. Although I am very much disinclined to vote against my hon. and learned Friend in this matter, I trust that, upon consideration, he will not press his Amendment, which certainly would almost be a solecism in legislation of this kind.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I should be most willing to support the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Longford, for making the provisions of the Bill retrospective, if the hon. and learned Member will consent to those provisions relating back to 1881, so as to include the case of the Irish Land
  1894
  Purchase Company, of which Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell was the Chairman.
  MR. SEXTON: What company does the hon. Member say?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What did Mr. Parnell get out of it? Did he ever receive a farthing fee?
  MR. W. RADCLIFEE COOKE: I do not know whether, if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, the right hon. Gentleman opposite intends to vote for it.
  SIR W. HABCOURT: I said I objected to it.
  MR. COOKE: I regard the Amendment as being open to the greatest possible objection. People expect to carry on their businesses according to the law existing at the time those businesses were started, and no business at all would be started if it were considered possible that laws of a totally different, and of a destructive, character could be established after the business had been commenced. That is the real and fundamental objection to the Amendment. However objectionable may have been the conduct of certain promoters and Directors, few people would desire to produce so disastrous a state of things as would be brought about if this Amendment were to be accepted. After all, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the tendency of modern times is in the direction of large industries being carried on by means of companies. It is quite possible that in the transference of a business from a private individual to a company, the individual obtains more for his business than it is worth. But after all, it is the active principle of business to sell what you have for more than it is worth. If you sap that principle you will destroy the mainspring of human industry. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Member for Longford, from the tone of his remarks, is in earnest in moving this Amendment, and probably, having made his caustic remarks upon hon. Members who are Directors, he will be satisfied and withdraw the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Longford will be satisfied with having raised this interesting discussion, and will withdraw his Amend-

  1895
  ment. Your ruling, Sir, renders it impossible for me to enter into the question of whether the greater portion of the losses which have occurred to investors during recent years have been due to the dishonesty of Directors or the folly of shareholders. Hon. and learned Members from Ireland will be aware that this is a branch of law I have had a great deal to do with in that country, and I must say my experience has led me to the conclusion that there is scarcely any branch of the law which could be more usefully dealt with for the protection of the general public. I say this without any invective against Directors or statement as to how these unfortunate losses have occurred. The result of my experience—such as it has been—is this, that the public require additional protection in this matter, and, therefore, I think our thanks are due to the lion, and learned Gentleman who has introduced this Bill. But, having come to the conclusion that the general investing public require protection, I must say I object to the highly penal provisions of this measure being made retrospective. Having decided to attach penal consequences to a certain course of action on the part of Directors, you should proceed with your legislation in the ordinary way, and not adopt an exceptional— and more than that, an unprecedented—course of legislation in this particular instance. Very property the provisions of the Bill are highly penal. But this very consideration creates an insuperable objection to the proposal in the Amendment, for there is no parallel for legislation of this kind being made retrospective. I trust the hon. and learned Member will rest satisfied with the discussion he has raised and will not press his Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: I think those who oppose the Amendment proceed on a complete misapprehension as to its scope. Obviously, if it created a new moral obligation, we should all vote against it, and I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would never make such an unjust proposal; but the Amendment does not propose to create any new obligation whatever. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House would not for a moment urge that, up to the present, Directors have been
  1896
  morally entitled to mislead the public, and to lend their names to prospectuses, and father statements which they knew—or ought to have known—to be untrue. They have always been, at least, morally bound to act with prudence in investigating the statements they have been asked to give to the public, and all this Bill proposes to do is to render them liable to attach some money meaning to that responsibility. It creates no new responsibility, but merely gives an effective means of enforcing the responsibility which has always existed. As to its being unusual to pass retrospective legislation, this House constantly passes Bills which affect contracts already entered into between private persons. And I would point out that the Bill does not propose to give a criminal remedy against a fraudulent Director, but merely a civil one; and why should hon. Gentlemen opposite object to such a remedy as that being enforced against rogues and thieves, for that is the only class of people who will be prejudicially affected. Your criminal legislation has been made retrospective on other occasions, notably in 1887, when you created artificial criminal offences in Ireland; why, therefore, should you not legislate retrospectively against fraudulent Directors?
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGE: I challenge the hon. Member who has just sat down to point to a single case in proof of his assertion that we have passed measures dealing retrospectively with offences in Ireland. It is true there has been retrospective legislation in regard to contracts. Retrospective action with regard to contracts has been adopted in two instances—once with regard to the Ground Game Act and once with respect to the Irish Land Bills. In both instances it was objected to by large parties in this House, and in the latter case was only adopted under the pressure of strong necessity in the case of the Irish tenants. I do not think we need go so far as to say that those who would be affected by these clauses would be necessarily rogues and thieves. As the clauses are drawn many men might be brought under them who had simply been careless. When the Act has been passed notice will have been given to Directors as to the matters which it makes illegal.

  1897
  It is a very different thing to say a man shall be criminally responsible in face of a law which directs attention to his responsibility, and to say he shall be criminally responsible for carelessness for which at the time he could not be made responsible, and in reference to action committed in good faith. It is proposed that the clause shall affect prospectuses or notices issued not after the passing of the Act, but after the 1st of October, 1886. The earlier parts of the clause, however, relate to the time when the Act comes into operation; and, therefore, if the Amendment be adopted, we shall have a clause which is not couched in Queen's English, or even in Parliamentary English, and which is nonsensical on the face of it.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I entirely agree in principle with this Amendment, and have not the least objection to put down wicked acts, but I cannot concur in the desirability of making the clause retrospective. An enormous number of Gentlemen inside and outside this House have followed the profession of "guineapigging," and lam afraid if this Amendmend were passed we should have a panic in the country, and the Kingdom would be almost depopulated.
  (2.0.) The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 135.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
  MR. WARMINGTON: I beg to propose to substitute "October" for "January" inline 16. I wish to make the Bill to come into operation on the 1st of October, 1890.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 4, page 2, line 16, to leave out the word "January," and insert the word "October."—(Mr. Warmington.)
  Question put and agreed to.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I now beg to move to omit "one" after "ninety."
  Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'one.'"
  Question proposed, "That 'one' stand part of the Bill."
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: As I have an Amendment on the Paper that deals with the same point, it may expedite the progress we desire to make if I explain now why I put the Amendment down and why I do not propose to move it. The Amendment just moved
  1898
  fixes a certain date on which this Bill is to come into operation. It seems to me that it would be of advantage to the public interest, and especially to the interest of those great undertakings which are now in the hands of Limited Liability Companies if that date were somewhat postponed. It seems to me that the result of this Bill will be to effect a very great change in the status of future Directors of Limited Liability Companies. I am sure those who promote the Bill have the very best intentions, namely, the protection of the public. But the great danger in the case of Limited Liability Companies arises not so much from the action of fraudulent Directors as from that of fraudulent promoters, who are not touched by the Bill. The provisions of the Bill make such a great change in the responsibility of honest Directors who really act up to their lights and with the utmost honesty of intention, that I think it will be very difficult in the future to induce any men of position and reputation, who have anything to lose, to become connected with or responsible for the issue of new companies. It is undoubtedly a fact that large amounts of capital have already been laid out in the preparation of perfectly sound enterprises that would come into being if nothing happened to prevent them during the next few months or the next year. These schemes, I maintain, will in all probability be hopelessly ruined by the introduction of this Bill, because those noblemen and gentlemen who have allowed their names to be connected with them will undoubtedly withdraw front all association with them, and consequently it will be impossible to put the enterprises before the public. I think that this Bill may be described as a Bill for placing the future of limited liability in the hands of guinea-pigs and men of straw.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment is to omit "ninety-one" for the purpose of inserting "ninety." The hon. Gentleman is hardly entitled to go into the matters he is dealing with.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Of course, Sir, I do not contest your ruling, but the point I wish to put before the House is that if a very early date be assigned for the operation of the Bill, it will imperil a large number of perfectly

