said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill had, on a former occasion, promised to bring forward various sections and sub-sections; and, by so doing, he had succeeded in uniting hon. Members behind him during the whole of that day's discussion. But, instead of proposing the sub-section laid on the Table of the House, he had produced that now before the Committee. To that Amendment he (Mr. Heneage) gave unqualified opposition. He believed it to be, in itself, absurd; that, in practice, it would prove to be utterly useless; and lead, besides, to the utmost difficulty and confusion. From the moment when the Bill was introduced, he had given it his most earnest support; and should have been contented to remain perfectly silent throughout its passage through the House, had not the present sub-section been moved. But he felt he could not, for a moment, refrain from offering some remarks upon that clause. He had, up to the present time, never believed that the Bill would lead to any ill-feeling between the landlord and the tenant; but he had always entertained the opinion that if such a thing were to happen, it would be created by the gamekeeper and the agents of the occupier. In his opinion, the greatest enemy of the Bill could not have contrived anything more calculated to injure it than the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who proposed that any gamekeeper, having in his pocket a written authority, might demand from the agent of the occupier a written authority for killing rabbits and hares. Now, he (Mr. Heneage) would like to know, whether anybody of common sense would imagine that the paper authorizing this act could always be carried about by the person so authorized? The idea was absurd, and the proposed clause would result in continual watching, one of the other, on the part of the gamekeeper and the occupier's agent. It was well known that the Revenue officers were entitled to ask anyone in the pursuit of game for their game licence; but that right was never exercised, except in cases when the officers had received information beforehand that the person did not hold one. They never ran the risk of asking for the licence indiscriminately. But the present proposal stood on a very different footing. It would tend to create ill-feeling, hard words, and even blows, between the gamekeeper and the occupier's agent. The Amendment standing in his (Mr. Heneage's) name did not propose any regulations of a more stringent character; it simply endeavoured to deal with this part of the subject in a more concise and less complicated form than the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, he did not propose to move that Amendment at that moment; but simply to propose the omission of the words from "every" down to "person," inclusive, in the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought the sub-section, if carried, would lead to an increase of poaching, and bring before the magistrates a great many cases of petty assaults, in which there would be a good deal of hard swearing, and a consequent difficulty on the part of the magistrates in deciding fairly between the man authorized to kill ground game and the gamekeeper. He trusted the Committee would reject the proposed sub-section entirely.

said, he had no particular affection for the sub-section which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) was so desirous of striking out, and, with the approval of the Committee, he had no objection to offer to its omission. He understood the hon. Member to say that he did not propose to move his own Amendment, and he would observe that when the Notice of that Amendment was placed on the Paper, he thought it was open to objection on good grounds—namely, that it would require tenants to be constantly serving notice upon their landlords, and, in case of dispute, to prove either the personal delivery of the notice, or the posting of the letter containing it. That, he had understood from persons interested and well able to judge, would be extremely vexatious and disagreeable. He had therefore felt that the notice would have to be given up; but he also felt he was bound to give some substitute for it, and the sub-section now before the Committee was the result. The hon. Member had described this as being most absurd; but it seemed to him that when a man received authority to do something in writing, it was only reasonable to suppose that it was given with the purpose that somebody should see that writing. The clause, therefore, having established that written authority should be given, the sub-section was proposed to show that such written authority should be produced. If, however, the Committee thought that the authority given in writing was a thing which nobody would see, he had no desire to press the sub-section.

said, he thought the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) a most reasonable one, and that it would give great satisfaction to persons who had any reason to believe that their property would be liable to be trespassed upon under cover of the Bill. For his own part, he (Mr. Rodwell) regarded the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a safeguard and protection. He would make one observation in reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Heneage) who moved the omission of the sub-section—namely, that the Revenue officers never asked for the game licences of persons when shooting, unless they were perfectly certain that they had not their certificates with them. He could not agree with the statement of the hon. Member. He had been present when the Revenue officers asked for the certificates of one of the largest landowners in the county of Suffolk, as well as those of eight other persons who were shooting in his company; and he was aware also of another case of the kind, where the officers succeeded in surcharging. He could not see any possible objection to the production of the written authority by the person to whom it had been given. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby might possibly answer as well as that moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he should prefer the latter, and if that were set aside, they might get no Amendment at all. He should therefore vote against its omission.

