moved, in page 1, line 13, after "take," to leave out "ground game," and insert—

"Rabbits at all seasons of the year, and the right to kill and take hares during the months of February, March, and April."

The Amendment did not in any way interfere with the scope of the Bill.

asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he would postpone the Amendment, so that it might be considered in conjunction with some other Amendments which were to be brought forward in relation to the same point.

was sorry that he was unable to accede to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he thought he ought to take advantage of the opportunity that was now offered to him. The Amendment did not in any way interfere with the principle of the Bill, which, as he understood it, was to afford protection, by the best method that could be devised, to the crops of the farmers from the ravages of ground game. That was, no doubt, a useful and desirable object; but he contended that the Bill, as it stood, went far beyond that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, who had charge of the Bill, held out great hopes to the House that he would be disposed to modify the provisions of the Bill when it got into Committee, so that it would meet with much more unanimous approval than it did now. The modifications proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman were certainly not sufficient to make him (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) a hearty supporter of the Bill. The Bill would still go much too far; and unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give some hope that he would be able to modify it still further in the same direction that he had already modified the provisions of the Bill in regard to uninclosed lands and moorlands in Scotland, it would be most objectionable. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would hold out some little hope that he would treat the landlords of England in the same manner as he had treated the landlords in Scotland, then he should be happy to meet the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and postpone the Amendment, together with what he intended to say in regard to it, until a future opportunity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, over and over again, that the principle of the Bill was to protect the crops of the farmer from the ravages of ground game, but that it was not to destroy sport. But, so far as he was able to understand the Bill, not only would it protect the crops of the farmer from the ravages of ground game, but it would destroy sport as well. According to the admissions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that was not his intention; but whether it was his intention or not, it certainly would have that effect, and would destroy sport. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give an undertaking that the object he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had in view would be gained in any other way, it would be perfectly satisfactory. He was by no means particular in regard to the wording of the Amendment. So far as rabbits were concerned he had no objection to the principle of the clause being carried out to the fullest extent. He looked upon rabbits in the same light as rats, and he had no objection to their being killed anywhere and everywhere; but, in the interests of sport, he wanted to secure that protection should be afforded to the hare. A close time for hares had been mooted, and several Chambers of Agriculture advocated such a close time. Indeed, he believed there was a strong general feeling among Members of that House that there should be a close time for hares. [Cries of "No!"] He, however, agreed with what the Home Secretary said yesterday, that a close time for hares was not necessary. In the Hares Preservation Bill for Ireland last year the Preamble recited that while hares formed an important article of food, of late years they had decreased, by reason of their being indiscriminately slaughtered. The case in England was exactly opposite. Hares had not decreased, but, on the contrary, they had increased. Therefore, a close time for the breeding of hares was not necessary; and it would be an uncalled for interference with the rights of the farmer, who ought to be allowed to kill leverets as an article of food. He did not care to have a close time for hares in that way. Indeed, he did not see why they should have a close time for hares, any more than for beef or mutton, or lamb or veal. By the Amendment he did not propose in any way to diminish the rights of the farmers under the Bill. He proposed it entirely in the interests of sport. He should be the last man to seek to abridge the rights of the farmer, so far as those rights were necessary to protect his crops from the ravages of ground game. But, as he had said before, the Bill went much further; and he did not see any necessity for conferring any privilege upon the farmers beyond those which were absolutely necessary to enable them to protect their crops from the ravages of ground game. Some hon. Members said that when they were giving away a privilege they ought to give it away in a handsome manner, and not clog it with restrictions or hamper it with vexatious limitations. But he gathered that it was not intended to do away with the existing rights in regard to ground game altogether. That was not the object of the Bill; but their object was simply to protect the crops of the farmer from the ravages of ground game. The same object was carried out in the Amendment. Rabbits were given to the farmers all the year round, and hares were also given at certain seasons of the year when their ravages were likely to be injurious. In many districts the farmers were allowed to kill hares at certain seasons. That was the rule on some of the best managed estates in the Kingdom. He did not speak in the interests of the large landowners. Large landowners could take measures for their own protection; and, so far as they were concerned, this Bill would be perfectly inoperative. They would remain very much in the position they were now. The wealthy landlords would be able to make their own arrangements with their tenants, and they would make such arrangements in accordance with the wishes of the tenants in regard to ground game. It would be a restriction upon those who hired a shooting, and, so far, would be a step in the right direction. But if the Bill passed in its present form, it would be found very difficult to make arrangements with the tenant. That was why he thought the best part of the Bill was that which gave up the preservation of ground game for the purposes of hired shooters. He repeated, that the Bill was not necessary in the interests of the large owners; but it was to the interests of the small owners and the tenant farmers that they should have the shooting in their own hands. In the districts with which he was best acquainted, five out of six of the farmers had the ground game in their own hands. Many farmers owned their own farms, and the restrictions which the Bill imposed would simply reduce the value of the property, and were not at all necessary or called for by the exigencies of the case. The tenant farmers, as a general rule, were shooting men. He was not inclined to agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—that the shooting men were very few compared with the hunting men. His (Colonel Ruggles-Brise's) opinion was that the hunting men were comparatively few compared with the shooting men. A great many men who could afford to shoot could not afford to hunt. Therefore, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday as to the hunting men and the shooting men was not quite correct. Farmers' sons might not be able to keep a hunter; but they could all afford to take out a gun licence. He, therefore, contended that his Amendment was in the interests of the farmers themselves, as it would enable them to shoot as a matter of sport. To that extent it was brought forward in the interests of the small owners and tenant farmers, and not in the interests of the large landowners, who were perfectly competent to make their own arrangements. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would hold out some hope to the Committee that he would, in some way, accede to the principle of the Amendment. He did not care about the exact words of the Amendment as it stood on the Paper. He did not care whether the limitation in regard to hares was for three months or for six months; but he wanted the right hon. and learned Gentleman to allow the tenant farmers, who had the shooting upon the farm, privileges which would enable them to preserve hares to a certain extent, in the same way as the partridges, pheasants, and other winged game. That was the object of the Amendment. He also wished to make a provision by which the owner of the land would be able to walk over a farm in the shooting season without being subjected to quarrels with his neighbours, which would thereby spoil his sport. It was said that the farmer could do as he liked; that he could go now into the fields and walk over his turnips in the autumn, putting up the birds and spoiling the sport for the day. No doubt, the farmer could do so if he liked; but they all knew that the farmers, generally speaking, were on the best terms with the landlords, and they never heard of such a thing as a farmer attempting to deliberately vex a landlord in this way by spoiling his sport. But it might so happen that the agents, who could be employed under the Bill in a wholesale manner, might have a right to walk over the fields and might spoil the sport. All he asked by the Amendment was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should grant to England the rights which he proposed to confer in connection with the moorlands and uninclosed lands of Scotland. He begged to move the Amendment.

said, that the Amendment raised, no doubt, a very important point in connection with the Bill. It was a question as to whether there was to be a close time for hares, and whether the farmers were, during a certain portion of the year, to be prohibited from killing hares upon cultivated and arable land, where the depredations of hares and rabbits were a general ground of complaint. He had considered the question with very great care, and with every desire to come to a compromise; but he could not agree to make any restriction in regard to the power of destroying hares on cultivated ground. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) had referred to the limitation which was proposed in regard to moorlands and uninclosed land. That was a totally different matter. The injury done by hares on moorland and waste land was altogether a different thing from the injury done by hares to growing crops. Attention had been called to the pressure which was now brought to bear upon agriculture, and to the fact that it was now becoming more and more of a science. A farmer was now compelled to grow a multitude of different crops; and, in many places, farming was very much approximated to the condition of market gardening. The Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member proposed to give nine months during which hares would have the free run of a farm, and to reserve the power of the farmer to keep them down only to three of the winter months. When the artificial crops were being brought forward the farmer was to be rendered powerless; and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member went to the extent of saying that when the frosts of November came in, and the hare was seeking for food, the farmer should not be able to touch it. Surely, that was a most unreasonable proposition. In the present state of agriculture, Parliament must be the best judge as to what were to be regarded as crops, and what were the times of the year when the crops were likely to suffer most. To adopt the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member would be simply to defeat the object of the Bill. He had been told that in Norfolk the time at which the farmer had the right to kill hares and rabbits was July and August, during the harvest. What was the consequence of that amicable spirit of arrangement between the landlord and tenant? Having obtained from the landlord the opportunity of killing ground game, he exercised it at the time most convenient to himself and to his landlord; and having destroyed the hares that were likely to be injurious to his crops, he did not interfere with his landlord's partridges and pheasants in September and October. The hon. and gallant Gentleman now said that if Parliament rejected a close time which was to last for nine months in the year the hares would disappear. That was entirely contrary to his (Sir William Harcourt's) experience. It seemed generally to be assumed, on the other side of the House, that he had never had a gun in his hand. That was an entire mis- take. He had not had as much time as many other people for shooting, or following the sports of the field; but he could assure hon. Members that he was quite as fond of sport as any of them. The only fault he had to find was that the rabbits were sometimes too short and sharp. His experience was that sporting men were not at all afraid of seeing the farmer with a gun in his hand. Upon the estates on which he had shot the farmers always went out shooting with them, and over and over again the farmer had asked that the hares should be spared for his own sport. Then, why should they assume that if they gave the farmer these rights it would be destructive of sport, and would lead to the extermination of the hare? Such an assumption was certainly opposed to his experience. And what would be the effect on the hired shooting if they excluded the farmer from the right of shooting upon highly cultivated ground? During nine months of the year the farmer would have no power of protecting his crops against the depredations of ground game. It therefore seemed to him, considering the matter from this point of view, that the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member would be positively adverse to the declared object of the Bill.

must admit that there was some reason in what his right hon. and learned Friend said in regard to market gardening; and if it was ever the case that the operations of farming were to be considerably changed, and market gardening was to prevail all over the country, which, however, he did not for a moment believe would ever be the case, then he thought the objections of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Amendment would be very reasonable indeed. But he could not entertain the idea that market gardening would prevail except in comparatively exceptional instances. Therefore, he thought that, as far as market gardening was concerned, the Bill ought to be made to apply specially to those who conducted that business; and that it was rather hard to enact what must be embarrassing distinctions all over the country in order to meet cases, which must be quite exceptional, where market gardening prevailed, as far as he had any knowledge of the subject. He wished to point out that it was not the hares that did damage to the crops. Rabbits did an immense deal of harm, and he should be glad to see them made vermin forthwith. By so doing they would do an immense and substantial benefit to the tenant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of estates with which he was acquainted. Now, he knew for a fact that his right hon. and learned Friend had visited an estate in the county in which he (Mr. Chaplin) resided, and which bordered on his own estate; and he should like to ask his right hon. and learned Friend, using the argument as a proof of the little damage done by hares, whether, in the whole course of his experience, he had ever seen an estate in any part of England where there were more magnificent crops every year? He would not venture to name the estate. It was unnecessary that he should do so; but he dare say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was well aware of the estate to which he alluded, and he would ask him to say, with candour, whether the statement he (Mr. Chaplin) made was not entirely accurate and true? And if it was the case, his contention was borne out to the letter, and there could be no objection to the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was the practice on the estate, he thought, of Lord Leicester, to kill the hares during the harvest; but he did not understand how that was to be done. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: During the time the corn is cut.] That was a very different thing from killing the hares during the harvest. It was said that they did not want to interfere with the partridge shooting in September and October. One material matter was that when the partridges were breeding was the time they were going to give the farmer the right of employing his servants and agents to kill and shoot as much as they pleased. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the successful preservation and breeding of partridges were compatible with such a proceeding?

remarked, that as the principle of the Bill had been accepted there was one thing which the Committee ought to do, and that was not to impose any onerous restrictions upon the farmers. The Bill sought to give pro- tection to the farmer for the purpose of enabling him to preserve his crops, and it ought not to be regarded as a Bill for the encouragement of sport. If they were to impose restrictions they would find it difficult to adapt the same restrictions to all parts of the country; and in order to enforce restrictions it would be necessary to set up penalties in the Bill. What was to be the close time, and to whom was it to be applied? Was it to affect the tenant farmers generally, or only those tenant farmers whose landlords reserved their rights? If it was a right and proper restriction, why should it not be applied to landlords all over the country, and also to those tenants who enjoyed the right of shooting with their occupation? He wished to point out that, as the Bill stood, the section of the Act of Will. IV. having been repealed, no restriction could be imposed on the tenant farmer for the exercise of that right, unless they imposed penalties under the Bill. One grievance which had been complained of by the tenant farmers for many years was the penalty imposed on them by that Act for taking game on the property they occupied. He sincerely hoped the Bill was not going to have incorporated with it any Amendment that would impose new restrictions, which restrictions it would be necessary to enforce by a penalty not universally imposed on all farmers, but only upon those who possessed peculiar rights.

presumed that it was the object of the Committee to give proper protection to farmers and their crops, but as far as could be consistently with the rights and privileges of the landlord and the enjoyment of his property. It did not, however, appear to him that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman met either of those requirements, because it did not give sufficient protection to the farmer, and it did not secure that the protection which it did give was consistent with the rights of the landlord. There was an alternative which, in his opinion, was very much better than the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend. He thought that, speaking generally, four months of the year, properly occupied by the farmer, would enable him to destroy every rabbit and hare on his property, and he would allow the particular four months to be a matter of selection between the land- lord and the farmer himself; but he was bound to say that in such a county as that which he represented (East Sussex) he did not think the Bill in any shape would enable the farmer to keep down the rabbits and hares, because the woods in the neighbourhood of the various properties were very large, and the hares and rabbits were bred in the woods and not on the farm. They came out of the woods, and the facilities they had for getting backward and forward from the woods rendered it extremely difficult to destroy them on the farm land. They were kept down in his county by the good understanding which existed between the landlord and tenant, and it was most desirable to preserve that good understanding. Therefore, speaking in the interests both of the landlord and of the tenant, he ventured to suggest that the Amendment should be withdrawn; and when the proper opportunity occurred the Committee should, consider the propriety of giving four or five months to the tenant for killing hares and rabbits, leaving it to the parties to arrange between themselves what those months should be.