  1899
  sound and legitimate enterprises that have been prepared for submission to the public because of the danger that must result to gentlemen who have allowed their names, or have intended to allow their names, to be associated with the prospectuses about to be issued. I submit that this may possibly be regarded as a reason why a very early date should not be fixed for the coming into operation of the Bill. I do not propose to move my Amendment, as I do not wish to obstruct the House in coming to a decision; but I urge these facts as a reason why the hon. Member should not fix too early a date for the coming into operation of the measure.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I am glad to hear the announcement that my hon. Friend does not intend to propose his Amendment. I am not very much in love with the Bill, for reasons I hope to state hereafter, and I have, therefore, voted on many occasions with my hon. Friend beside me. I think the hon. Member opposite has fixed very properly on the 1st of January, 1891, because I think, if the Bill is to become law, it would be a great mistake to defer the time at which it is to come into operation.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: The date now proposed is October, 1890.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I am sorry to hear of that alteration. It changes my view of the matter. At the same time if the date fixed were October, 1891, that would allow a large number of companies to be brought out, and would lead to things that might be very prejudicial.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. WARMINGTON: Then I have to propose an Amendment at the desire of the President of the Board of Trade. I have submitted it to the right hon. Gentleman, and it has his approval.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words "and shall only apply to prospectuses and notices issued after that date."—(Mr. Warmington.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR.T.M.HEALY: I think this Amendment most objectionable. We have heard from influential Members of the House what their objections are to
  1900
  the retrospective action of the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Warmington) has delivered himself of the opinion that it would he a hardship upon promoters and Directors to make the action of the Bill retrospective, but what does he now propose to do? He is going to give a kind of scapegoat period between the months of June and October within which frauds may continue. This Act would naturally take effect immediately after the Queen's Assent, but there is to be a close time for fraudulent Directors up to October, 1890. Well, I object to a close time for swindlers. Promoters, Directors, and everybody else have had long advertisement that this Act is about to be passed; but so tender is the hon. and learned Gentleman for those whom this Bill is to punish, that he proposes to allow the flow of a flood of felony between now and October. A more remarkable proposal I have never heard; it is a condemnation of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Bill. I can understand his objection to my proposal to make the Act retrospective, but here he is branding his own Bill as a measure that is really not much wanted. He says, in effect, there is no need of hurry about it after all, and these poor guileless promoters should have time to run their merry rigs a little longer. I am amazed that the hon. and learned Gentleman should cast such a slur upon his own legislation, practically justifying the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite. "You are right," he says. "The Bill is objectionable, and there should be ample scope and verge enough" for these operations up to October I next, and this is assented to, practically, without debate. I suppose this is to allow the development of schemes now in process of incubation. Is this to be tolerated? Are we to wait for months, so that fraudulent proposals and prospectuses now, perhaps, in the printers' hands, can be put before the public? Really, I think this Bill has had from its own parent the most severe stab it could receive. Apparently the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman is that there should be a close time for fraud. You may commit a fraud on September 30, but not on October 1. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may date their prospectuses September 30, but not later.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman attribute to Members on this side the circulation of fraudulent prospectuses?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. I say anybody can issue a fraudulent prospectus on September 3 and is not to be struck at by this Act; but if he dates it October 1, then lie renders himself liable to punishment. The hon. Member for South Belfast does not carry into public life that geniality we all recognise in his private capacity. He suggested a moment ago the Bill dating from 1881, but the case he put is of a wholly different character to those we have in contemplation in passing this Bill. The company formed for migration purposes was one from which no Director derived a penny. The Directors were mistaken perhaps, but they drew no fees; but this Bill does not touch such a case; it strikes at false and misleading statements issued. But I rose to protest against the suggestion that there should he a close time for fraud. I say the moment this Bill becomes an Act, let it come into operation. I deny that this is a Bill so unjust and harsh in its operation that any interval should be allowed.
  MR. BARING: I very much regret the introduction of words suspending the operation of the Bill until the 1st October. I think it should run from the passing of the Act, and all the more because we have heard from my hon. Friend near me that there are sundry noblemen and gentlemen who are considering whether their names shall appear on prospectuses now in preparation.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Not within my knowledge.
  MR. BARING: I thought my hon. Friend spoke of what he knew; but it seems he spoke of what he did not know. I think, looking at the serious nature of the evils with which the Bill is to deal, we ought not to give them what has been called a close time, but as soon as the Bill becomes law it should be enforced. I could not agree with the proposal to make penal legislation retrospective; but when we make penal legislation, it should come into force with the passing of the Act.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I quite agree in that view. I am against a close time of any description, whether for Directors or for hares. Certainly I cannot conceive any possible argument by which, a measure of this kind, if it is justifiable at all, should not take effect as soon as Parliament has given assent to it. As I said before, in opposition to the retrospective Amendment, that it was a departure from Parliamentary usage, so I say in opposition to this Amendment that it is equally a departure from Parliamentary usage without justification.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the House that, as amended, the clause runs thus:—"This Act shall come into operation on the 1st of October, 1890."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will it not be competent for us to vote against the clause as amended; and, the clause being struck out, the Act would come into operation at once?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; the proposal that the clause stand part of the Bill is made in Committee.
  MR. SETON-KARR: Are not the words now before us consequential upon the decision of the House that the Bill shall come into operation on October 1, and are they really necessary? The Bill docs not apply to prospectuses issued before that date, or what is the meaning of the clause? If we have already passed the words declaring that the Bill shall come into operation on October 1, naturally the Bill cannot apply to prospectuses before that date.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has passed the clause that this Act shall come into operation on October 1, 1890, and the Amendment now proposes that the Act shall only apply to prospectuses and notices issued after that date. The point is how to deal with notices issued between the passing of the Act and the date for the operation of the Act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I assume, undoubtedly, that prospectuses issued meantime will be covered by the Act, but legal procedure can only be taken after October 1. Undoubtedly, as the clause stands, all bogus and improper prospectuses come under the Act as soon as it passes; but these proposed words will prevent that.
  MR. SETON-KARR: It seems to me that the Amendment is the natural consequence of what the House has accepted, and the hon. and learned Member's interpretation makes nonsense of the Bill. The Bill cannot apply to prospectuses issued before October 1, when we accept that is the date of the operation of the Act.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: As I understand it, the Bill comes into operation on October 1, and, that being so, no prospectus issued before that time would come within the operation of the Act. For operative purposes there is no Act until that date. It seems to me that the words proposed by my hon. and learned Friend are not required, and I really do not know why they are introduced. Can the right hon. Gentleman opposite give us any possible reason?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Of course, I cannot give a legal opinion. I expressed my view that the liabilities under the Bill should not attach to notices issued before the passing of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend near me informs me that the words are not necessary, and I do not see why they should be introduced.
  MR. MADDEN: It appears to me that the House, having fixed the 1st of October as the commencement of the legal consequences that follow under the Act, the Amendment expresses the exact position and the legal consequence of fixing the commencement of the Act at that date. The words add nothing to the meaning, but, on the other hand, they are absolutely harmless.
  MR. BARING: I rather wish to have words inserted applying the Act to prospectuses and notices issued between the passing of the Act and October 1.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I submit, Sir, that after your ruling any further discussion is really little better than obstruction.
  MR. WARMINGTON: I do not myself think the words are necessary, and I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. CHANCE: As bearing upon the present position, I may mention that the date of the issue of the prospectus is not the vital point, the date of subscription is the root of the action. If the Bill is allowed to go through as it
  1904
  now stands, the result will be that a person who subscribes to a company after this date, the promoters having issued their prospectus the day before the date, will have no action. The subscription gives the right of action, but there is no word in the Bill as to date of subscription; it is only provided that the Act shall come into existence on a certain day. It seems to me it would be well to have this matter defined in some better manner. We had better understand clearly whether the date of the prospectus, or the date of the subscription is the vital date in respect to the commencement of the action.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I now propose to add after the word "ninety" these words: "But this Act shall apply to all prospectuses and notices issued after the passing of this Act." The object these words would effect would be that, while no legal procedure can be adopted to punish promoters of a fraudulent character between now and October, yet the moment October arrives the legal machinery of this Act comes into operation for the punishment of anything of a fraudulent nature which may have taken place in the interval between the passing of the Act and that date. I am obliged for the suggestion to the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Baring.) He is a great authority on financial matters, and I am quite sure he will lend the weight of his authority to protect us against this close time for fraud, and to prevent the launching of dishonest schemes now on the stocks.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has agreed that the Act shall come into operation on October 1, 1890, and that operation refers to prospectuses and notices. What the hon. and learned Member now proposes amounts not to a limitation, but to a contradiction of what has already been agreed upon by applying the Act to all prospectuses and notices issued after the passing of the Act.
  MR. CHANCE: On a point of order, Sir. There is a difficulty as to the date upon which the Act shall come into operation, whether it shall be the date of prospectus or the date of subscription for shares. Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland can explain that.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: To contradict a provision previously laid down is of course not allowable; but, as I understand, the hon. and learned Member wishes to make an exception. Now, if we could not fix a date, and afterwards make an exception to it, we should not be able to legislate at all. We must fix a general date, though we may choose to make certain exceptions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman puts in the words "Except as to prospectuses and notices," etc., that would show that the reference is to a portion of these proceedings and not to the whole. Proceedings may not be instituted until October. We know there are cases continually where, in order to prevent evasions of an Act, you have to put in a clause to provide that there shall be no violation of the Act while discussion is going on. So here we shall be stultifying ourselves before the public if we pass an Act in a form allowing impunity to promoters during the months of July, August, and September. What possible reason is there for allowing such a thing? It is possible, I submit, to make exceptions, and I think we ought to do it here to maintain our credit for common sense.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is addressed to a point which has already been decided he desires that the Act shall come into force immediately on its passing, but the House has decided it shall come into force on October 1. If we were now to put in words to provide that prospectuses issued between the passing of the Act and October 1 should render the issuers liable to the penalties provided that would be anticipating the date already fixed, and would be directly contrary to what has already been done.
  MR. COURTNEY: I was about to urge the same point. It is not a question of policy or prudence or good sense. If it is nonsensical, fortunately there is another branch of the Legislature where it can be put right. It is a matter of order; the words have been passed declaring the Act comes into operation on October 1, and the words of the Act are to be
  1906
  read as if spoken by the Legislature on that day.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There may be exceptions.
  MR. COURTNEY: The gist of the Bill is Clause 3, which declares that certain statements shall be followed by certain consequences. It is further declared that the Act shall come into operation on October 1, and the proposed Amendment is a direct contradiction, declaring that the operation shall be immediate.
  MR. SEXTON: Could my right hon. Friend move his Amendment as regards prospectuses or notices, not as regards both? Directed to both it would be a, contradiction, but not to the one or the other.
  MR. SPEAKER: The proper time to raise the point would have been when the hon. and learned Gentleman moved October 1, 1890, as the date for the operation of the Act. To say now that the operation of the Act shall be from the date of its passing will be to virtually contradict what has been passed by the House. I am afraid there is no remedy at this stage.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I appreciate entirely, Sir, the force of what you say; and I will, on the Motion for Third Reading, move the re-committal of the Bill to omit this clause, and I presume that in this I shall have the assent of the President of the Board of Trade.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be set down for Third Reading on Wednesday."—(Mr. Warmington.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that, on the Motion for Third Reading, I shall move to re-commit the Bill in order to strike out the entire clause, and this will have the effect of making the Act speak as from the day it receives the Royal Assent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Wednesday next.

  ORCHARDS RATING EXEMPTION BILL. (No. 177.)
  Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  PHARMACY ACT (IRELAND) (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 241.)
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. SEXTON: I regret to move the Adjournment of the Debate; but, under the circumstances, I hope it will be accepted. It will be observed that all the Amendments to the Bill stand in my name——
  MR. SPEAKER: The lion. Member should formally move an Amendment before I put a Motion for Adjournment.
  Clause (First election of representatives of chemists and druggists to council,)—(Mr. Sexton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am surprised that the lion. Member for South Belfast, with whom I thought we had a perfect understanding, should wish to proceed with the Bill now. We assented to the Bill passing Committee, making a pro formâ Amendment in order that there should be a Report stage, with the object of coming to an agreement between the chemists and the Pharmaceutical Society. Of course, it would not be right to refer to private conversation in reference to a public matter; but we did understand that the hon. Gentleman was willing to postpone the Bill, and it was our influence secured the passage of the Bill through Committee. We are not hostile to the Bill; we only desire to give effect to an arrangement which we hope may be arrived at with the Pharmaceutical Society—to reconcile conflicting interests. It is with that object that I now move the adjournment
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. MADDEN: I hope my hon. Friend will accept the Motion. There are only a few remaining points of difference to be settled between the parties referred to, and, in fact, time will be saved by a present postponement. I hope that the points of difference will become fewer in the interval, and when the Bill comes on again, an arrangement will have been arrived at, and there will
  1908
  be no opposition to this useful Bill becoming law.
  MR. JOHNSTON: It is but a reasonable proposition, and I accept it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That the consideration of the Bill be resumed on Monday."—(Mr. Johnston.)
  MR. SEXTON: I would observe that the Bill is entitled to a certain priority of position if set down for a private Members' day; but on Government days it will be blocked by the 12 o'clock Rule. I would, therefore, suggest that it be taken on Wednesday next.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I am quite willing, but I thought it was the wish of lion. Members to take it on Monday.
  Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

  INTESTATES ESTATES BILL.—(No. 59.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
  HARES PRESERVATION BILL [LORDS].