pointed out that the Amendment did not agree with the views of those who were disinclined to the institution of a close time, nor did it fix months that would be satisfactory to all who desired a close time. Many would prefer other months than those mentioned in the Amendment; and, therefore, he asked the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment to withdraw it for the present and bring it up on the Report.

said, he had given a sincere and hearty support to the principle of the Bill, and he intended to do so throughout; because he believed that would give protection to the farmer, and secure him against the injury likely to be done by the over-preservation of ground game. On the part of the tenants and landlords he did not believe that that ill-feeling and jealousy which was assumed to exist by those who were in favour of amending the Bill was likely to arise. He, for one, if he was to do this work at all, wished to do it well, and to give ungrudgingly to the farmer the power of protecting himself against the injury of which he now complained. He saw some difficulties which had not struck him at first; but if all such diffi- culties were to be dealt with and provided for in the Bill, he was afraid that what they were professing to give to the tenant farmer would be worthless to him when he got it. He frankly admitted that when he first looked at the Bill he thought it possible that some close time might be provided, for that would be fair to all parties. But when he canvassed the views of hon. Friends of his, both on that and on the other side of the House, with regard to the period which such close time should involve, he found such a difference of opinion to exist that he came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to satisfy everybody in regard to the months which should be selected for close time. In one part it would be the interest and necessity of the farmer to kill in one month, while in another part of England an entirely different month would be selected. It would, in point of fact, depend upon the nature of the crops and the state of the farm. Therefore, it was impracticable to say that they should kill either in three months of the spring of the year or in three months in the autumn. By establishing any fixed time they would materially interfere with the right they were desirous to confer on the farmer of protecting his crops from the ravages of ground game. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) claimed to speak on behalf of the tenant farmers. If the Bill passed, the tenant farmers of England would have the law in their own hands—they were not bound to enforce it. If they liked to preserve ground game they would be able to do so on the land in their own occupation, and he was at a loss to know how the measure would operate prejudicially to their interests. If they wished to destroy hares and rabbits they would be able to so so; and whether they were to have ground game on their occupations or not would be a question that would be practically under their own control. There was a great deal of truth in what had been stated by his hon. and gallant Friend with regard to hares and rabbits. The damage done by rabbits was far more extensive than that done by hares. At any rate, if it was not greater it was much more irritating, because one did not see the damage done by hares so much as by rabbits. Rabbits did not go far for their food; but hares often sought it a mile or a mile and a half away. The same reasons which influenced his hon. and gallant Friend to support the Bill influenced him to vote against the present Amendment. He would hesitate much before he assented to any close time at all—he regarded it as impossible. They must look at the Bill as one for the destruction of game, and as one having nothing to do with sporting rights on the part of the tenant. He did not agree with those hon. Gentlemen who asserted that the Bill would give sporting rights. It was introduced with the intention of preserving the agricultural produce of the country, and he wished to see that carried out perfectly. He knew his game-preserving friends did not agree with him; but he, nevertheless, honestly and conscientiously believing that this Amendment would, interfere with the proper operation of the Bill, could not support it.

disapproved of the Amendment. He considered the limitation was much too great; but he agreed with the remarks which fell from his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) as to the inexpediency of two parties trying to enjoy sporting at the same time. It was upon the understanding that this was a Bill for the purpose of protecting the crops of the farmer that he did not oppose the second reading. To protect the crops he would stand as firm as anybody in the House; but in such protection he did not wish to interfere with the enjoyment or sport of other people. No one acquainted with sport or country life would suppose that legged game increased during the autumn or winter months; and if the farmer on the 1st of January considered that he had got more game on his farm than he ought to have, surely he could keep it down between that date and the 1st of September. Then, when the 1st of September came, the legged game having been kept down, surely it was but reasonable that the owner of the sporting right, who was not supposed to be interfered with by this Bill, should at least have the privilege of going upon the land to pursue the winged game without interruption. If it should happen that the owner were to enter a field at one gate, and the farmer or his agent by another, partridge shooting must stop; and therefore it was that he ventured to suggest to the Committee that they ought not to adopt the Amendment as now worded, but that they should introduce the words mentioned by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), because by doing so they would fix a certain time during which the landlord and the tenant might agree that this privilege should not be exercised. He thought the hon. Gentleman limited the rights of the tenant to four months. He (Mr. Hicks) could not agree to that.

said, he suggested five or six months—no particular time.

remarked that he simply asked for September, October, November, and, perhaps, December. That would give those who enjoyed sport an opportunity of doing so in an uninterrupted way. As to rabbits and hares, he approved of farmers getting rid of them as they liked.

said, he did not think the Amendment would work in the interest of either the tenant or landlord. The interests of the tenant would not suffer much if he had sufficient time in which to get rid of the ground game; but if that time were not given him it was perfectly evident the remainder of the game would suffer very greatly. If the power of the farmer to kill ground game were restricted to one season of the year, he could not well avoid going constantly over the ground. In doing this he would necessarily disturb the winged game, and the effect would be very bad. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) assert, in support of the Amendment, that it was especially desirable that birds should not be disturbed while sitting. The Amendment would have just the effect the hon. Gentleman wished to avoid; and, believing that it would do harm rather than good, he should record his vote against it.

said, he had no wish to limit in any way the rights of the farmer. He understood that it was intended by the Bill to give a right to the farmer which he had not before; and the question, therefore, was how much right could be safely given him? He desired to protect the crops of the farmer; but he did not want to give to the farmer a greater power than was absolutely necessary for the protection of his crops. By his Amendment he wished to provide that the farmer should be able to kill ground game during three months of the year—namely, February, March, and April. He was, however, not at all wedded to those months; and if it was the opinion of the Committee that any other months would be preferable he would gladly acquiesce. He would be even ready to allow the tenants to kill hares during the six months of February, March, April, May, June, and July, and to kill rabbits at all times. He fully admitted there was a great difference of opinion as to which were the proper months in which to allow the farmer to kill hares, although everyone knew that two months of the year—supposing they were the right months—would suffice for any farmer to kill as many hares as he pleased. There was, however, a similar Amendment to his upon the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth); and as he believed it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment he would not divide the Committee upon the point.

moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "ground game," and insert "hares and rabbits." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, his Amendment was one of many he had placed upon the Paper to the same effect. His object was to bring the language of the Bill more in conformity with its title, and to render the Interpretation Clause unnecessary. By the permission of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) he would also propose his Amendments upon this clause. The second Amendment of the hon. Gentleman he would read for the convenience of the Committee, because the arguments which he was disposed to advance in favour of his own Amendment applied with equal force to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud, which he should move in the event of his own Amendment not being carried. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Brand's) Amendment was as follows:—

"Clause 1, page 1, line 13, after 'thereon,' to insert 'and from and after the passing of this Act hares and rabbits shall not be deemed to be game within the meaning of the Game Laws, nor shall any of the provisions of those Laws apply to the taking, killing, or destroying of hares and rabbits.'"

The Scotch constituencies, and especially the district—Berwick—which he had recently canvassed, he knew, were entirely in favour of the Amendment he now proposed, and there was a reason for it. In Scotland, 19 years' leases prevailed extensively; and although it was quite true that it would be found that excellent feeling existed between landlord and tenant, it not unfrequently happened, under the 19 years' lease system, that owing to a change of tenancy, widows and persons were called upon to manage farms who could not have that relation with the landlord which generally prevailed, and, as a consequence, the Game Question provoked, in some instances, an unhappy feeling. Now, by the law which was about to be enacted power would be given to tenants, if they pleased to exercise it, to destroy hares and rabbits entirely. He, therefore, could not understand how there could be any objection to the proposal to take them entirely out of the game list. If that were done, hares and rabbits would be left in the same unprotected position as wood pigeons. Wood pigeons existed now in large numbers; although farmers had the right to destroy them, they were not destroyed. If hares and rabbits were left out of the list of game a difficulty would be got rid of—namely, that as a tenant without licence had permission to kill hares and rabbits at all seasons, a ploughman or shepherd, or any other person in the tenant's employ, would also have the power to kill a hare or rabbit without being liable to an action for poaching. The best thing to do was to strike hares and rabbits out of the game list, and the Bill would provide that if the Amendment placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) were adopted by the Committee. He could not understand what objection there could be to the insertion of "hares and rabbits" in lieu of the words "ground game," because at the end of the Bill there was an Interpretation Clause, which said that ground game meant hares and rabbits. He believed there were many Gentlemen who agreed with him, and in Scotland there was a very strong feeling upon the matter. It seemed to him that the proposal was one entirely favourable to the tenant, because it would give him full power to capture and destroy hares and rabbits in the same way in which he had power to destroy blackbirds or wood pigeons, which were equally destructive to his crops. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite to assist him in carrying this Amendment, which, he believed, would be of the greatest service, not only to the tenant farmers, but to the peace of the community.

hoped that, whatever was thought of the Amendment, it would be taken as decisive of the main question. He was not responsible for the title of the Bill—"Hares and Rabbits." It was given somehow or other to the measure; but, leaving that point, he would come to the main question, which was to take hares and rabbits out of the game list. He was very curious to ascertain the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the subject, because it would enable him to answer ultimately the question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) as to what were his (Sir William Harcourt's) views respecting the abolition of the Game Laws. This was, in reality, a proposal to abolish one-half of the Game Laws; and if the Committee agreed to abolish one half he did not think it would be worth while contending for the other half. It would be very instructive to the House and to the country to have an expression of opinion upon the subject from hon. Members opposite. It was a very important fact that a proposal to abolish one-half of the Game Laws should come from a Conservative Member, who invited the assistance of hon. Gentlemen upon the Liberal side of the House. That they should have a proposal of this kind coming from the Conservative Benches showed a great change of feeling since 1873, and an answer to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) was, perhaps, not so far off as he supposed. He could not admit that the effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to remedy the grievance of the farmer. The remedy was not such as the farmer wanted. The farmers would not like to have everybody at liberty to kill game upon their farms. It was quite plain that if the Amendment were adopted the landlord would be at liberty to contract a farmer out of the right to kill game, but everybody else could come in and take game, subject only to the Law of Trespass, which really amounted to nothing. Men would come from all parts of the country, and the consequence would be that the fences would be broken down by men who, in breaking them down, would only be liable to a nominal penalty. He believed that, whatever might be the arguments in favour of the Amendment, the farmers of England would not care to see it accepted. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) asserted that he spoke for the farmers of Scotland. He (Sir William Harcourt) doubted very much whether the farmers in Scotland would desire to have everybody at liberty to come over their sheep farms. [Sir JOHN HAY: No, no.] But anybody could do that if the Amendment were adopted.

wished to explain that if they retained half the Game Laws they would retain the law against trespass.

remarked that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was entirely mistaken. A man going after hares and rabbits would not be going after winged game at all. Every man in Scotland might go on a sheep farm with the object of pursuing a mountain hare. Did hon. Gentlemen think that was what sheep farmers desired? Did they think that the farmers wanted hundreds of men with guns on the top of the hills among their sheep? He did not think that was a remedy they desired, and he would not think that the farmers in England wished that hundreds of men with guns should walk over their fields. It was upon these grounds he could not accept the Amendment, besides which he remembered the experiences of other nations. When the French Rebellion was at its height, in 1793, the Game Laws were abolished, and the results were found so inconvenient that they were to be re-enacted the next year. The same thing was done in Germany in 1848. The Game Laws were abolished there, but they were obliged to be reinstated. Everybody was then at liberty to invade the land. It was found very inconvenient, and the consequence was that the whole community found that the system would not work. These were some of the reasons which induced him to oppose the Amend- ment, however reasonable it might appear upon the face of it. He believed rabbits to be indestructible animals, and that to speak of their extinction was useless. He was quite sure, too, that so long as there was a rabbit left in the country, there would always be people setting out to see if they could find it. The proposal before the Committee was one entirely inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, and he hoped it would not be accepted.

agreed with what had been said by the Home Secretary, and regretted that his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had proposed such an Amendment. He was sorry the Amendment had been introduced, because they ought not to mix up two different matters. The Bill under consideration was for the protection of the crops of the tenant farmers, and not to amend the Game Laws. If they attempted to deal with the Game Laws in a Bill of this kind, they would enter upon a question the end of which they would not see for some considerable time. He would, however, confine himself to the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, which was not one which commended itself to hon. Gentlemen upon that side of the House. What had they heard from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)? Why, do away with the Game Laws and the Law of Trespass as well? If they did away with the Game Laws, and had no stringent Law of Trespass, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would like to know what the condition of the tenant farmers of the country would be? Why, the lands of farmers and market gardeners near large towns would be invaded by hundreds of men in search of that last rabbit of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had spoken. That this should be so would be excessively mischievous; and because he thought so he could not support the Amendment of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), and he believed that if the Committee considered the question fairly they would not extend the scope of the Bill.

observed, that if the whole population of the town were to invade the land of a market gardener in search of one rabbit they would soon manage to slay it, so there was no occasion for much fear on that ground. If the land were invaded, as it had been suggested it would be, the game-would be cleared out, as it ought to be in the neighbourhood of any town. He was glad to see that some good could come from the Opposition, and he congratulated the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) for having introduced the Amendment. The same reasons which had prompted the Home Secretary to oppose the proposal prompted him to give it his cordial support. He believed that one consequence of the Amendment would be that the pheasant and partridge, like the hare and rabbit, would cease to be game. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman divided the Committee, as he trusted he would, he should certainly vote with him.