    (NO. 187.) COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I desire to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and, in doing so, desire to say that I have no objection to the preservation of hares in the close season, but I think it is rather strong action for the House of Commons to enact that any farmer who kills a hare during a close season for the protection of his crops should be guilty of a criminal offence. My Amendment would protect the farmers from this hardship, while destroying the interest of the poacher and trader in the killing of hares during close season. The farmer has no means of defending his crops against the ravages of these creatures except by killing them; and surely it is unreasonable that his doing so in close time should be a penal act. I have no sympathy with poachers and dealers who kill at this season for purposes of profit, nor do I think that sporting interests should weigh against the practical interest of the farmer. Kindliness to dumb creatures I recog-

    1909
    nise; but it is a sentiment that does not apply to circumstances where these creatures are preserved to the loss of the farmer in order that, in the coursing season, they may be run down and killed under circumstances of the greatest cruelty. I think the desired object will have secured by taking away the incentive to kill during the close season for purposes of profit; but I hope the common-sense of the Committee will recognise the justice of allowing the farmer to take the necessary steps to protect his crops from the ravages of these animals.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, to leave out all the words after the word "shall," to the word "or," in line lo, and insert the words "sell, offer for sale for money, or any other consideration whatever, any hare or leveret."—(Mr. Esslemont.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'wilfully kill' stand part of the Clause."
    COLONEL DAWNAY: I can assure the Committee that, so far from wishing to overthrow the principle of the Ground Game Act of 1880, the promoters of the Bill wish to affirm that principle and to secure to the farmers the privilege granted by that Act, which is now in danger of vanishing altogether. Since the Ground Game Act of 1880 hares have been slaughtered in season and out of season, so much so that in many parts of the country they have almost become extinct. Parliament has passed laws to protect sea birds, singing birds, and even coarse fish; and yet the hare, which is a valuable article of food, and the most defenceless of all British wild animals, is slaughtered all the year round, and at a time when it is totally unfit for food, and when the death of a doe hare involves the lingering death by starvation of one or two leverets. In the market towns of England, Scotland, and Ireland one may often see in the spring time exposed for sale a doe hare dripping with milk or big with young, and by her side wretched leverets no bigger than rats. It is to stop this barbarous cruelty and this wanton waste of food that this Bill is brought in. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted, because, if it is, the Bill will not be worth the paper it is printed on.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I waited with interest to know the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on a question affecting the sport and agriculture of the country, and I find the Government represented on this occasion by the Attorney General, and I suppose he is prepared to answer for both. It would have been interesting to see the Minister for Agriculture here, but I suppose his presence is inconvenient, because in 1880, on the Hares Bill, he spoke very strongly, and voted against this very proposition. With every respect for what my hon. Friend says, the Bill does contravene directly the principle of the Act of 1880, which is that the occupier of the land shall deal as he chooses with the ground game for the protection of his crops. Hares are very destructive animals, and the Bill would protect them just when their ravages are at the worst.
    SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: No.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman maintain that hares do no injury to growing crops from March to July? I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on agricultural matters, but I can only suppose he can maintain such a proposition on the assumption that all the land in Essex has gone out of cultivation. To say that hares do not commit ravages upon crops in these months is to make an assertion every farmer would laugh at. What, too, becomes of all the recommendations that farmers should turn their attention to raising vegetables? It is the very period when hares ought not to be preserved. I can give an authority for that in the person of a former colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. In 1880, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, a gentleman of great experience in agriculture, proposed that the occupier should be allowed to kill rabbits at all seasons, and to kill and take hares during the months of February, March, and April. The proposal of Colonel Ruggles-Brise was not to allow hares to be killed at other times, but in the months of February, March, and April, because this was the period in which hares are most destructive to the crops of the farmer; and in his speech on that occasion

    1911
    he declared his opinion that a close time for hares was not necessary. On the same occasion the Minister for Agriculture spoke, and he said if ever the operation of farmers were to undergo a change and market gardening should prevail all over the country, which he did not believe would ever be the case, the objections to the Amendment would be reasonable; but he thought it was undesirable to apply to the whole Bill that which should only apply to exceptional cases. Mr. Rod well, another Representative of the Eastern Counties, and, as many hon. Members know, a great sportsman, expressed an opinion that it was impossible to fix any close time for hares. After that proposal, another was made almost similar to the proposal before the House now, and the present Minister for Agriculture spoke strongly against this proposal and also voted against it. Lord Elcho, the present Lord Wemyss, put the case in a nutshell when he said—
    "If this is a Bill for the preservation of sport, nothing is more reasonable than a close time; hut if it is a Bill to promote good husbandry, there should he no close time."
    That Amendment was defeated in 1880 by 148 to 58, the right hon. Gentleman and his County Member friends voting in the majority. It is idle for my hon. Friend to say the Bill is not intended to contravene the Act of 1880; it is intended to overthrow it root and branch. The Preamble of that Act gives occupiers the right to protect their crops against the ravages of ground game, and it is in the spring time when crops are coming up that the gnawing down by these animals is most injurious. The desire of country gentlemen to promote the multiplication of hares is interesting, for it shows that agriculture is very flourishing; that crops are so good and prices so high that more hares to eat the crops are desirable lest the farmer should become too prosperous. We have a Conservative Party in Office which has the agricultural interest of the country at heart, and a Minister specially charged with the care of that interest. Why, Sir, they brought under our notice the question of bimetallism; they then introduced a Tithe Bill for the farmers and country gentlemen; and, in the third place——
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I rise to a point of order. I have to ask you, Sir, whether the introduction of the subject of Bi-metallism and the Tithes Bill has anything to do with a measure to provide a close time for hares?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am only using these matters by way of illustrating my contention than the only practical measure of relief for the agricultural interest introduced by Her Majesty's Government this Session is a Bill giving a close time for hares. This, no doubt, is a measure that will be satisfactory to the large farmers and wealthy land owners who are desirous of preserving hares for sport. They say there are too few at present, and it is desirable that they should have more. But I may be allowed to say a word or two for another class who are not rolling in wealth. I allude to the small holders—the men you profess to have so much interest in and to desire to protect. Although the great owners and large farmers may be over whelmed with prosperity—although the farmers of Lincolnshire may be longing for more hares, I must remind the House that, although the Minister for Agriculture has said that market gardening is a thing to be looked down upon, and that it would never extend largely in England, we on this side differ from that opinion, and both hope and believe there will be a great extension of this industry, to which the ravages caused by ground game are a source of very serious injury. The whole of a market gardener's crops may be destroyed by hares, and consequently the question is a serious one. It is, therefore, from this point of view that the Bill ought to be regarded. The question of a few hundred pounds more or less may not be a matter of great importance to the great Lincolnshire farmers, but the question of a few shillings may be the means of determining whether a small holder can maintain his allotment or not. It is upon this issue that the Bill must be judged. In point of fact, everybody knows that this Bill is not one which is really intended to affect the interest of agriculture. It is a sportsman's Bill——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing the Second Reading of