said, that his fear with regard to the working of the Bill was not that it would lead to an exercise of any power which was placed in the hands of the tenant unduly or injuriously to the shooting proprietor, but that there would, on the contrary, be an unwillingness on the part of the tenant to press his claims, or make use of his power. If his fears were realized the Bill would become more or less a dead letter. He did not share the apprehension that the Bill would interfere with winged game. They were now dealing with a matter between landlord and tenant. Eventually, they would have to deal with the shooting tenant, and in doing so they would have to be firm. Looking forward to such a prospect they ought to keep in view the possibility of having to deal with the question much more stringently than they were now doing. It was not in the pecuniary interest of the farmers, but in the interest of the community generally. Though the farmer would have some hesitation in exercising his power, the poacher would not, and proprietors would be bound, in self-defence, to keep down the ground game, which was now so dangerous and injurious to the morals of the community. He, for one, did not share the apprehension that this Amendment would interfere with winged game; because he did not think anyone who had had any experience of the administration of justice would feel the slightest hesitation in dealing with a case in which a man was brought before him charged with shooting winged game. A man might say—"I was only in search of hares and rabbits;" but the fact that he was on good ground—on ground where winged game was preserved—would go against him at once. He should certainly give his support to the Amendment, if it were pressed to a division.

said, he only wished to say one word in reply to the hon. Member who had just spoken. He certainly could not see the difference in the bad moral effect of preserving ground game, and the bad moral effect of a baker's or a jeweller's shop. Hares and rabbits should not have a bad effect on the people. He did not see any difference between this and the cases he had mentioned; and he merely wished to say that he hoped no such sensational idea as that put forward by the hon. Member would be considered by the Committee.

said, as this Amendment was really his child he wished to say a word or two with regard to it. If the right hon. and gallant Member would abstain from dividing the Committee on it he would act wisely, his (Mr. Brand's) only motive for not moving it himself on this clause being one of expediency. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill spoke, on going into Committee, he declared that this Amendment was hostile to the principle of the Bill, and the consequence was that a number of hon. Members, whom he (Mr. Brand) knew were in favour of the principle of the Amendment, would not vote for it, because they did not wish to give a hostile vote to the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had, therefore, been wise in making that remark. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seemed to have misconceived the effect of the Amendment. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said was perfectly true, that, if carried, it would do away with the protection of the Game Laws. But there was no doubt of this—that if it were carried it would remove a grievance under which the farmers were suffering. There were two objections stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman just now. In the first place, he said the tenant would be the only person not able to kill these animals, hares and rabbits; but he (Mr. Brand) did not recognize any force in that objection, because no landlord in his senses—none but a positive fool—would contract with, his tenant not to kill game that was liable to be killed by anyone else. If the Amendment was carried, it would be the object of the landlord to keep down the hares and rabbits. The other objection was that trespassers would be encouraged. No doubt, some people thought that would be the effect of the clause, as amended; but what was the law at the present time? It was, that if a man came over a field with a gun and dog they could not apprehend him under the Day Poaching Act, if he gave his name; they could only summon him, and if he said he was in search of wild fowl they could not touch him. He did not know whether the Committee was aware of it; but under the Day Poaching Act wild fowl were not protected in any way—wild fowl and duck, and even wood pigeons, which had been noticed by the hon. and gallant Member (Sir John Hay). If a man was summoned for an offence under the Day Poaching Act, he might say—"Oh, I am not after game, I am after wild duck; and, at any rate, they ought not to be able to prove him guilty, or to get a conviction, until they could prove that he was after game and not wild fowl. Therefore, if hares and rabbits were struck out of the Game List, and they could be destroyed and kept down to limited numbers, or cleared out of the way altogether, they need not fear the trespassers, as they would have exactly the same means of dealing with them that they had now—they would still have what was, in fact, the only means of punishing them. He was not alluding to-night to trespassers, because public opinion, he thought, would sanction a strict law to deal with them. With regard to day poaching, they would be able to deal with it just as they were at present. The present trespass law gave sufficient protection if it were put in force.

said, the right hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment might speak for Scotch farmers; but he (Colonel Kingscote) thought he knew something of the English farmers. He had no hesitation in saying that not one in a hundred or one in a thousand would support it. Facts, he thought, were better than any theories that could be produced. At the beginning of the present year a small property—a little over 2,000 acres—were left to a friend of his in Yorkshire. The right of shooting game had been paid for to the late owner. The new proprietor thought he would do the tenants on the estate a favour, so he told the agent that he would give up the sum of money obtained by letting the shooting and get rid of the gamekeeper. The tenants, he said, could have the game. The agent said he would speak to them, and let him know the result, The reply the tenants at first gave was—"We are very much obliged, we would like to have it;" but the moment they knew the gamekeeper was going to be taken away, not one of them would have the game. They said, "Let us keep the gamekeeper. If he goes we shall be over-run with trespassers—we shall be trespassed on morning, noon, and night. We would rather go on as we are than have the chance of being trespassed upon." That was the opinion of ninety-nine out of a hundred of the farmers of England. He did not wish to delay the Bill by entering into a discussion as to the Game Laws; but unless they had a more stringent law of trespass than they had at present, if they took hares and rabbits out of the Game Laws the occupiers of England would not support them.

wished to call the attention of the Committee to this—that if they passed a sweeping clause, which would have the effect of destroying all the ground game throughout wide districts of this country, all the game would be destroyed. Some hon. Members might be astonished to hear it; but farmers would lose the protection of the Game Laws. And in populous districts it was a well-recognized fact that where game was preserved it was a protection against trespass; and if none were preserved the police would have to be increased, and the trespass law would have to be made more stringent. The result of this would be that they would have complaints from the ratepayers, and there would be grave discontent amongst the masses of the people, who would find their access to the country, and their means of enjoyment, very much restricted.

said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had said that the Committee should look with very great suspicion upon any Amendment coming from the Conservative side of the House. He (Mr. Duck- ham) begged to say that he looked with a great deal of suspicion at any Amendment from either side of the House. The Bill was one of the most popular amongst the tenant farmers ever brought into the House. Few could speak on this point with more confidence than himself, and he was surprised to find the tenant farmer of England held up as something of a spectre. At every step it was feared that they would do some injury to some landlord or other. To his mind, the fewer Amendments that were introduced into the Bill the better. Who found the capital to stock the land? Who had a right to the produce of the land, for which they paid rent and taxes, if they were not the farmers? The tenant farmers of England should be free in every respect to meet the excessive competition with which they had to contend. He felt that the less they interfered with the Bill, as it was originally introduced to the House, the better. He did hope it would not be made—as the Home Secretary said it would be if certain Amendments were accepted—a mere sham.

Before you proceed to any other Business, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to renew the Question I put at the commencement of the Sitting, and which I was asked to postpone until the Secretary of State for India (The Marquess of Hartington) was in his place. To put myself in Order, I would move to report Progress.

I must point out to the noble Lord that in Committee this is extremely irregular, and that the proper time to put the Question would be after the Business we are now engaged on. It is quite irregular in Committee on a Bill to put a Question as to general Business.

I feel bound to put the Question, because I had an engagement from—["Order, order!"]—I am perfectly in Order. ["Order, order!"]

I understand the noble Lord intends to move to report Progress, for the purpose of obtaining knowledge in regard to the general Business of the House; but I drew his attention to the fact that, in doing so, he is doing an irregular act. This course is never taken during the work of Committee; but, having said that, if the noble Lord persists in moving to report Progress, I must say he does so on his own responsibility.

Of course, Sir, I bow to your decision. I did not wish in any way to impede the Business. If I am allowed to ask the Question, I do not intend to do anything irregular. I do not wish you to report Progress. All I desire is that I may put the Question I referred to at the commencement of the Sitting.

That can only be done by a Motion to report Progress, which, I say, is irregular. But, of course, if the noble Lord moves to report Progress, he will have that latitude which is generally given to a Motion of this kind. I have, however, thought it my duty to protest, so as to prevent this irregular course being quoted as a precedent.

I will make a statement before we adjourn.

said, he had an Amendment—

In page 1, line 13, after "thereon," to insert "by gun or ferretting between the hours of sunrise and sunset, or by means of traps set underground."

He had ventured to throw out several suggestions which he thought would be an improvement in the Bill, without being hostile to it. They had been taken into consideration, and he had been fairly and reasonably met by the Home Secretary. Under these circumstances, he would not delay the time of the Committee by moving the Amendment.

I rise to Order. The noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench has moved to report Progress. ["No, no!"] Certainly he has done so, or, at any rate, I am under that impression.

The noble Lord has not moved to report Progress.

On the point of Order I would ask you, Sir, for my own information and that of hon. Members sitting near me, to say whether you did not decide that for an hon. Member to move to report Progress in order to put a general Question was irregular?

What I pointed out was that in the whole history of Committees, so far as I have been able to ascertain—and I am supported by a right hon. Gentleman who was in the Chair for many years—there never was a case of this kind before. I would not, therefore, say that the noble Lord cannot move to report Progress; but I have pointed out to him that such a course would be irregular.

said, that after what had taken place he did not propose to move his Amendment, which was similar to one already disposed of.

said, he would draw the attention of the Committee to the Proviso which he proposed to add to the clause. It was—

"Provided, That the right conferred on the occupier by this section shall be subject to the following limitations:—

(1.) The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself or by persons duly authorised by him in writing;

(a.) No person shall be authorised by the occupier to kill or take ground game except members of his household habitually resident on the land in his occupation, persons in his ordinary service on such land, and any one other person bonâ fide employed by him for reward in the taking and destruction of ground game;

(b.) Notice of any authority given by an occupier to kill any ground game shall be served on any other person or persons entitled to kill and take any description of game on such land, and on the collector of Inland Revenue for the district in which the land is situate;

(c.) The notice shall state the name and address of the person to whom the authority is given, and shall, in the case of the collector of Inland Revenue, be served by delivery at his office, or by being sent in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his office, and in the case of any other person shall be served by delivery to such person personally, or by being sent in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his last known place of residence;

(d.) If the name or address of any person other than the collector of Inland Revenue, on whom notice is required to be served under this section is unknown to the person required to serve the same, this provision shall be satisfied by the person required to serve the notice delivering the same to the person entitled to receive such notice on the application of such last-mentioned person;

(e.) A person shall not be deemed to be duly authorised by an occupier to kill ground game under this section unless notice have been duly served in compliance with this section:

(2.) A person shall not be deemed to be an occupier of land for the purposes of this Act by reason of his having a right of common over such lands; or by reason of an occupation for the purpose of grazing or pasturage of sheep, cattle, or horses for less than nine months:

(3.) The occupier shall not, nor shall any person authorised by him, use any firearms for the purpose of killing ground game except between the last hour before sunrise and the first hour after sunset; and neither such occupier, nor any person authorised by him, shall employ spring traps above ground for the purpose of killing ground game:

(4.) In the case of moorlands, uncultivated lands, and uninclosed lands (not being-arable lands), the occupier and the persons authorised by him shall exercise the rights conferred by this section only from the eleventh day of December until the thirty-first day of March in each year, both inclusive."

Hon. Members would see that, as the Bill now stood, the right was declared in a general way. They had occupiers "not otherwise entitled to kill and take ground game." This Proviso he proposed to move in sections, and he would move the first part—namely, to strike out from "but only," in line 13, and insert—

"Provided, That the right conferred on the occupier by this section shall be subject to the following limitations:—(1.) The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself or by persons duly authorised by him in writing."

I move to report Progress.

The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

I believe that as some one else has moved to report Progress I may speak upon a general question. I do so with great reluctance, as I do not wish to impede the Business of the House. I do think it quite fair that I should get an answer to the Question I put at the beginning of the Sitting. I should not have renewed the Question now, and I should not have spoken, as I am speaking, if I had not understood that it would be greatly to the convenience of a great many hon. Members who are here today, who wish to get back to their engagements and special occupations by an early train. I am bound to say that I have just received a private statement from the Treasury Bench which, of course, I am not in a position to read, to the effect that a certain statement would be made on the question of Public Business. Well, I can only say that if any Minister of the Crown will get up and make that statement it will be an immense benefit to hon. Members. I do not wish to be at all obstructive. I am the very last person who wishes to obstruct, and, without presumption, I may claim for myself the character of being one of the least obstructive Members of the House. I hardly ever trouble the House, and when I do I hope I trouble it to some purpose. An hon. Relative of mine, who is interested in another Bill, does not know when that measure is coming on; and, in consequence of the state of uncertainty we have been left in by the Treasury Bench, we really do not know whether we shall have to sit here until 6 in the evening, when all the convenient trains have gone, or whether we can go away. However irregular this proceeding may be, it is justified by the circumstances of the case. I do ask some Minister of the Crown—either the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—to get up and say a few words as to the Business of the House.

I am very glad that you, Sir, have laid down so distinctly the irregularity of the present proceeding. Although, on this occasion, it may be convenient that a short answer should be given to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), I do trust that, on future occasions, the Committee will bow to the ruling of the Chair, and will not permit the irregularity to be repeated of interposing a general discussion on Public Business in the middle of the discussion of a measure in Committee. I regret extremely that it was not in my power to be present at the Sitting this morning. I am sure the Committee will understand that Ministers of the Crown have business at their Offices sometimes which imperatively demands their presence, and renders it impossible for them to be in the House. I understand that the noble Lord wishes to know what will be the course of Public Business after today. The statement that I made on Monday with reference to the course of Business was, of course, and must have been, contingent upon the progress of Business, and I am sorry that I did not state it more distinctly and make myself understood on that point. It is, however, impossible for any statement with regard to the order of Business to be made on behalf of the Government at the beginning of the week, except with an implied reservation. Well, Sir, nevertheless, after consulting with my Colleagues, I have to state that, although it may not be possible to finish the Committee on this Bill to-day, it will be for the convenience of the House that we should adhere, as far as we can, to the programme of Business I mentioned on Monday. We shall take the second reading of the Burials Bill to-morrow, and I hope we shall be able to proceed with the consideration of the Amendments on the Employers' Liability Bill on Friday morning. That is the extent of the information I feel myself justified in giving after the course that has been pursued by the noble Lord opposite.