    1913
    the Bill, but an Amendment dealing with the question of selling hares.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well, Sir; I will reserve what I have to say on that point until the proper time has arrived. But I may remind the Committee that there really has been no Second Reading Debate on this Bill at all. The Bill has been pushed—I might almost say smuggled—through the House in the small hours of the morning, and if Bills of this kind are to be passed without any discussion on their merits it will not increase the confidence with which they are regarded. With regard to the question of selling hares, that is directly connected with the subject of the food of the people. The selling of hares depends upon the supply, and I, for one, absolutely deny the statement that there is anything like a scarcity of hares in this country. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members who deny this should state their reasons. I may inform the Committee that when in the North, not many months ago, I was at a place where there had been a big day's sport, and there was a good deal of talk about the number of pheasants they had killed. I said, "I do not want to know anything about the pheasants; tell me about the hares. How many did you kill?" They told me 338.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state where this occurred?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes, at Lord Durham's. But I should not have mentioned the name had it not been asked for. The question is, are there sufficient hares in the country or are there not? I remember saying to a friend of mine "What do you think of killing upwards of 300 hares in a day?" and he replied, "Well, we can all do that." I say, therefore, if you can all do that, what nonsense it is to say the hare is an extinct animal. You cannot go and kill 300 dodos in a day, and your position as to hares is ridiculous. I have inquired also of a great many friends of mine who indulge in sport in a moderate way, who tell me there is no difficulty round Windsor and in the neighbourhood of London in getting as many hares as they want. I will tell you what this Bill is for, and every-body here knows it. It is because at present the tenant farmers of England do not produce sufficient hares to supply the
    1914
    coursing meetings. As regards the insufficient supply for other purposes, I absolutely deny the statement. In the neighbourhood where I live I asked a gentleman whether be found a scarcity of hares, and his reply was, "Not at all." It is only where the preservation of ground game is seriously abused that the tenant farmers take advantage of the Ground Game Act, and destroy the hares. You may buy as many hares at the poulterers as ever. I know quite as much about the poulterers' shops as hon. Members opposite, as I have made it my business to study this subject scientifically. There is a large poulterer in London with whom I deal, and through whose means I have eaten through all the hares of Europe. I can tell my hon. Friend opposite that he may buy as many hares as he liked. I have bought a large hare, weighing 121bs., for 2s. Surely that is cheap food. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh." It was a Russian hare. I will not affirm that it was very good, but it was nourishing. It is nonsense to say you must be able to eat up the crops of the small gardeners and allotment holders in order to provide food for the people, when it is a well-known fact that foreign hares come into our markets from America, Belgium, Russia, Austria, and Hungary by hundreds of thousands, and they are just as good hares as our English hares. ["No!"] Well, that is a matter of taste. I have eaten Russian hares, Austrian hares, and Hungarian hares, and they are exactly the same as the English hares. Therefore, all this outcry about the food of the people is sheer nonsence, and everybody knows it.
    COLONEL DAWNAY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but he has mistaken our point. We say that the killing of doe hares in milk, and when unfit for food, is brutality, and our aim is to stop that brutality by means of this measure.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Brutality! That, it seems, is the only point the sporting gentlemen care about. We can all understand the kindly heartedness which sees a hare torn to pieces by greyhounds for sport—the humanity of those who hear the screams of the wounded hare at the cover side, and yet are shocked at the brutality of shooting the

    1915
    animal. To my mind, one of the most shocking things I know of is to hear the screaming of a wounded hare, but hon. Members opposite want more hares to scream, and nothing shows this more than the interruption of the hon. Gentleman. I would ask him how many do hares are there with young in the month of July 1 I wonder that hon. Gentlemen can endeavour to persuade the House to extend protection to hares on so preposterous a proposition. Do hon. Gentlemen on the other side assert that July is a month in which hares are generally with young? Everybody knows that July is the month in which we eat leverets.
    COLONEL DAWNAY: Hares are bred from the end of February to the beginning of August.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the hon. Member say that August is a brood month for hares?
    COLONEL DAWNAY: I said from February to the beginning of August, but, of course, they mostly breed in March and April.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I only wanted to see how far these sporting gentlemen would go. Everybody knows the phrase "Mad as a March hare," and really some hon. Members in their zeal in this Bill seem to resemble March hares.
    MR. WHARTON: The Bill only proposes protection up to the 1st of July. We are not now dealing with July.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture will stand at the Table, and say June is a breeding month for hares, I shall be bound to believe him, and also to believe the Pope on a question of dogma. I say that this is not a Bill for promoting the sale of hares as food. It is a Bill for the promotion of coursing meetings, where bags of hares are turned out to be run down by dogs. I should like to hear whether the Minister of Agriculture is prepared vehemently to support this Bill. I want to hear his statement of the views entertained by the Government on the subject. For my part, I am speaking in the interests of the holders of allotments and small farms. Everybody knows that the question affecting hares differs totally from the question of rabbits——
    MR. CHAPLIN: I rise to order. I must ask you, Mr. Courtney, whether the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is directed to the Amendment, which is simply to insert hares that are sold instead of hares being killed. Is not this in reality a Second Reading speech?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I submit, Sir, that the question of selling hares relates to the production of hares, and, therefore, I am entitled to argue whether or not there is an increase of the hares that are to be sold.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The whole argument so far has been directed to the offence of selling and not the offence of killing, and should be confined to that question.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not exactly understand the distinction. I should imagine, according to the old precept, "You must first catch your hare," the selling of hares has relation to the catching of hares, and the principal question is: Are there enough hares to catch in order that they may be sold. I hold that there are abundance of hares in this country for all legitimate purposes; that this Bill is a sportsman's Bill, which will inflict injustice on the small occupiers throughout the Kingdom, by depriving them of the right to kill hares on their own property, and to sell them, and, under these circumstances, I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): After a speech of nearly half an hour just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, I will only detain the House a few moments, confining myself to such of his remarks as were relevant to the Amendment. I should not have troubled the House but for the somewhat sneering observations at the commencement of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not see why the Attorney General should not express his opinion on this matter as well as an ex-Solicitor General or ex-Home Secretary, and certainly after the speech we have just heard I should not have the slightest objection to enter into a competitive examination with the right hon. Gentleman either in natural history or agriculture. One of the main arguments of the right hon. Gentleman has been that market gardens will spread, and that