Will the Indian Budget be taken on Tuesday?

So far as I know it will be; but, after my experience of giving information to the Hause, I cannot pledge myself.

, in withdrawing his Motion, begged to say a word in excuse for it. He quite admitted that it was not usually desirable to make such a Motion. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, that might be; but if he had not moved it, the House would have got no statement from the noble Lord.

said, before the Motion was withdrawn, he must express his regret that the noble Lord had given way to this irregularity, which would be followed by unfortunate circumstances. After his statement, he was afraid that the Hares and Rabbits Bill was to be thrown over until the end of the Session, The policy, therefore, of hon. Gentlemen opposite would be partly successful, if not altogether so. He must protest against the step the Government had taken. He said nothing on the second reading, in order not to delay the Bill; and he must express his disappointment that the Government had played into the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and given them an opportunity for defeating this Bill.

said, he was perfectly delighted with the whole business. It was evident that there was great opposition to this Bill. He believed he might have added, on the part of a large number of Members on his own side. From what he had heard, he did not think that this was an urgent question. If the Government wished to introduce an exhaustive Bill dealing properly with the Game Laws, they would be justified in doing so; but, in a short Session like the present, he thought their time was wasted in bringing in a Bill for which there was not the least urgency, He understood, as did the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), that the position of the Government was that the Bill should not be proceeded with, further, except this afternoon, until next Session; and, in the meantime, the Government would have time to mature a good Bill on the subject of the Game Laws. And he hoped that, in February next, they would have the advantage of the examination which the Government would give to the question during the Recess, in a Bill dealing with the whole subject, not with only the small branch of it.

just wished to say, in answer to the hon. Members (Mr. J. W. Barclay and Mr. Biggar), that the Government had given their answer to the Question as a matter of courtesy to the House. He regretted, as much as anybody, that the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Earl Percy) should introduce this question. This Motion was really a new instrument for Obstruction; but he could assure his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire and his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan that the Government had every intention of proceeding with the Bill; and, notwithstanding the argument they had made, and the equal importance they attached to the Burials Bill, and the Employers' Liability Bill, and this Bill, they would equally be regularly proceeded with.

Before the discussion goes further, I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Chairman of Committees has not the functions of Mr. Speaker, and that general discussion before the Chair- man is quite inappropriate. His functions are limited to the duties assigned to him in Committee, and a general discussion on Public Business is altogether inappropriate, and would form a grave alteration in the forms of Business if I had allowed it without protest.

said, he would certainly not have risen but for the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir William Harcourt), charging his noble Friend (Earl Percy) with having inserted a new instrument for Obstruction. He did not choose to submit to charges of that kind; and he wished to vindicate his noble Friend from the charges of irregularity which had been made. ["Order, order!"] Some hon. Gentlemen were not in the House at the commencement of the proceedings. ["Order, order!"] He must tell them what occurred. He should not delay them more than a few minutes. What occurred was this. A Question was put to his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) early in the Sitting, and he, with very great courtesy, told them he would send a message to the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), and when he had an answer it should be considered. If there were irregularity then, it must be irregularity on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. ["Order, order!"] He did not wish to delay Business; but if that was the way in which hon. Members on that side were to be received by the Committees when they vindicated themselves against unjust charges, hon. Members were not going the right way to make progress. The noble Lord then said that he could only give a contingent answer. But that was all he asked yesterday. What he asked for was that if the Bill was not completed on Wednesday, would it be proceeded with on Friday? If he had given the same answer yesterday, instead of now, the whole of that delay would have been avoided.

I thought the Question was that Progress be reported.

That is withdrawn. ["No, no!"]

As those cries did not reach the Table, with the consent of the Committee I will again put the Question. The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

remarked, that they now came to the question of limitations which it was proposed to introduce into the Bill. The first was not a new one, but was in the Bill as it originally stood. Therefore, he thought there would be little or no objection to that in substance, whatever there might be in form. It was proposed that the right given by the Bill should be limited to the occupier and his authorized agents. That proposition did not differ at all from the original proposition, except that the outsider, the man who was not a resident on the farm, was there confined to one person. He made that concession with reluctance, for he did not see the evil of the proposal. If the occupier of a large farm, especially a hill farm, in Scotland, wanted to kill off hares and rabbits, he should think the best way, on a large extent of ground, would be to let him have as many professional killers of rabbits or hares as he liked, and they should not be obliged to turn his shepherds and labourers into killers. That had been pressed very strongly upon him; but if he found any disposition to restore the Bill as it was before, instead of confining it to one single outsider, he should be very glad to do so. When it came to be discussed, he was sure hon. Gentlemen would see it was far better that professional rabbit-killers should be employed. One man could not do the work—he could not be trained properly—and, therefore, they would really turn farm labourers into rabbit-killers. Therefore, though he felt bound to propose the Amendment in the form he had, if, upon discussion, it was not deemed wise, he would be at liberty, he thought, to alter it. If it would be convenient, he would take it paragraph by paragraph.

The usual course is to propose an Amendment as a whole.

I wish to know whether I am obliged to propose the whole Amendment, or whether I am in a position to propose it paragraph by paragraph, which will be more convenient for making Amendments?

If it is the wish of the Committee, it might be done by taking it in single paragraphs.

I have several Amendments to propose. May I ask the Chairman how it will be competent for me to move this? I wish to move an Amendment, after the word "person," in paragraph A, in Section 2, and Section 3——

It will be precisely as at present. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman chooses only to move part as an Amendment, then Amendments upon that Amendment can be moved.

When any paragraph is put to the Committee, it will be competent for me to move an Amendment in Committee?

Yes, in that paragraph.

I will, therefore, propose to add to the clause these words—

"Provided, That the right conferred on the occupier by this section shall be subject to the following limitation:—(1.) The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself, or by persons duly authorized by him in writing."

said, that before his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) moved his Amendment, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question or two as to the general scope of the Amendment now before the Committee, which was not clear upon the face of it. As he understood the Amendment, the intention was that those provisions with regard to the "one other person who should be authorized to take game," should be applicable to that one other person only; but, as it was drawn, he understood that all those members of the family, and persons habitually in employment, would also require to have their names recorded. He did not think that was the intention of the Government; but that was the language of the provision. The persons authorized must all have been named and recorded by the Office of Inland Revenue. He did not think that was the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but that was the meaning of his language. Then, again, under the clause, he did not see what provision there was for putting its provisions into force. He did not see that any penalty attached, nor was it stated how the provisions as to the Inland Revenue were to be put into operation. Those were matters which ought to be debated before this clause was discussed.

had wished to express his gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for, after looking at the various Amendments put upon the Paper, it seemed to him he had given a fair consideration to them, and had adopted a good many of them. But now the right hon. and learned Gentleman undid what he had done, because he told them he had only thrown these Amendments down for discussion, and if the Committee did not accept them he did not care about them a bit himself, and would withdraw them. He (Mr. E. Stanhope) raised this question at that early stage because he thought it desirable, before they got through any part of the clause, that they should arrive at a definite understanding upon this important point. He agreed, to a very large extent, with the arguments used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and if it were a mere question of killing ground game by trapping, ferreting, or such ways, then a very good deal could be said for the point put by him. It was very possible it might require more than one person; but when they included in it also the means of killing ground game by a gun, they were placed in this difficulty—that the power of using the gun by any person other than the occupier was certainly not wanted for the protection of the crops of the tenant. It was perfectly clear that the tenant and one other person could kill all the ground game necessary. Nor was this provision wanted for the purpose of the sport of the tenant, because, if he might himself shoot, and one other person authorized by him might also shoot, then they had done quite as much for the benefit of his sport as it was reasonable to ask. But if they gave power, as proposed in the Amendment, to the occupier to make all the members of his family, everybody employed by him, and one other person besides, eligible to use a gun and go shooting over a farm, it was quite clear they would have done the utmost they possibly could to destroy all sport whatever upon the farm. That was the conclusion to which they must come. He thought, before they went further, they might arrive at some proper distinction to be drawn between those cases. He desired, for one, particularly as they had assented to the Preamble of the Bill, to give protection to the crops of the tenant. Could not they arrive at some modus vivendi, and draw a distinction between cases where they did require more than one person to be authorized and cases where they did not? For the sake of raising this discussion he would propose his Amendment.

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman, and he himself had an Amendment for the same purpose. He could not conceive that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended that not merely the tenant himself, but that all his family and every labourer upon the farm, should be able to carry a gun and to use it in the destruction of ground game. That was a proposition which hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they considered it carefully, would surely acknowledge was neither wise nor safe. He did not for a moment say that the tenant should not have some sport. He always liked to see his tenants out shooting with him; but it would be a grave error to admit anybody to kill hares and rabbits in the way proposed by the Bill. This was not a measure to give sporting rights to tenants, but merely one to protect their crops from damage. If it was intended to keep the Bill within those limits, then they had no right to ask for such a provision as this, and it was a gross act of injustice to suggest it. He maintained that there was no tenant farmer in the Kingdom who would ask for more than one person to be authorized to shoot beside himself. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would concede this Amendment.

said, he was one of those moderate persons who were quite prepared to see enough of hares on land to afford an ordinary amount of sport; and he thought that a certain number of hares might exist on the land without materially injuring the tenant or interfering with high farming. But the tenant was to have the power of keeping the number of hares within this limit. And he wished to put it to hon. Members opposite, who were anxious to impose limitations on the tenant's power, that, even with the limitations they wished, the tenant, so far as hares were concerned, would have the power of utterly exterminating them if he so pleased. Even with the whole of the limitations, there would be the power of extermination; and if the tenant found that his right was conceded grudgingly by the landlord—if the landlord declined to put any confidence in him, and endeavoured to check and control his right—then, depend upon it, the tenant would have his revenge, and utterly exterminate hares within the three months to which it was proposed to limit him. When hon Members proposed these limitations, to insure that there should be a certain number of hares, they were taking a step which would most effectively defeat the object they had in view. If the tenant did not think he was fairly and reasonably treated by the landlord, the latter might be perfectly sure that the tenant would take care to put himself right within the time during which he would have the control over the hares. As originally introduced, he understood the Government Bill did not give sporting rights to the tenant. He could not invite a friend or neighbour to shoot with him. He (Mr. J. W. Barclay) was anxious to have the Bill passed as a substantial measure of relief, and was willing to accept the Bill with that limitation. But so far as the preservation of game was concerned, he would tell hon. Members opposite—who seemed so much afraid of the tenant, whose friends they professed to be, but would not trust him further than they could help—that it was a great mistake on their part to hesitate, after giving the tenant so much power under the Bill, to put full trust and confidence in him. If the tenants had power to prevent serious injury being done to the crops by hares, they would probably use that power with discretion. If, however, Parliament limited the power of the tenants to certain months, they would take such effective steps during that period as to prevent any risk during the rest of the year. For these reasons, he hoped the Amendment would not be proceeded with.

said, the hon. Gentleman was a little mistaken in supposing that the object of proposing these Amendments was to preserve hares. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: I did not say so.] He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that these Amendments showed a want of confidence in the tenants. That was not their view at all. They wanted hares and rabbits to take their chance under the Bill. But their reason for supporting these Amendments was to prevent a clashing between landlord and tenant in the exercise of their rights. They wanted that the one right should be exercised at one time, and the other at another. That would be better for both occupier and owner. With regard to this Amendment, he should be very much guided by the language of the Home Secretary. If he meant to limit this power of shooting to one other person besides the tenant, he thought they might very rapidly run through the Bill.

said, they were told that the object of this Bill was to protect the crops of the tenants, and for that purpose he accepted it. But they must take care, when they meddled with the existing law, which allowed free contracts between landlord and tenant, that they did not interfere with what was practised at present between good landlords and good tenants, and did not lay down a hard-and-fast-line in an Act of Parliament which would not work. If this Bill was to be useful at all, it must be planned on moderate lines. He believed he was representing, on this subject, the feeling of the tenant farmers in his part of the country, and he was not at all influenced by the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) alluded on the previous evening. He spoke openly at the last Election on the Game Question; and the fact that six Members had been returned from his county to that side of the House showed that, at any rate, there the county Members had the support of the tenant farmers. He said then that many of the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman were not necessary at all for the due preservation of the crops, and that the Bill, in its present form, would be dangerous unless something could be done to mitigate it. In an estate of 10,000 acres, divided among 100 tenants, they would have, perhaps, as many as 500 persons under this Bill armed with the power of going about the country with guns for the whole year. He ventured to think that that was not at all desirable. He quite agreed with the Home Secretary that there should be professional rabbit-catchers; but the whole of these 500 people would not be professional rabbit-catchers, and he would venture to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should alter the words of his Bill, so that only the occupier on an estate should be entitled to carry a gun, and other persons bonâ fide employed by the landlord for the purpose of keeping down the game. He did not see why the tenant should object, if he wanted the ground game killed, to that work being done by professional rabbit-catchers employed by the landlord. On his own estate there had never been any trouble about rabbits, for they had always been kept down, and even if any damage had been sustained the tenants had always been compensated. But if the Bill stood as at present proposed, he was quite sure it would be impossible to work it on an estate with a large number of small tenants. He should support the Amendment, believing that it would make the Bill more suitable for the purpose for which it was intended.

said, before the discussion went further, he had better say at once he could not accept the Amendment. It was entirely inconsistent with anything he had ever proposed in reference to this Bill. These Amendments were absolutely inconsistent; for on many farms—great Scotch farms, for instance—one person besides the owner to shoot ground game would be no use whatever, and he knew many farms in England also where hares and rabbits could not be kept down by one man. Everybody who had any experience knew that in killing rabbits along a fence more than one was necessary; and, therefore, the remedy offered by the Amendment was perfectly illusory.