    1917
    hares will eat up the produce. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have read the Bill.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I never said market gardens; I said small holdings.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I took down the right hon. Gentleman's words myself, and I am in the recollection of those who heard the earlier part of the right hon Gentleman's speech, in which he referred to market gardens. He quoted a speech from Hansard in which my right hon. Friend referred to market gardens. Such is the memory of the right hon. Gentleman ! He does not remember what he said a few minutes ago. There is a distinct provision in the Bill that it should not apply to hares and leverets inside nursery or other gardens, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's observation——
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I never made it.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I cannot accept the denial of the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Very good. Then I say you violate the courtesy of the House.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: It is a matter of recollection to those who have been in the House during the last half-hour.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I never referred to market gardens, except so far as the words were included in the quotation. No statement of my own I gave referred to anything except small holdings.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am unable to accept the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, but I will not continue to debate the matter. The point which we are now discussing is whether or not hares are to be sold, and we have heard a great deal of useful information about the breeding time of hares. The Bill only proposes a close time up to the 1st of July, so that the right hon. Gentleman has not even read the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that during those months doe hares are with young, and that young hares, when the mother is killed, often die a cruel and lingering death without doing good to anyone? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has eaten Russian hares, and that they are quite as good as English hares—and apparently they must be most nourishing food, but I do not think that in his own house, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman would eat a doe
    1918
    hare killed in March or April, or if he did he would not do it a second time. Then we have heard about the seeds coming up. As a matter of fact, nine tenths of the wheat comes up in the autumn. Perhaps in his part of the country crops come up at a different time. The right hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is a direct infraction of the Ground Game Act during particular months. There might be something in his argument, but for 8½ months in the year the farmer is free to shoot and catch hares, and I ask, is there anyone who will deny that if the farmer wishes to keep the hares down he cannot do it in those 8½ months? As I understand it, there is no complaint on the part of tenant farmers at not being allowed to kill hares during the proposed close time. The right hon. Gentleman has told us of his distinguished friends who have killed large bags of hares, but the right hon. Gentleman has not given his personal experience of the agricultural counties, where there are large numbers of tenants occupying the land without large preserves. I apologise for intruding on the House, feeling, as I do, that I ought not to have addressed it, having regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I hope and trust that the Amendment will be discussed on its merits, and that those topics which have no bearing upon the matter will not be gone into.
    SIR J. PEASE: I hope it is not difficult to discuss a question of this kind without warmth even on such a warm day. I desire to say that in supporting this Bill I am only carrying out the views of agriculturists in my own neighbourhood. It does not repeal a single word of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby's Bill. I have taken no part out of the House in the agitation on this question, but I am familiar with agriculture in my own part of the country, and I know that in the wide district of the North-Riding of Yorkshire, known as the Cleveland district, every farmer but one supports the Bill—and the exception is a coursing man who wants the power of killing hares all the year round. There are good reasons for supporting the provisions of the Bill. They will not

    1919
    cause the farmer any inconvenience, for with a close time, commencing 15th of March or 1st of April, he will have ample time during the period when hares ought to be killed, in which to destroy every hare that is likely to prey on his crops. I venture to say that on any farm within seven days of the 15th of March you could put down every surplus hare you are not desirous of having there. This seems to me a very simple and natural Bill, commending itself to every naturalist and every humanitarian. It is really the best compliment that could be paid to the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darby, because it shows that the right hon. Gentleman's Bill has worked so hardly on hares as almost to cause them in many places to become extinct.
    SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: After the speech we have just listened to I do not suppose I should have troubled the House with any remarks on the question, if it had not been for the very pointed reference made to me by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite. I will not, after your ruling, Sir, follow the right hon. Gentleman's discursive speech, but I may say that what struck me more than anything else in that speech was that the New Forest must be a very happy hunting ground, because the right hon. Gentleman's experience of it enables him to set his knowledge of agriculture and field sports, and his views not only of agriculturalists but of small holders generally throughout the country, against the opinion of everybody else. Speaking now for a very large body of agriculturists in the county of Essex, I can say that the Bill is a very necessary one, if any hares are to be preserved. I do not wish to enter into competition with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in legal knowledge, but, seeing that I have the misfortune to hold in my own hands 1,600 to 2,000 acres of land, I think I may place my experience in agricultural matters against that of the right hon. Gentleman. The mouths mentioned in the Bill, which have been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman as the months in which the greatest damage to crops will ensue, are not looked upon in that light by agriculturists generally. We have, at least, an
    1920
    equal knowledge with the right hon. Gentleman of the rotation of crops, and also of their growth, and we have had experience of the time when they are most destroyed, and I venture to say that the months selected by the right hon. Gentleman are not those in which most damage is done.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The months I quoted were those mentioned by Colonel Ruggles-Brise.
    SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: When Colonel Ruggles-Brise expressed his opinion he was speaking from the point of view of the opposition that was raised to an Amendment. Remember that the proposal of the Bill had not been tried by the country, and I venture to say that if Colonel Ruggles-Brise were now in the House, he would agree with me in the view I am expressing as to the opinion of the farmers of Essex. Agriculturists have had experience of the Act of the light hon. Gentleman, and they have come to the conclusion that that Act has practically destroyed a species of game to which farmers attach considerable importance. No doubt, in the days before the passing of that Act, farmers who looked upon hares as the property of the landlords regarded them with considerable jealousy, but now that they have the power of dealing with that property themselves they are quite as much in favour of the alteration in the law now proposed as the landlords. I confess I admired the knowledge the right hon. Gentleman had acquired from the poulterers' shops, but allow me to say that although we may have most delicious hares imported from foreign countries, there is no denying the fact that in this country the hare is practically becoming extinct, certainly all over the counties of which I have any knowledge, and I venture to say that the price of hares in the market will fully confirm that view. If the Amendment is passed the Bill will have no effect in checking the destruction of hares at the time when they ought to be protected. By this Bill you will not deprive the farmer of any opportunity he may wish to have of destroying these animals, and I am certain that the farmers of the country will infinitely prefer that the Bill should pass in its entirety than that it should be mutilated by this Amendment.
    MR. BARCLAY: No doubt the Bill is a violation of the compromise arrived at on the passing of the Ground Game Act, when, on the one hand, the farmer obtained the right to kill hares and rabbits all the year round, and, on the other hand, certain restrictions were imposed upon his mode of killing him—which restrictions have proved very inconvenient, especially in the case of rabbits. To a certain extent I sympathise with the Bill, but I do not think there is really any scarcity of hares, though that is one of the chief arguments adduced for opposing the Amendment. I do not think that the price of hares is sensibly higher than before the Ground Game Act was passed. There is no doubt that in some parts of the country hares are now as plentiful as ever they were, or, at least, as plentiful as they should be, whilst in other parts they, no doubt, are scarce. They always were scarce in some places. It does not always depend upon the killing as to the number of hares there are in a district, but the food there is for them. The Amendment meets the case of hares being with young being exposed in poulterers' shops. Such an abuse will be prohibited if the Amendment is adopted, and I think the hon. Member in charge of the Bill would do well to accept the proposal. The Game Acts will deal with the case of poachers and unauthorised persons. If the large farmers want to preserve hares they can do so. Let them prevent poachers from trespassing on their lands; and as to the smaller farmers, I am convinced they do not want this Bill. They do not like to be interfered with by a new Game Act. I hope the lion. Member in charge of the Bill will be disposed to accept the Amendment. I think it meets the case, and will prevent hares from being exposed in shops during the breeding season. As far as the cultivators of farms are concerned, I think they have power enough to preserve hares to the extent they desire.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to say a few words in support of the very moderate and reasonable speech addressed to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Essex (Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson), because I think the great majority of the House is in favour of
    1922
    making progress with the Bill, and of passing it into law as soon as possible. I do not intend to quarrel with the character or motives of the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) or to deal with the various topics he raised, although I am bound to say it offers a most tempting theme for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman questioned altogether the accuracy of my hon. and learned Friend's (the Attorney General's) recollection as to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman introduced into his speech arguments in support of market gardens. I may say I took down his words at the time, and I turned to my hon. and learned Friend, and said, "Half his argument is entirely answered by the Bill itself, because Clause I provides that the measure shall not apply to nurseries or other gardens."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, he will see I have put down on the Paper an Amendment to add to the word "gardens" the words "small holdings."
    MR. CHAPLIN: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman meant, but, in justice to my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, I felt bound to tell the Committee what took place. This is a Bill to provide a close time for hares. The Amendment which has been moved would, in my opinion, only have the effect of making the Bill considerably weaker than it is at present. The right hon. Gentleman supported the Amendment, he said, in the interest of the farmers, and the hon. Member who has just sat down expressed the opinion that, in the view, at all events, of the small farmers the Bill is objectionable. I do not know the grounds on which the hon. Member has formed that opinion, hut I have endeavoured to ascertain the opinions of farmers of all descriptions, and I find precisely the opposite view prevailing. I believe there is a very general desire that the Bill should pass without material alteration. Farmers now enjoy the right of killing hares, and, very naturally, do not wish that they should become extinct—a consummation which does not appear to be very far distant at the present time in many parts of the country. Surely, this is a very reasonable and moderate Bill, and, whether we agree or disagree with it, I think we