said, he understood the Amendment did not allude to Scotland only, but to England, where farms were much smaller; and it must be remembered it only applied to shooting—the right to ferret trap, and snare was given generally. To give a general right of shooting to everybody on the farm would, they all knew, practically destroy the shooting for the landlord. It was that which they wanted to reserve, and that he thought the right hon. Gentleman could very fairly give. The Bill only wanted to prevent the destruction of the crops by ground game, and the power necessary for that purpose was amply contained in the Amendment. It was very necessary that some check should be put on this right of the tenant to give everybody leave to shoot over his farm; and as far as the interests of the Bill were concerned, he, and everyone who had any practical knowledge of the subject, was convinced that such a power was not necessary. If that right could be checked, he was sure many hon. Members near him would be only too happy to assist the right hon. and learned Gentleman in carrying his Bill. They were constantly told that the Bill was only intended to promote good husbandry, and yet it was quite clear that the measure went a great deal further. They knew that the love of shooting was an instinct with boys; and if there was this general right to use a gun, they knew that the consequence would be that, in season and out of season, boys on the farm would be going about with a gun, popping at everything they saw, and very probably destroying the partridges and pheasants which might be on the place, as well as the ground game. He was very desirous of promoting good feeling between landlords and tenants, and also to assist the Government in carrying the Bill. He was desirous that some such Bill as this should be passed; but he hoped the Government would not make it a measure which would put into the hands of tenants in many places a power of doing very great injury to their landlords. On many farms, tenants were fond of coursing, and there must be some limitation to the destruction of hares. Yet one cantankerous tenant would be able to destroy the pleasure of the rest of the tenants on an estate. He hoped that that power would not be given. When they were desirous of assisting hon. Members to pass the Bill which would put power into the hands of the tenant to destroy game, they were confronted with the possibility of greater powers being given to the tenants, and greater powers which they might exercise improperly. He understood that the hon. Member for Mid. Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) considered one person besides the tenant was sufficient to kill off ground game. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would make a little concession upon this point. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, no!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman would make no concession. He must, therefore, not be surprised if they, in the interest of the sporting tenants or sporting landlords, opposed the passing of the measure in every way the Forms of the House would allow.

said, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Grantham) had appealed directly to him, he would ask the indulgence of the Committee for a few moments. Hon. Members seemed to consider themselves safe so long as they kept within the realm of prophecy, and they were continually prophecying that all sorts of things would happen if certain concessions were not made. He (Mr. James Howard) had already pointed out that this concurrent right was no new thing in the country, and he would certainly oppose any concessions unless hon. Gentlemen could prove the necessity for them. It was useless to attempt to frighten men by prophecy, for those who had passed the meridian of life knew that most of the political prophecies had remained unfulfilled, or had been falsified by events. Hon. Gentlemen had had abundant opportunities since the Bill was introduced to ascertain the working of these concurrent rights; but they had not come down to the Committee with a single fact. How could they expect hon. Members opposed to the proposed limitations to be convinced of the necessity of them unless they adduced some good reasons? Hon. Members opposite had affected a great deal of anxiety about the interests of tenant farmers; but actions spoke louder than words, and, if he did not mistake, the farmers of the country would judge by deeds rather than by words. What was the object of almost all the Amendments which had been put upon the Paper? Why, to limit the concessions which were about to be made to the farmers of England and Scotland, and all these Amendments were begotten of distrust of the farmer. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had asked whether the farmers in possession of a concurrent right, or those in possession of a sole right, had exercised their power in an unfair or unsportsmanlike manner? He (Mr. James Howard) maintained they had not. His own little estate was surrounded by tenants who had had, for many years, either a concurrent right or a sole right to the game upon the farms; yet he had never known one of them to exercise their right in an unfair or unsportsmanlike way. Until, therefore, hon. Gentlemen could give them something like evidence in favour of the need for their Amendments, he should oppose any limitations of the concessions.

said, he was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) say he had had great experience of concurrent rights. The hon. Gentleman, however, failed to tell them where there were any concurrent rights such as it was proposed to create by the Bill. He referred to his own neighbourhood, where tenants had a concurrent right or sole right of shooting. But was that concurrent right conferred upon them by law? No; it was conferred upon them by freedom of contract and by arrangement. [Mr. JAMES HOWARD: By law.] In that case, he would ask the hon. Member for Bedfordshire to say by what law such rights were conferred. [Mr. JAMES HOWARD: The Common Law of the land in England.] If that were so, the present Bill was unnecessary. Why, if the Common Law of England gave that concurrent and inalienable right, were they spending these days—which they would rather be enjoying in the country—in discussing that Bill? ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well there was no instance of it; and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who was always very critical, and objected to anything anybody said which did not exactly coincide with his own views on legislation, cheered. But he (Lord Elcho) challenged the hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and, as a lawyer, say that there was any law now existing which created a concurrent and inalienable right, such as would be created under the Bill. ["Question!"] If he (Lord Elcho) had deviated from the point of his argument, it was not his fault, but owing to the interruptions he had received. He would return to what he had risen to say—namely, that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) was dragging a herring across the path of the Committee, when he asserted that concurrent right was already created by law. It was true, concurrent rights were given by agreement—that was to say, the landlord and tenant had agreed that they should each have the right to shoot game. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire had said that the tenants in his neighbourhood who had a concurrent right did not exercise it harshly. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) maintained that the tenants would not exercise this right for the destruction of all game; and he had threatened them. Threats were what they got, instead of arguments, if they did not legislate exactly in accordance with the views of certain hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Forfarshire had threatened them with what the farmers would do. He (Lord Elcho) believed there were many farmers, if they had a concurrent right, who would not exercise it unfairly. The other day, in his own county—Haddingtonshire—he rode over a fine moorland district, in which there was very little heather, but a great deal of grass. He called at one farm, but the tenant was absent; and coming across the tenant adjoining, he remarked to him—"What a beautiful coursing ground this is." The tenant replied—"It is an excellent coursing ground, but there are so many hares since the tenant got the game, it is no use trying to course." He also said that he had remarked to the tenant—"Surely those turnips over there must be suffering;" and the answer he got was—"Yes, they would be suffering a great deal, if I had not got the game." He (Lord Elcho) was, therefore, not at all disposed to think that the tenants would destroy all the game. He would give another instance which was very much to the point. Long after the harvest was reaped, he found adjoining a plantation held by a gentle- man who also should be nameless, a crop of barley standing. It was the only crop of barley standing in the county at that moment. He inquired why it was standing out; and what did the hon. Member (Mr. J. W. Barclay) think was the reason given? His informant said—"Oh, this house and plantation are rented by one brother who does not farm, and the land adjoining is rented by a brother who does farm, and the brother who does farm allows this crop of barley to stand as food for the game of his brother." The Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, which purported to be introduced in the interests of good husbandry, would not, as regarded the destruction of crops by game, necessarily deal with such a case as that of the two brothers. It would be quite competent, under the Bill, for farmers and landlords to come to an understanding that they would grow nothing but hares and rabbits. Then what would come of all the high-sounding terms as to the interest of good husbandry and the interest of the public generally? Why, this was nothing at all but sham legislation.

I have not yet found out that the noble Lord is confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

remarked, that he was replying to the arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite, which the Chairman did not reprove.

If the noble Lord speaks to the Amendment, he will be quite in Order.

said, he was speaking to the Amendment, by endeavouring to reply to arguments he had heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was agreed that there was no occasion for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope), for it displayed a want of trust in the farmer. His right hon. Friend was simply anxious there should be a limit as to the way a tenant should kill game. He (Lord Elcho) believed that the Bill was simply introduced to conciliate the tenant, and not to promote husbandry—to conciliate the tenant in order to get his vote. They quite understood that, and wished the Bill to go to "another place" as such. Above all things, the tenant was to be allowed to shoot; if he saw a rabbit squatting under a turnip, he was to have the power to take out his gun, or, if he were a Volunteer, to take out his Snider, and pot it. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might differ from him, but such were the opinions he had of the Bill. One great objection to the Bill was that it would create a bad feeling between landlord and tenant. If the tenant were to be empowered—only checked by the Gun Licence, which he supposed would shortly be repealed—not only to shoot himself—[Laughter]—but to allow every man who was permanently resident in his house to shoot—for that was what the proposal of the Government came to—they would set up a very awkward state of things. If they had every tenant, and every labourer employed by a tenant, armed with a gun and enabled to shoot, it would be rather alarming if they found them adopting the Irish custom of shooting something else besides rabbits. ["Question!"] It was the Question.

rose to Order, and remarked that the noble Lord was making a speech appropriate only to the second reading of the Bill.

I have already drawn the noble Lord's attention to the fact that he is travelling much beyond the Amendment.

said, he was directing his arguments to the exact point, as the Chairman would soon see.

desired to submit to the Chair, whether the noble Lord, in commenting upon the decision of the Chair, was not out of Order? He understood the Chairman to have ruled that the noble Lord was proceeding beyond the Amendment. The noble Lord, however, proceeded. In doing so, he (Mr. Hopwood) submitted that the noble Lord was failing in proper respect to the Chair, and was out of Order.

I understand the noble Lord intends in the future, at all events, to confine himself to the Question.

(resuming amid considerable interruptions) protested against the disorderly conduct of those hon. Gentlemen who were constantly interrupting the Business. He was simply proceeding to say that he believed that the Bill as it now stood would practically destroy all sporting rights. ["No!"] It was a matter of opinion, and he had just as much right to express his opinion openly as hon. Gentlemen opposite had to express them by means of groans. He held that view, and he maintained it. He regarded the unlimited power given by the Bill to the tenant, and to his labourers, to shoot all over his land as absolutely destructive of all sporting rights, and destructive also of everything like a kindly feeling between landlord and tenant. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope) was a very legitimate one, providing, as it did, a very proper limitation of the power given to the farmer. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had laid great stress upon the power the tenant would have under the Bill to kill all the game he liked. Under leases, however, they could not. Hon. Gentlemen had done all they could to make the Act retrospective. He supported the Amendment, simply upon the ground that it was more likely to preserve good feeling than the Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, which would make the relation between landlord and tenant intolerable.

hoped they might take a decision upon the Amendment. If he might offer a word of advice to his hon. Friends, it would be that they should not interrupt the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho). He had known him longer than many hon. Gentlemen, and had always found it best to allow him to run down. The noble Lord had spoken against time in the course of the discussion, and had throughout declared that the greatest crime of the Bill was that it was intended to conciliate the farmers. It was very true it was intended to conciliate the farmers, and to give them a remedy for a grievance which they had, and which the Government considered to be a just grievance.

rose to Order, and asked if these remarks were pertinent to the Amendment?

remarked, that that was like Catiline complaining of sedition. He, however, stood corrected by the noble Lord, who would not extend reciprocity to him and allow him to run down. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) must feel that his Amendment could not be accepted. To limit, under all circumstances, this matter to one person would be too strict; and, there- fore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his proposition. At all events, if he did insist upon it, he (Sir William Harcourt) must divide the Committee.

said, he was not at all dissatisfied with the course the discussion had taken, though no one had at all attempted to answer the points he had raised. He had no objection whatever to any number of persons being authorized to kill ground game by means of traps and the like; but he drew a distinction to any number of persons being authorized to use a gun. He had no wish to take away from the tenant the right of sporting; on the contrary, if his Amendment were adopted, the tenant would have the right to use a gun. He admitted that the Amendment he had proposed did not exactly raise the point he desired to bring before the Committee. He had made the Amendment in the hope that they might be able to arrive at some compromise. They had now had a discussion upon the question; and though he was obliged to confess that no one had met the point put forward, he would now withdraw the Amendment, reserving to himself the right to propose an Amendment subsequently.

moved to add at the end of Clause—

"Provided, That the right conferred on the occupier by this section shall be subject to the following limitations:—(1.) The occupier shall kill and take ground game only by himself, or by persons duly authorized by him in writing."

said, he would now propose to add to the Clause sub-section A.

said, his Amendment was in the 4th line, and he would like to know whether there was any other to come before it?

said, his was earlier. He proposed that the word "habitually," in this Amendment, should be left out. If the farmer gave authority to a person not habitually resident on the farm, by a subsequent Amendment he brought himself within the provisions of the 12th section of the Act of William IV. Speaking of this limitation particularly, he might make remarks which applied generally to the whole of these limitations. The Bill was accepted, as originally introduced into the House with the understanding as to the reservations applying to moors and waste lands, as a Bill which would settle the Game Law question as between landlord and tenant; but if these limitations were introduced, it could not be accepted as any settlement of the question.

Those words were part of the original Bill.

said, he would restrict himself to the word "habitually."

replied, that he had no objection to leaving out the word. It was not a legal word, and might lead to some misunderstanding; and, therefore, he did not think the word was important.

I must point out that the manner in which I put the Amendment is strictly correct, and it would be far more to the convenience of the Committee to discuss the Question that these words be here added, and then an Amendment on the Amendment would be in Order.

said, he had an Amendment to move to the Proviso. He did not wish to renew the discussion on the Motion which had just been decided; but he would put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was in charge of the Bill whether it was necessary to have so large an army of persons to kill ground game? He was greatly against any limitation of time with regard to hares and rabbits; but he did think there ought to be a limitation as to the numbers of persons in the employment of the occupier who were authorized to shoot ground game. The great object of this Bill was to keep up a good understanding between landlord and tenant, and he did not think the clause as now worded would do that. It would certainly create great alarm among landowners in the country, and might have some very unfortunate consequences. For that reason, he would press the Government, very strongly, not to let their measure go one step beyond what was necessary for the tenant to protect himself in the preservation of his crops. With that view, though he would give unlimited powers with regard to traps, he thought there ought to be a limitation in regard to guns. There might be a joint tenancy, and then all the joint tenants might employ their servants. He would suggest that the Proviso should be limited to one, two, or three—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought it absolutely necessary. If he could not fix his mind upon the exact number, let it stand over till the Report. With the view of raising the question, he would propose to leave out the word "members," in order to substitute the words "a member."

thought the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet was a very reasonable one, and one which would be acceptable to many of the farmers themselves. In corroboration of what had been stated by the hon. Baronet, he (Mr. Rodwell) had a note from a very representative farmer in the Eastern Counties, a man of great experience, on whose information he could thoroughly rely, and who was very anxious that this Bill should pass; and, in his communication, he said—

"I cannot see the necessity for so many people to kill game. In a farm in Norfolk, comprising 1,500 or 1,600 acres, one man, with casual assistance in the winter, kept down the whole of the ground game, and I never had any trouble with my landlord at all."

That gentleman had retired from business. He was a very prosperous man, and had taken a very leading part in what might be called the agitation of this Game Question. That was his opinion; and, therefore, he (Mr. Rodwell) was inclined to support the Amendment. He would further say that he thought that it was utterly unnecessary, for the destruction of this game, to employ so many people. It would be done better by one or two, who would be responsible for keeping down the game. As a farmer, if he wanted the game to be kept down, he should sooner say to one or two men—"You are responsible for it, "instead of saying to all his men—"Kill a rabbit whenever you see one." The likely consequence of giving power to everybody to kill game would be to defeat the object of the Bill. He had another observation made to him by a farmer, a strongly practical business man. He said—

"I do not want to see all my household with guns in their hands. My boys work very well now; but if they can go out every morning and evening to shoot rabbits, I shall have hard work to keep them at work."

There was a great deal of common sense in that observation. He wished to see this Bill carried; but he did not think it was assisting the tenant farmers at all, but rather thwarting their endeavours, in giving them so many helpmates, where, by one or two, the work would be much better done.

said, that everything which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rodwell), and his hon. Friend behind him (Sir Edward Colebrooke), was worthy of attention; but he confessed he did not see how that Amendment could be accepted by the Government. His hon. and learned Friend opposite had been arguing as if the Bill compelled the farmer to allow all his sons and people on his farm to have guns. It really did nothing of the kind. His hon. and learned Friend's correspondent, who thought his sons had better not shoot, would simply not give them his authority in writing. If he did not do that, they could not shoot. His hon. and learned Friend had treated the Bill as though it gave an independent authority to every man on the farm. It did nothing of the kind. It left the discretion to the tenant to determine how many men he required. The farmer ought to have that discretion. To a small man one would be enough, while a large farmer would require at least two or three. But why were they to haggle over the rights of a farmer in this respect? They might just as well argue because the landlord was authorized to depute people to shoot on his estate, that, therefore, he would dress up his butler and footman in some peculiar livery, and set them to kill game. He would not do it, although he had the power. It was not a common sense arrangement. He hoped they would give the farmers credit for some common sense. Why should they not give them credit for dealing properly with this power? [Laughter.] He saw that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) laughed. He supposed he was going to say something about freedom of contract. Why should the tenant farmer so cover his farm with people with guns who were not wanted? There was no fear of that. The tenant farmer would employ just as many as he wanted and no more. He would have to pay their wages and would expect work. Why should he pay them, then, if he did not get work? All these bugbears were the most absurd things in the world. Let them not go haggling over small details, but leave the matter to the tenant farmers themselves, who might be credited with a little common sense, and who, they might be sure, would not authorize in writing every labourer to go out and kill game when he was wanted to follow the plough, or to do any other farm work.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked the House to give farmers credit for a little common sense; but that was just what the Bill did not do. It rested on a different principle—namely, that these full-grown men had not sense to make arrangement for themselves. He wished to inquire whether he would be in Order in asking a Question?

The Question is that the word "members" be struck out, in order to insert the words "a member."

said, he was aware of that; but he wished to ask a Question on something which occurred in every part of the Bill—"the concurrent and inalienable right."

I do not think it arises in this clause. If it is in every other part of the Bill, the noble Lord will be able to find abundant opportunities at a later stage.

asked what security there was that those limitations would be observed? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Judge would decide; but how would the Judge decide?

said, the machinery about which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) asked would be found in an Amendment which he would lay on the Table.

remarked, that it would be extremely convenient if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell the Committee, before the Bill was passed, how he intended to deal with it. He did not know how other hon. Members felt; but it would very much affect his conduct in discussing the clauses, if he understood how the Bill was going to be legally enforced. He should be very much disposed to make close distinctions, if they were going to have cruel penalties.

said, he would answer the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), who said it was important that they should know how the Bill was to be enforced. He would tell him the clause which he proposed to take out was Clause 7, and he would then insert words to the effect that any Act of Parliament inconsistent with this Act should, in so far as it was so inconsistent, be repealed; but that, otherwise, the occupier should be liable to the same proceedings and penalties as if the Act had not been passed.

rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke). He did not see why the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) withdrew his proposition. Now it was raised again, and he wished to put before the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary the difficulty he saw in allowing the farmer to give the right to shoot to any members of his family and people in his employ. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) said no confidence was placed in the tenant farmer. He (Colonel Kingscote) did not think the hon. Member would accuse him of thinking that; but they must remember that there were black sheep in every flock. There were tenants who could not be trusted, and there were landlords who could not be trusted. Taking a large estate, with a good many tenants, suppose there was a can- Tankerous tenant, who said—"I cannot grow crops that will pay me, I will grow hares and rabbits instead." How would the Bill meet such a case? In the same way, it would apply to one cantankerous man, who annoyed all his neighbours by giving leave to everybody to shoot and do what they liked. Such a state of things would ensue. It was an outside case; but it might happen any day, the moment the Bill passed. He urged the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to restrict that power. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rodwell) had said the tenant farmers—the good tenant farmers—asked that this power should not be given. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said the farmers need not give it to everybody. But they knew very well what sons would say—"Give me the gun and I will shoot a few rooks;" and if they should happen to be hares and rabbits, who was to know it? Those were very hazardous proceedings, and this power, therefore, should be restricted. Nobody wanted to restrict ferreting; but if they were to give power to everybody to shoot, not only would it endanger peoples' lives, but it would put an end to all good feeling between the landlord and tenant.

said, there was one observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) which deserved attention. He was averse to place unnecessary restrictions upon farmers after giving them this power; but when he pointed out that the occupier might have the privilege of placing firearms in the hands of all his labourers, it deserved the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought there were obvious objections to that being granted to him. He should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with this point in some part of the Bill. He thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to remember that those limits to the concessions, which it was complained they were constantly moving, did not by any means come entirely from that side alone. The latter Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was one of a long series of limitations of the concessions already made, so he did not think they were quite open to the charge against them. The Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opened a whole series of questions. It was, in fact, a new Bill in itself. He did not know whether it was convenient to discuss it now, and he should consult the right hon. and learned Gentleman's convenience; but he thought it would have been convenient if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a general statement on the bearing and scope of that long Amendment.

I did yesterday. If my hon. Friend had done me the honour to listen when I did explain, he would have understood the matter.

said, he gave his best attention to everything that fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He was very sorry, if it did escape him; but he was not aware he had explained that Amendment. There was a long series of Amendments. He did not wish to interfere with the proceedings, and if it was desired to discuss them in detail, he was quite ready to do so. He was asked at the last General Election whether he would vote for a Bill to give tenants the right to shoot; and he said he would give them rights over ground game, but not sporting rights. He drew a wide distinction between the two classes. It was not necessary for the purpose of keeping down ground game to use the gun, for the ground game could be perfectly well kept down by snares, nets and ferrets. He ventured to submit that it was fair that the lines on which that Bill was introduced should be followed.

thought a great deal was to be said in favour of restricting this general liberty to shoot. He would just read a single line of a Bill which he (Sir Alexander Gordon), in conjunction with the present Lord Fife, brought in three years ago, and which was accepted by all the farmers in Scotland, and by the Chamber of Agriculture, a very liberal body. That Bill provided "that the tenant and any one person being a son or a farm servant of such tenant" should be allowed to use a gun. The farmer himself and one other person were quite sufficient to keep down ground game without admitting other persons like poachers and strangers. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary saw his way to limit the persons, he (Sir Alexander Gordon) believed he would improve the Bill. He should like to remind the Committee that when this proposal was brought in by him, only three years ago, to protect growing crops from injury, he did not know from what side it met with most opposition. Hon. Gentlemen on one side opposed it as much as hon. Gentlemen on the other; but public opinion was growing, and the Bill he introduced three [years ago had now developed into a Government measure.

I cannot help saying that the discussion this afternoon upon this clause has left a very great impression on my mind. It seems to me hon. Gentlemen who take so much interest in this matter are very inconsistent with what they tell us at other times, and what they say at all their meetings in the country. They say nothing can be more harmonious, as a rule, than the state of feeling between landlords and tenants. I am not at all about to dispute that; it is partly upon the truth of that statement that I base the defence which I should make of the course which my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) is taking with regard to this clause. The hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) spoke of what he called ill-natured tenants, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind me (Colonel Kingscote) used a word which I will not use in this House, because I think slang phrases are better avoided, indicating that tenants are so bad-tempered and so hostile to their neighbours that they cannot be allowed the ordinary limits which should otherwise be allowed to that class. Hon. Members must bear this in mind—that however much you limit the power of the farmer, if he be of that very ill-natured character, and is so perpetually quarrelling with his landlord and his neighbours, that, whatsoever limitations you put in the Bill, he will still have power to make himself very disagreeable on the question of game. If I were a landlord, I should rather rely, after the passing of this Bill, on the liberality of the Bill, and on the general good feeling which hon. Gentlemen spoke of, and which I believe to exist to a very large and general extent between the tenants and the owners of the land they cultivate. If you put in the restrictions which hon. Gentlemen want us to do—as, for instance, that guns should not be allowed at all—are hon. Gentlemen willing to vote for that? I do not think they are. People talk about common sense in tenants; I hope there is some common sense left among landlords. Already there is one limitation in the Bill which, except on the ground of what I should call mercy and humanity, I should object to strongly—that is, the limitation with regard to traps. I recollect speaking to a Gentleman lately, a Member of this House. I do not know where he is now—I mean a Gentleman whose absence we all regret—(Sir Harcourt Johnstone)—upon this very subject. His interest was in foxes, and he was very anxious that foxes should not put their feet in traps set to catch rabbits. He admitted it was very cruel, and it was one of his strong arguments in favour of putting an end to them. But I said—"If you put an end to traps, will you forbid landlords and occupiers to employ them?" I think on the ground of mercy it might be desirable to extend the trap limitation, so that traps with teeth should not be used to kill game. I must not be supposed to be moving an Amendment on the Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend; but I merely state that as showing that you have already insisted upon one very considerable limitation with regard to the traps. They are not to be placed anywhere, except in runs and holes covered over, and not upon the open ground. This is a limitation; but you do not propose to endorse with regard to occupiers. There is no limitation which will prevent the landlord from bringing any number of persons upon his tenant's farm at any time, for the purpose of shooting or pursuing game in any customary manner. Therefore, there is no concurrent right—at any rate, no equally concurrent right—even in the Bill as it stands, between the rights and powers of the landlord and of the tenant. Surely, that difference must be some restriction. It is said there must be some alteration by which you must not give the tenant all these powers to authorize other persons to shoot ground game. But if the tenant is to be encumbered by many restrictions which landlords have imposed, and from which they are themselves freed, the tenant will find the Bill is, by no means, the con- cession and the measure of justice which he expected. What, then, will be the case of those ill-natured tenants, if there be one in a hundred—someone said one in twenty? I know not how many there may be; they are very few, I hope; but if there be ill-natured tenants, depend upon it an Act so restricted and so worthless will mate him only worse-tempered than he is now, and make him suffer more than he is suffering at present. There is growing up in their minds a belief that their landlords and their county representatives are not sufficiently careful of their interests, and are not generally disposed to trust them. Because I am not asking them to trust to the Bill, even with the limitations you impose upon it, you will be bound hereafter to trust very much more to the generosity and good-feeling of your tenants than to the specific legislation and clauses in the Bill. I am now speaking neither as a landowner nor as a sportsman; but having, I hope, some knowledge of affairs which pass in this country, and some knowledge of the motives by which men are actuated, I should say that the true policy of the country gentlemen in this House is to deal honestly with the occupiers of the land in this question, and not to ask my right hon. and learned Friend to make any limitations, or to consent to limitations or restrictions other than those he proposes. I am quite sure, if he were to increase those limitations, he would not be acting in accordance with the opinion of the majority in the House, and certainly not of those for whom this Bill is especially intended. I know the noble Lord, whose exhibitions in connection with this Bill have not been very much to his credit (Lord Elcho), taunts me, and taunts us, with caring about the favour and the votes of the county constituencies. Well, the county constituencies are numerous and powerful; there is no class of persons in this country now, of and there has not been for some time, which has complained with so much reason of the sufferings they have endured, and of the disasters which have pursued them. You know how much they are suffering even better than I do—none of us know how much they may suffer hereafter. Considering that we sit as a House of Commons representing the whole people, and that you more especially represent that class, let us do what is just and generous, and what we should wish to be done if we were in their places and they were in ours.