    1923
    have a right to ask that the Amendments may be discussed in a reasonable, concise, and business-like manner, and that Members who oppose the Bill will not resort to those reprehensible tactics to which recourse is sometimes had for the purpose of defeating Bills. With reference to the argument that crops will be damaged during the proposed close time, it is enough to point out that the present Amendment would not obviate the possibility of such damage. There are other Amendments on the Paper which, I think, are very fully deserving of consideration, and to which I am sure Gentlemen sitting behind me will give full consideration. Under these circumstances I hope the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) will re-consider his position and use his great influence for the purpose of inducing his friends to consider the Bill in a fair and reasonable manner.
    MR. GURDON: In my part of the country I believe the Bill is supported by owners of land, occupiers of land, agricultural labourers, and even those other gentlemen who live by taking hares in an indirect way. In fact, the feeling in favour of the Bill is practically unanimous. We do not entirely agree with the limits of the close time fixed in the Bill, and I certainly should have liked to see adopted an Amendment which was placed on the Paper, but has been withdrawn, for leaving the counties to fix the close time for themselves. I hope, however, the House will accept the Bill.
    DR. TANNER: During the last few months I have tried by visiting various poulterers' shops in London to find out whether it is true that hares are exposed for sale when in milk. I have been told at shop after shop that such a thing is never seen, and that the credit of any poulterer who did it would be absolutely destroyed. Accordingly, if any poulterers are engaged in this practice, I think they will certainly not be a good class of tradesmen, and I think that the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeeen (Mr. Esslemont) ought to meet with the complete assent of Members on both sides of the House. What is the use of inserting the words, "shall wilfully kill"? If you meet poachers in the country with hares in
    1924
    their possession, can you say they have wilfully killed them? Some one else may have done it. What you should do is to saddle the right horse by making it illegal for a tradesman to sell a hare that is in young or has recently been in young. For my own part, I think there is a great deal too much fuss made about this matter. I can easily understand sporting gentlemen who take a pleasure in coursing—which I consider to be a very cruel sport—doing their best to promote the multiplication of hares. Practically speaking, hares are cheaper in this country than they are in Ireland. Although this very law exists in Ireland in a greater degree than you are now trying to impose it on England, hares are to-day cheaper in London than in Dublin or Cork. I agree with the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) about hares eating the green crops in Spring, and I certainly do not see why cultivators of the soil should not kill hares at that time. Hon. Members opposite will, in my oppinion, do wisely if they accept this Amendment, with the exception of one word in it—I mean the word "leveret." I do not think people will expose leverets for sale when very young. If a leveret be two months old I do not see why it should not be sold or why it should not be legally killed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question whether leverets should be included will come up for discussion subsequently.
    DR. TANNER: I shall certainly oppose the Bill unless the principle embodied in the Amendment of my hon. Friend is adopted.
    SIR J. KENNAWAT: It is said this measure is not desired by small farmers. I come from a county of small farmers, and a few months ago I had the honour of presenting a Petition to the House signed by between 7,000 and 8,000 persons connected with the land, in favour of this Bill. Amongst the petitioners were landowners, large farmers, small farmers, and labourers. It has been asked, Why cannot those who wish to see a stop put to the shooting or killing of hares agree not to destroy hares? The fact is, that when a man sees his neighbour killing hares, he does not like to be placed under a disability not to kill them; it is hard for him to restrain himself. With refer-

    1925
    ence to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) I may point out there is an Act for the Preservation of Hares in Ireland. That Act was passed in 1879, and it enacts that any person who wilfully kills or wounds a hare between a given period shall forfeit for every such hare a sum of money not exceeding £1.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I will not detain the Committee at any length, but I must remind the hon. Baronet that the Irish Act which had just been passed was fully in mind at the time the Ground Game Act was passed in 1880. This is a question for small owners; the large men can take care of themselves. The hon. Baronet says ho represents small holders, but he seems to have a strange opinion of the moral strength of small holders. He says small holders are anxious to preserve the hares, but they will not combine not to kill them for fear their neighbours might kill them.
    SIR J. KENNAWAY: I did not say that. I said that if one man sees another killing hares it is difficult for him to restrain himself.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: If one man does what he ought not to do all the rest of the Devonshire people will do so! I should be sorry to say that of my constituents. I should have thought that if one man kills hares when the rest of the farmers wish to preserve them it would be a very good thing to introduce the Irish system of boycotting, and then he would not kill hares any more. Now, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Essex (Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson) says he has a farm of 1,600 acres in his own hands, and he makes a good profit.
    SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he puts words into my mouth which I never uttered. I imagine that I have more experience of agriculture than the right hon. Gentleman, and I have not experienced the success he seems to anticipate.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then the right hon. Baronet does not make a profit, and he wants hares in order to make farming profitable. But that was not the point to which my remark was about to be addressed. I was about to say that I cannot understand how a man who farms 1,600 acres cannot have hares if he wants them.
    SIR H. SELWIN-IBBETSON: I am sorry to again interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have a few hares on my own property, but I spoke in the interest and as the mouthpiece of the farmers of Essex, who at present complain that they have none.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then the right hon. Baronet has a few hares on his own property, which, no doubt, go for the food of the people. All I can say is that if the farmers of Essex are as anxious to preserve hares as the right hon. Baronet they would have no difficulty any more than he has in preserving them if they chose. I refer to small farmers, and there is one thing which makes small farmers object to this Bill. This Bill introduces a new Game Law on small men's lands, under the pretence or justification of looking after hares in the close time. The gamekeeper will always be upon the ground of the small man. [Ironical laughter.] You may laugh, but that is the pith of the whole question, and I venture to say that I know as much about the feeling of these small owners as you do. I know that what they more dislike than anything else is the sort of warrant this Bill will give to the gamekeeper to be always upon their promises to see what they are doing, although the purpose alleged is to see whether or not they are killing hares in close time. The great advantage the small holders received under the Bill of 1880 was that they got rid of the gamekeeper [Cries of "No, no," and "Pheasants," "Partridges."] Yes, but in many places there was no question of pheasants and partridges. The gamekeeper was always on their land looking after the ground game. This Bill is a warrant to the gamekeeper to be always on their ground, and that is what the small farmers object to. I think you are making a great mistake in this matter. Under this Bill you will have to enforce penalties, and if you enforce penalties against a man for killing a hare on his own land, whether for sale or otherwise, you create an amount of discontent and disturbance in the country, of the consequence of which you can have no conception. I can understand a private Member introducing a Bill of this kind, but I cannot understand the Government