I am very much indisposed to take part in this discussion, and will only say a few words. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is anxious to pass the Bill into law, I should humbly advise him to put a muzzle on the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. This is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has given us one of those amiable lectures, in which he has characterized us as not acting as the farmers' friends. I am sure the agricultural community must feel, and does feel, a deep debt of gratitude for the great interest which the right hon. Gentleman has for their welfare. Probably some of them are old enough to recollect that some of the misfortunes to which the right hon. Gentleman so feelingly alluded were unquestionably brought about by the action of the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members will recollect that until the last few months the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to mitigate those sufferings, or to advance the interests to which he now so feelingly appeals. I have no recollection, as a county Member, that, while the late Government was engaged in transferring some of the millions of taxation which ought not to be borne by the agricultural community, that we received any assistance, by voice or vote, from the right hon. Gentleman. When the whole agricultural community were disturbed lest foreign diseases should decimate their flocks and herds, and Parliament was anxious to remove that apprehension, and to carry into effect some reasonable legislation on that subject, I have no recollection that we received the slightest assistance from the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask whether the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) is speaking to the Question now before the Chair?

I did not interrupt the noble Lord, because I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had himself travelled beyond the limit of the Amendment. I trust that the noble Lord will keep within it.

I accept the hint you have been so good as to give me; but I ask the indulgence of the Committee, as this is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman, during the last 24 hours, has gone beyond the usual limits of Committee debate, and has lectured us on the way in which we should discharge our duty, and has threatened the dreadful consequences which will follow, if we do not immediately take his advice and subscribe to all his nostrums. I think a little—shall I say licence or liberty?—may be allowed to one of the distressed class of county Representatives to tell the right hon. Gentleman, as I do to his face, and in his presence, that I have not the slightest intention of being moved by anything he may say, and that I believe that I understand my own constituents far better than he does. I shall not pursue this unpleasant theme any further. It is the first time I have said anything to the House or the Committee on the subject-matter of this Bill. I have my own reasons for not wishing to speak at any length on this Amendment. My principal reason is, that having heard the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in reply on the second reading, and having read the Amendments which he has put upon the Paper for present discussion, I am deliberately of opinion that the Bill, so framed and so amended, will make very little practical difference indeed in the present relations between the landlord and tenant in the matter of game. I believe we are flogging a dead horse, and that this Bill will do very little indeed, and that, with the single exception of placing upon the Paper the odious principle of interference with freedom of contract, against which I delivered my judgment last night in the Division Lobby, I do not much care how the clauses proposed by the right hon. Gentleman are worded. But on this particular Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke)—who really does know what he is talking about on a question of this sort—I will say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he wishes to carry this Bill, that that suggestion is worthy of great consideration. I do not gather that those who object to the indiscriminate use of fire-arms object to the general prevention of the increase of ground game by other means, but that they take objection, reasonably as it seems to me, to this commission to hand guns to the half-a- dozen men on the farms. There is great good sense and practical sense in an objection of that sort, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be prepared on Report to accept it.

observed, that he avoided saying anything about the Bill while it was in Committee, so as to enable the Government to proceed; but hon. Gentlemen on the other side had taken up a deal of time; and, as they were now at a block, he might as well say a few words. He had lived among farmers all his life, and in the centre of hares and rabbits, so that he could speak as a practical farmer. He had farmed many years, and rabbits had given him a great deal of trouble. He thought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was partly unnecessary. To his (Mr. Davies's) knowledge, the great difficulties that the majority of farmers had to contend against were that their households were too fond of guns. The difficulty was to keep guns out of their hands, and to keep them at work. He knew when a young fellow got fond of his gun he was very little use at his work. It was all very well to say "farmers need not give this power;" but if they passed that Bill it would strengthen the hands of those who were fond of guns. He knew many who had been completely ruined through their fondness for guns. The working classes were now very intelligent, and knew very well what measures were passed; and if they passed this Bill, giving power to farmers to allow persons to carry guns, there would, he thought, be much more trouble with them. He thought, if the farmer could not use a gun, that the farmer's bailiff should, and that would be ample. The other powers in the Bill were quite unnecessary. He did not want a gun to kill rabbits; the proper way to kill them was not to shoot them, or to trap them, but to snare them. Practical men knew that a rabbit killed in a snare was worth 3d. or 4d. more than a rabbit shot. Any man who understood the work would do it easily. In his part of the country there was the best feeling between landlords and tenants, and he would say that when the Bill was passed, so far from causing a bad feeling between landlord and tenant, it would do nothing at all. If the landlord was worth having, the tenant would give him no trouble. Nothing pleased the tenant so much as to give Ms landlord a good day's shooting, and as to the feeling between them, the tenant was proud of his landlord. Nothing was more gratifying to him than to visit his own tenants. He hoped the Bill would pass in the form it was intended, and that hon. Gentlemen would not oppose it. The Bill would only make a difference to a few—those who over-preserved—and the fault of over-preserving was not the landlord's, but the gamekeeper's.

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Question before the Committee is simply whether the word "member" shall be omitted to insert the words "a member."

replied, he had said nothing before on the Bill; but he submitted to the ruling of the Chairman, although he had simply followed the example set by the two Front Benches. He simply went into the question of how many persons should be entitled to carry guns; and he thought if the tenant farmer had the right himself to nominate one other person, that was all that was required.

hoped he would not be charged with Obstruction if he made a few remarks. He proposed to move an Amendment that no shooting should be allowed. As to the arguments used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, he (Mr. Long) maintained that if shooting was to be allowed on farms, especially in small farms which abounded in his part of the country, it would be impossible for the tenant farmer to keep the sport for his landlord, to keep away poachers, and do other similar things. If shooting was allowed on farms, the first thing would be that they would have to part with gamekeepers. When shooting and popping of guns was going on all over an estate, it was impossible for the keeper to keep proper control over that estate. He would be always compelled to run looking about after them, and in the result would have to go to his master and tell him it was no use keeping him, because it was impossible for him to protect his employer's interests. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would take that into his consideration, because he was sure a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House shared his opinions, and he spoke impartially. For several years it had been his habit to allow his tenants to kill rabbits on their farms whenever and however they liked, except by the gun; and in no case had he found them take advantage of the privilege. His tenant farmers would despise him, and say that he acted as a cur, if he did not say this now, for when he was returned not a word was said about game. His tenants knew perfectly well if he was asked to vote for the abolition of the Game Laws he should meet them with an answer. They never asked him such a question. He accepted the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and he, for one, opposed the use of a gun at all by the tenants or occupiers of land. It was a privilege of the landlord, and one which should be kept by the landlord, and must be rigidly looked after, if they hoped to have any sport in the country. He thought it most unfair for those hon. Members who had enjoyed sport all their lives to say that their children should be deprived of it. He hoped his children would live to enjoy it as he had done. He felt sure he was only expressing the sentiments of the tenant farmers who supported him in his division when he said that he hoped guns would not be allowed, but that the sporting amusements of those who were privileged to have them in this country would continue. He apologized for having trespassed so long on the time of the Committee.

said, he had not had the slightest intention of saying a word on the Amendment. He was perfectly satisfied with the arguments he had heard from the hon. Members from Scotland, West Gloucestershire, and Wales at the back of the Treasury Bench. He could not help thinking that if the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. D. Davies), who spoke so sensibly on the question, had had charge of the Bill, he would have made a much better Home Secretary than the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had the conduct of the measure. His reason for rising was, because a delicate allusion had been made to him by a right hon. Gentleman who always endeavoured to spare the feelings of other people when he referred to them in the House, he meant the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). He (Lord Elcho) bad risen to reply at the same time as the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and that noble Lord had anticipated the observations he intended to make. He had said that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary wished the Bill to pass he should not allow the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to speak. For his part, he (Lord Elcho) would make it concurrent right between the two right hon. Gentlemen. Whenever the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster got up and wanted to speak, the Home Secretary should have the right to stop him; and whenever the Home Secretary was on his legs to address the Committee, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should have the concurrent right to prevent him, with the view of getting the measure through. The right hon. Gentleman had threatened them with extreme measures in order to pass the Bill, and possibly, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, his (Lord Elcho's) exhibitions in regard to the Bill had not been to his credit; but he wished, at the same time, to point out that for the last 33 years his views had not changed on this subject of game. Since 1847—as the hon. Member for Hertford could vouch—when he (Lord Elcho) resigned his seat for East Gloucestershire and became elected for Haddingtonshire, he had always protested, and he still stood there to protest, against what he considered vicious legislation. ["Agreed!"] He had been personally attacked, and he claimed the right of personal reply. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Bright) had directed the fire of his artillery upon him. Now, the first contest he had in this country was on a game question. A Mr. Welford stood against him—["Order, order!"and "Question!"]—what he was saying was to the point, because they had been threatened with an appeal to their constituents. This gentleman to whom he referred published a book on the Game Laws, containing a preface. A preface by whom? Why, by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. And what did that preface say. It was in the form of a letter to the author, and it said to the farmers of England this—

"The remedy is in your hands. The law has given you the game, and if by contract you choose to part with it you sign your own degradation."

That was a right and sensible view of the question, and he mentioned it to show not only that he had fought on the Game Question for many years, but that the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were more rational in 1847 than they were at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the word "cantankerous;" but he was himself famous for his good Saxon, and he (Lord Elcho) should have thought that this was as good a Saxon word as could have been used. But the hon. and gallant Member for West Gloucestershire (Colonel Kingscote) had not applied it to all farmers. Far from it. He spoke of what he called an outside case, and they ought to guard against such cases—that was to say, cantankerous tenants who were always quarrelling with their landlords, and who would exercise the privileges contained in the Bill harshly, and to the destruction of game. Did they object to this principle of legislating for what were called outside cases? Why, the whole of their Irish legislation rested on such cases, the most extreme cases; and he therefore ventured to think that the Amendment was a sound one, as it simply guarded against the abuse of the power given by the clause.

said, he was quite willing to agree to the concurrent-right arrangement suggested by the noble Lord, provided he (Lord Elcho) would also consent to be one of the silent Members. He hoped the Committee would now divide. He had no particular interest in that Proviso, and was perfectly ready to drop it, if the Amendment were agreed to up to this point. If that were done, he would abstain from moving any more of the Proviso. ["No, no!"] Well, he was bound to say that he had had very little encouragement. Since he had made the concession, he had been subjected to more hard language from the opposite side of the House than he had ever been subjected to before. He had no interest whatever in pressing this Proviso on the Committee, and he was quite willing to take the advice of his noble Friend and say no more. If the Committee wished it, he would withdraw the Proviso. He would move nothing further, and would leave the matter as it stood.

said, he did not wish, to put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but it should be understood what was the question raised by his Motion. It went simply to the question whether there was to be a limit to the number of persons to be employed by the tenant. The principle of the Bill was in order to prevent abuse, to limit the power on the part of the landlords; and then, on the other hand, he thought they were bound to consider how the power on the part of the tenants should be limited. After the encouragement he had received, he thought it would be undesirable that the Committee should commit itself on the point at the present moment. There was much reason in the proposal he had made, more particularly in the form in which it was put by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) that there should be no limit as to ferreting, but that there should be some limit as to the number of persons employed. By getting rid of the Proviso the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would not get rid of the question, because it cropped up in the Bill in the Interpretation Clause. It was a question the Government should consider; and, therefore, after what had been said, he would defer it till the Report. He thought the proposals of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would be a better way of dealing with the matter. He would ask the Government whether they could not, without injury to the tenant farmers, make the concession required. He hoped to be able to dine with some of his own tenant farmers in the course of two or three days, and to hear what they thought about it.

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Yes.

said, he had made many attempts to catch the Chairman's eye, but without success. By the Amendment, only one other person besides the occupier would be able to use the gun for the purpose of destroying ground game. Upon that came the suggestion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), which was not at all, as it seemed to him, open to the objections urged before. It would be well, therefore, to defer the matter until the Report.

certainly thought this was neither fair on the Bill nor the Committee. What happened was this. The hon. Member behind him (Sir Edward Colebrooke) brought forward an Amendment which was intended to raise a certain question. A long time was spent in discussing that question, and now that they were ready to determine it, the Amendment was withdrawn in order that the same question could be raised again at some future time, and another hour or so spent upon it. If hon. Members wished to delay the Bill, he could not conceive a course more calculated to effect that object.

said, that indirectly the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary accused him of obstructing the Bill—["No, no!"]—Well, it seemed to him so. He had endeavoured to catch the Chairman's eye six or seven times, to say that the discussion should not proceed, and that his was the better Amendment. Having failed to catch the Chairman's eye, he felt it rather hard that he should be blamed for it. He gave Notice to the Clerk at the Table that he was going to suggest that the matter should be taken on Report; therefore he did not think that he should be blamed.

said, he would ask the hon. Members for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and the other Leaders of the Fourth Party, whether it would not be well now to allow the Committee to go to Business? Fancy Irish Members sitting there trying to facilitate Business, and listening to the noble Lord endeavouring to obstruct the Business of the Committee! After an Amendment had been proposed, and after they had lost nearly two hours in debating it—no, not in debating it, but rather in discussing across the Table personal issues—it was proposed to postpone the matter till the Report. He had to complain that they were threatened with the loss of another two hours, and complain on behalf of the Irish Members who remained there anxious to have the Business of the House got through, whilst all this obstruction was being pursued. He protested against it, and trusted that the Committee would note who were the leaders of the obstruction, so that when charges of obstruction were made against his countrymen it would be seen who had set them the example.

The Question is that the Amendment be withdrawn.

said, he entirely agreed with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down (Mr. A. M. Sullivan). He agreed with him that personal remarks across the Table had a great tendency to obstruct the Business of the Committee, although he could not agree that they had no right to discuss the Amendment. If there were Obstructionists who dealt with personal matters across the Table, he would leave it to the Committee to say who, in that sense, were making the obstruction. He did not rise for the purpose of making this observation, but to induce the Committee to look more carefully at the position in which they stood. The Bill as originally drawn by the Government, he imagined, was a measure which, considering the general interest of the country and not the interest of any one class, the Government thought they could recommend to the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had since brought forward certain Amendments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in placing his Amendments on the Paper, had introduced them, he presumed, because, as responsible Minister of the Crown, he regarded them as an improvement of the Bill, and calculated to render the measure more acceptable to the country. But if the Opposition ventured to criticize some of the points of the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to suggest alterations of their own, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman at once declared that he had no interest in the matter, and that he would at once withdraw the Amendments he had proposed, the suggestion being received with cheers by hon. Members opposite. He did not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to withdraw the Amendments. If he did the Committee would be in this position—the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have recommended the introduction of Amendments which he considered requisite for the improvement of the Bill; but he would not have pressed them, and would have given the Committee no opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman took the course which he seemed inclined to adopt, the only result would be to display, in the most marked form, the ignorance and vacillation of Her Majesty's Government. He wished to know whether, after that Amendment was discussed, the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to be withdrawn?

hoped the Committee would now be allowed to make some progress with the Bill. There was no reason, after what had been said by his noble Friend (Earl Percy), why they should not come to a decision upon the present Amendment, and then proceed to discuss those of the Government. He did not wonder, after what had passed, including the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary should have displayed a little warmth in regard to the progress of the Bill; but he could not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously proposed to withdraw his Amendments. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had sat there for a good many hours for the purpose of discussing them. If they were adopted the Bill was one which he was fairly disposed to accept. He did hope, therefore, that the Committee would now go on with the serious consideration of the Bill.

remarked, that if the prospect held out by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), that the Amendments would be fairly considered, was likely to be realized, he would accept the conditions of the right hon. Gentleman and be ready to place them before the Committee. He trusted there was some hope of their being fairly discussed. He would not say whether or not there had been an indisposition hitherto manifested to go on with the practical consideration of the Bill; but if there was a reasonable prospect of the Amendments being fairly discussed by both sides of the Committee, he was quite ready to submit them to the Committee.

could assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was as desirous of discussing the Amend- ments as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He had himself been waiting patiently for more than an hour to move an Amendment; but when they were charged, as they had been repeatedly, with obstruction, and especially by the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke from the back Benches just now (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), he must venture to ask to be allowed to place this fact upon record—that there were at that moment, and had been for the last 2½ hours, two great obstacles delaying the progress of the Bill, both of which came from the other side of the House. One was a reasonable one, and the other was a most unreasonable one. One was the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), which he (Mr. Chaplin) thought was worthy of discussion, and the other was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had done more to delay the progress of the Bill than anything that had taken place during the whole of the discussion. He had merely risen to place these facts on record in vindication of hon. Members on that side of the House; and he trusted that if hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to see the Bill passed they would be a little more careful how they made unjust charges against hon. Members on that side of the House.

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section "a," line 2, to leave out the word "habitually."

remarked that the alteration would not make any difference.

I agree to the Amendment.

knew that the right hon. and learned Gentleman agreed; but he did not make any concession by doing so.

moved as an Amendment in sub-section "a," line 2, to leave out "resident," and insert "residing."

said, that what was intended by the sub-section was that the son or nephew who was living with the farmer, or the widow woman, or the tenant, should be allowed to go out with the gun; but he did not think their intentions would be carried out if the word "residing" were used.

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section "a" line 3, to leave out "on the land" and insert "in the house." He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would consent to the Amendment. "On the land" seemed completely out of place for people who lived in houses on the land.

did not think it would be wise to confine the residence to one tenement. On large farms some people lived in houses other than that of the farmer himself.

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section "a," line 3, to leave out "persons in his ordinary employment on such land." He was aware the question had been raised before; but he ventured to raise it at that moment, because he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary; should see that to allow everybody employed on the land to kill bares and rabbits, by shooting or other means, would be to give a far greater power than was necessary. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. D. Davies) had said that all that was wanted were one or two people to kill hares and rabbits, and that had been echoed by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. The effect of giving every labourer the power to kill hares and rabbits would be that these men would become nothing better than poachers.

thought that some discretion should be left to the farmer as to how many men he employed. He would not be likely to employ more men than were necessary.

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section "a," line 4, after "person," to insert—

"Not having been within five years convicted of any misdemeanour or other offence under any Act relating to game, or poaching, or killing of hares and rabbits, and."

The Amendment was one which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary could well accept. It was a reasonable one, because its object was to prevent, by a farmer, the employment, as agent, of any person who was a notorious poacher, or who had been convicted of misdemeanour.

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) if it was a fact that country gentlemen—landlords—were prohibited from employing as gamekeepers any of these men? He would like to ask the hon. Member if it was not notorious that the class to whom he belonged found old poachers very excellent gamekeepers? He would also like to ask, if the adoption of the Amendment would not afford an example of the grossest class legislation, unless the prohibition sought to be placed upon a farmer were placed upon a landlord?

said, he could not accept the Amendment, because it would really create a new penalty. The effect of it would be to fasten the brand of disability upon a man who might wish, by honest employment, to recover his position. The farmer would have to inquire about the man who might have come from some distant part of the country; and if it were ascertained that he had committed some offence against the Game Laws, he would be marked as a man who had suffered a penalty, and would be debarred from employment for the purpose of killing or taking ground game. He could not conceive anything more socially unjust or undesirable, and he would, rather tear the Bill to tatters than accept the Amendment.

said, the Amendment appeared to him quite the reverse to unreasonable. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) asked him if landlords were in the habit of employing old poachers? He could not speak for others; but, so far as he was personally concerned, nothing would induce him to take into his employ a poacher who was considered in the neighbourhood to be a notoriously bad character. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon it; but, in vindication of himself, he must be permitted to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was very frequently the case that in a country parish, and adjoining almost every estate, there would be found three or four persons who were notoriously bad characters as poachers, and from the very fact of their being poachers they were exceedingly skilled in the destruction of game. He had understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say throughout that the object of the Bill was to protect the crops, and not to destroy sport. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant that he could not conceive anything more likely to destroy sport than to allow farmers to employ poachers or whoever they thought proper, he quite agreed with him.

moved, as an Amendment, to add at the end of subsection"a"—

"Only one other person besides the occupier shall be permitted to use a gun for the purpose of destroying ground game."

He knew there were many hon. Gentlemen upon the Conservative side of the House who desired to take the sense of the Committee as to whether a gun should be allowed at all; but, in the first instance, his Amendment might well be submitted to the Committee. He had already explained the object of it, and on that account would not trouble the Committee with any further observations.

wished to call attention to the sub-sections which he had placed on the Paper by way of an addition to the clause, with the object of limiting the right conferred on the occupier by that section. He proposed to submit, in the first instance, sub-section (a), and then to move a single clause in place of sub-sections (c), (d), and (e), which, he thought would be able to accomplish the object of those sub-sections in a more simple manner.

said, that what he now proposed was the addition of the following sub-section:—

"Every person so authorized by the occupier of the land, or by any person having a concurrent right to take and kill ground game, shall produce to the person authorized to demand it the document by which he is authorized, and in default shall not be deemed to be an authorized person."

That would enable the owner or person authorized to ascertain whether the person who was engaged in shooting, or in walking over the land, or doing anything on it, was an authorized person or not. He would have a right to demand to see the writ of authority; and if the writ of authority was not produced, he would be in the position he would have been in under the former law, in a case where a man was acting without authority. He hoped that hon. Members would see that this gave an adequate security. It was really of the same nature as the remedy which the Revenue had at present in regard to a certificate. If the owner of the land saw a person he did not know, he would be authorized to ask him to produce his authority. That, he believed, would answer all practical purposes, and would serve all the purposes he had proposed to accomplish by sub-sections (c), (d), and (e).

thought it was scarcely possible to discuss the Amendment in the limited time at their disposal; but he wished to ask one question, as he had not heard the first part of the Amendment. As the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman now stood on the Paper, they provided that notice of any authority given by the occupier to kill ground game should be served on any other person or persons entitled to kill and take game on the same land, and on the collector of Inland Revenue for the district in which the land was situated. He gathered from the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in future, no such notice would be served, but that simply any person exercising the right conferred by the clause might demand to see the authority of any other person to kill ground game on the same land. The question was an important one, and it would be really impossible to discuss it before the hour for adjournment arrived. He therefore suggested that the best course would be to report Progress.

said, he would not press the Committee to come to a decision upon the Amendment at once. With respect to the notice being served, it was thought that there might be some difficulty. A notice of seven or 14 days would be required; but it was thought that the best legal remedy against unauthorized persons exercising the right would be to give a right to see the writ of authority under which he acted, just as was done now for the protection of the Revenue. That seemed to him to be an adequate protection, and it would get rid of a good deal of trouble.

said, he could hardly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point; but it was hardly possible for the Committee to discuss the question until they were able to see the exact words of the proposed Amendment. He thought the alteration proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was likely to give trouble and create disputes. It would not be a pleasant thing for a person duly authorized to be met by a gamekeeper and asked what his authority was. It would be far better that the gamekeeper should be told beforehand who the persons were who were authorized to exercise these powers. If possible, he would propose an Amendment to that effect.

believed the proposal submitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would provide facilities for poaching, because the tenant, or any of his labourers, or any woodman, might be there, but not having written authority, they would be unable to interfere, and would be required to stand by and see poaching going on without being able to put a stop to it. Looking at the question in a practical light, he thought it would be far better that it should be known who the people were who had the right to go upon the land. If the Bill were to pass, it would be very advantageous to reduce as much as possible the friction which might result from it; and now it seemed to him that the most friction would be caused by the occupier's agents and the gamekeeper. He thought it was not desirable to give more facilities than were possible of creating ill-feeling between the landlord and tenant. At all events, he thought the clause in its present shape would work very fairly and practically, and would create less friction than the Amendment now proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

thought that it was utterly impossible to discuss a new clause they had never heard of or seen before at a moment's notice. The best thing for the Government to do would be to have the clause printed and laid before the Committee, so that they might know what they were going to discuss. The proposal made by his right hon. and learned Friend was one which he did not clearly understand; and, as the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had pointed out, it might have a tendency to encourage poaching. He would, therefore, suggest that, as it was within 10 minutes of the usual time, they should report Progress, and have the clause printed before they resumed the consideration of the Bill in Committee.

suggested that an addition should be made to the clause to provide that the Inland Revenue officers should also be authorized to see the certificate of authority. The existing law would not allow them to do so, and they would have no right to demand to see the authority, unless provision were made for them in the Bill. He thought it would only be necessary to add the words "Inland Revenue officer." If that addition were not made it would materially affect the Amendment which he (Sir Alexander Gordon) had lower down on the Paper with regard to notice. By that Amendment he proposed that a person should not be admitted to be duly authorized by the owner to kill ground game under the section until seven days after notice should have been duly served in compliance with the sub-section; and he proposed to insert the words "Inland Revenue officer," so that it would be necessary to serve the notice upon that individual. The seven days' notice would enable the landlord to make inquiries as to what persons were authorized to exercise the privilege of shooting ground game. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been good enough to act on this suggestion, and had inserted a provision requiring notice to be given within seven days after the shooting commenced; but when the Amendments were printed for the second time the paragraph relating to notice was struck out. The Amendment which he (Sir Alexander Gordon) had now on the Paper lower down was to provide that the shooting should not begin until seven days after the landlord and the Inland Revenue officer had notice. He thought that such a provision would prevent a good deal of annoyance. For instance, a landlord might go into a field to shoot and see a person already engaged in shooting, who would have just as much right to shoot as himself, but with regard to whose right he would be in complete ignorance from not knowing that any person had received permission to shoot. That might cause a collision between them, although both had an equal right to shoot. He therefore thought it was very desirable to require notice to be given of the names of all persons who were entitled to shoot.

said, the suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was, that the sub-sections now on the Paper were complicated, and it was only reasonable if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could suggest words that would carry out his intentions in a better way that they should be considered. But he thought the advantage of requiring some notice to be given should not be lost sight of. It was most desirable that the tenant should be called on to state clearly at some time to his landlord who were the persons authorized to shoot over the land in his occupation. It was highly necessary that there should be a good understanding between the landlord and the tenant, and that there should be no difficulty as to the right and authority of persons to kill ground game. He would suggest that, at all events, the earlier part of subsection (d) should be retained, and then the rest of the sub-sections could be modified afterwards. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered it necessary, the question of giving notice to the collector of Inland Revenue could also be dealt with. He thought the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Alexander Gordon) would be quite sufficient—namely, that the collector of Inland Revenue should be authorized to ask for the authority, and that its production should satisfy him. He did not think the existing clause required any substantial change.

thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his desire to facilitate the convenience of hon. Members who were interested in the Bill, had gone somewhat too far. It was not a case exactly similar to the granting of a game licence. Licences were generally given to persons who were known in the neighbourhood. If no notice were required and a written authority were all that was necessary, such written authority might be handed from one man to another on the estate, and it would be very difficult to identify the proper person, and to ascertain whether he was really the person who had the leave of the tenant.

said, the clause as it stood, without the Amendment proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, would be unworkable. In the first place, the farmer would have to give written authority, not transferable; next, to send notice to his landlord; and, in the third place, if the game was let, he would have to send notice to the lessee of the shooting, and also to the collector of the Inland Revenue. He would have to take precaution to post all those letters to all those different individuals; and when all these conditions were observed no one could prove whether he had given written authority or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had done well in withdrawing these vexatious conditions, and merely stipulating that any person authorized by the farmer should have written permission, and be bound to show it to anyone who had the right to ask for it.

dared to say that the conversation which had taken place across the Table was very interesting; but it was quite unintelligible to those who had not seen the Amendments. He would request the right hon. and learned Gentleman to move to report Progress, so as to allow the Committee an oppor- tunity of seeing the Amendment, or he (Mr. Chaplin) would himself move that the Chairman should report Progress, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would inform the Committee on what day next week the Bill would come on again.

said, he was unable to give the hon. Member any information at present as to when the Bill would be taken again. He had had a lesson, which he would not soon forget, in regard to fixing days for the future consideration of Bills.

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say before what day the Bill was not likely to come on?