    1927
    taking upon themselves the responsibility of creating a new Game Law. I for one shall do whatever I can to prevent this Bill passing into law.
    COLONEL DAWNAY: May I appeal to the Committee to go to a Division at once. It is quite impossible for the promoters of the Bill to accept this Amendment. I feel it would cut the heart out of the Bill. What is the use of a close time if you allow people to kill hares all through the close time?
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I think I have received exceedingly little encouragement and very scant justice from the promoters of this Bill. I am desirous that this Bill should pass, in order that poachers and others may not make it a matter of gain to kill hares at a season when hon. Gentlemen wish to preserve hares. But I am desirous, on the other hand, that that should be made possible without outraging the feelings of those people who we ought to respect more than any others. The tenant farmer at present has a proprietary right in these creatures, and you have said that he desires to preserve them. If he desires to preserve them he will preserve them. I deny that farmers will kill hares inhumanly, and I protest most strongly against adopting this reactionary measure, and inventing the new crime suggested. Tenant farmers have enough to do to contend with the agricultural difficulty without being brought within the meshes of the law in regard to the killing of game during a certain season. My hon. Friend (Dr. Farquharson) who represents the Western Division of Aberdeenshire and myself represent 11,000 agricultural holders. There is no scarcity of hares, and these people do not want this Bill. They want to be put on their honour, as the landlord is to take fair care of these creatures in a regular and proper way. We are told there will be no destruction of crops. I am a small farmer, and I could take the President of the Board of Agriculture to a spot where, during the very months you propose to preserve hares, I had an acre and a half of barley eaten up by hares. [Mr. CHAPLIN: Rabbits.] No, not rabbits. I have lived as many years amongst farmers as the right hon. Gentleman, and I know the difference between hares and rabbits. Now, it has been proved beyond contradiction that
    1928
    since the passing of the Ground Game Act hares have been cheaper in the market than before, and, therefore, the food of the people is not the question at all. It is said that if we do not pass this Bill farmers will kill hares wantonly and inhumanly. I do not believe it. No such calumny can be hurled against the farming classes. What we want to get at is the poacher, who cares nothing about cruelty or anything else if he can make money out of killing these creatures. If you will not accept this reasonable Amendment, and not allow the farmers to have the proprietary interest in hares that they have now, you will only defeat your Bill. In its present shape the Bill is purely reactionary. It amounts to a breach of the agreement which is working so well between farmers and the proprietors with regard to ground game, and I protest against any one attributing to me any motive other than the most humane in the Amendment I have proposed.
    COLONEL DAWNAY: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think this particular question has been fully discussed, and, therefore, I should have no hesitation in putting the Motion if necessary, but it seems to me undesirable to resort to that procedure when it can be avoided, and I therefore hope the Committee will now agree to divide on the Amendment.
    DR. TANNER: The argument advanced——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out that, if necessary, I would not decline to put the Motion. I think the subject has been adequately discussed, and if hon. Gentlemen continue the discussion, I shall have no option but to put the Motion.
    DR. TANNER: I merely rose for the purpose of moving that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I think we may now fairly go to a Division upon the Amendment. We ought to avoid the use of the Closure as much as we can. Gentlemen opposite would gain nothing by it, because we should have two divisions instead of one.
    DR. TANNER: I certainly must protest——
    Mr. LAMBERTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    (5.0.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 231; Noes 101.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
    Question put accordingly.
    (5.10.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 239; Noes 130.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
    MR. BARCLAY: The object of the Amendment I have on the Paper is to except from punishment under the Act cases in which hares and leverets are killed by accident. We know how the existing Game Laws have boen interpreted by a good many Justices, and Iam afraid that as the Act now stands, a farmer might he held responsible if a hare were killed by an agricultural implement such as a mowing machine when at work. I have no fault to find with the administration of the Game Act in Scotland by the Sheriffs' substitutes, but I should like to provide against possibilities such as I have indicated. I hope my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, and thus save the time of the House.
    Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, page 1, line 12, after the word "kill" to insert the word "or."
    Question proposed, "That the word "or" be there inserted."
    COLONEL DAWNAY: I accept that Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    It being half an hour after Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

  SLANDER LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 278.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 9th July.

  PAUPER LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND) (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL. (No. 140.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and re ported.
  On the Motion that the Bill be considered as amended this day—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I think it should not be taken until July 2nd. The Bill requires to be reprinted, and I appeal to the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is not a reasonable request, seeing that we have not had an opportunity of considering some of the Amendments?
  MR. JOHNSTON: I will put it down for to-morrow, and consult in the meantime with the hon. Member.
  MR. MADDEN: I think the request of the hon. and learned Member is reasonable.
  MR. CHANCE: My name is on the back of the Bill, and I suggest that it be taken on July 2nd.
  MR JOHNSTON: Under the circumstances I accept that.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 358.]

  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES &c. BILL.—(No. 183.)
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 359.]

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 339.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ACCUMULATIONS BILL.—(No. 171.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 345.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Wednesday next.

  BARRACKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND) (24th JUNE).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (24th June),
  "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That it is expedient to authorise the charge on, and issue out of, the Consolidated Fund of any deficiency which there may be in the moneys provided by Parliament for the payment of the principal and interest of any sums borrowed by the Treasury, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for building and enlarging barracks and camps in the United Kingdom and in certain Colonies.'"
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution agreed to.

  SELECT COMMITTEE ON KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS.
  Ordered, That Mr. Sheil be discharged from the Committee—(Mr. Richard Power.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion for Adjournment—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: It would be convenient to the House if the
  1932
  Chancellor of the Exchequer will state what will be the first two or three Bills, and their order, on the Paper to-morrow. I presume we are not to take the order as it stands on the Order Book.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Without stating exactly the order in which they will be taken, we shall take the Allotments Bill, the Barracks Bill, the Western Australia Bill, and the Education Code Bill tomorrow. I think the Allotments Bill will probably be taken first. I may add that we propose to take the Police Superannuation Bill on Friday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that the Local Taxation Bill will not be on the Paper to-morrow?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; it will not, I think, be on the Paper to-morrow. At all events, if it is on the Paper, we do not propose to proceed with it to-morrow.
  House adjourned at Five minutes before Six o'clock.