said, there was a very wide difference between the Revenue officers asking for a shooting certificate, and Tom, Dick, and Harry, hanging about the squire's house, asking anyone whether he had got with him permission from the tenant to shoot ground game. Under the proposed clause, if anybody who received permission to shoot did not happen to have it in his pocket, he would be regarded in the light of a poacher, and could, consequently, be punished either by fine or imprisonment. The number of persons authorized to demand the written authority ought surely to be limited. He could understand that a gentleman occupying the manor house might give written permission to his coachman, or groom, to make themselves a nuisance, in the way of asking persons for their authority to shoot; and as it was probable that certain individuals would have permanent authority to shoot over the tenant's land, the groom and the coachman might lay snares for them with the view of their being treated as poachers, in the event of their happening to be without the written authority. He had been glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) say he had no great affection for the sub-section, and he hoped he would show that he had no affection for it at all by leaving it entirely to the Committee to decide whether it should be introduced into the Bill or not.

said, he was sorry when he heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary begin the discussion in Committee by throwing cold water on his own Amendment, to which, on the contrary, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) thought he was bound to adhere, inasmuch as he was pledged to provide some substitute for the very elaborate series of securities which he placed on the Table a few days ago. The present Amendment was in substitution of the Registration Clause which was announced on that occasion; and, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought, if consistent, to show his sense of the necessity of some such clause. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) did not deny that perhaps something more satisfactory might be devised; but the clause would, at all events, in his opinion, work well. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell) had spoken of a shooting party in Suffolk being asked to produce their certificates by the Revenue officers; and, with reference to that, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was bound to say, although he wished the Revenue officers in the country showed a great deal more zeal in the discharge of their duty in that direction than they did, that he had never met with such a thing in his life. But if such a thing were to happen as an authorized person being found without his written authority, the man would not, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had suggested, be liable to prosecution as a poacher. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would adhere to the Amendment.

said, he had no strong affection for the sub-section of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary; but he thought it a fair and reasonable provision. It would appear that the written authority of the tenant was to take the place of the game certificate. Whoever went after hares and rabbits must either produce a game certificate or writing from some person having authority to grant permission to shoot ground game. In his opinion, the clause was not open to the dangers sug- gested by his hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). He apprehended that the person shooting with authority would either have the certificate in his pocket or at home, and any difficulty in the case of a person acting bonâ fide would easily be settled. Therefore, he thought the provision was only reasonable, and that the Committee should accept it.

said, he thought the speech of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) gave an exact description of the clause when he spoke of the ill feeling which it would create. He (Mr. Chaplin) could not, however, agree with the hon. Member that it was ridiculous and absurd, because it was no more open to that charge than the Bill itself, which had met with the hon. Gentleman's approval. But, as a matter of fact, he (Mr. Chaplin) was opposed to all these petty limitations; and as he considered the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to be more in favour of the tenant than that of his hon. Friend opposite, he certainly preferred the former.

said, that more particularly on behalf of the tenants of lands, as well as in the interests of landlords, he urged the adoption of the Amendment. A tenant might be employed at some other part of the farm, and be unaware that some person unauthorized by him was sporting on his land, and it was not reasonable to suppose that tenants would keep gamekeepers to protect their interests; but the Amendment proposed would put it in the power of the landlord's gamekeeper to protect the tenant's rights as well as his master's. He thought that the name of the person authorized to shoot should be known in some way—if not in the manner proposed—either by the names being placed on the church door as in the case of gun licences, or by being given to the officers of Inland Revenue.

said, he had heard with regret the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary propose to withdraw his Amendment. Was he right in understanding that the appointment of an agent carried with it his exemption from payment for a game certificate and gun licence?

said, he desired to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary how these limitations of the Act were to be enforced? He presumed that they were intended to be enforced in some way; and, therefore, he inquired what would be the penalties attaching their non-fulfilment? He was opposed to all these limitations, on the ground of their absurdity; and, moreover, because they would be likely to end in the establishment of some grievance between the owner and the occupier. Such details as these could not possibly be fixed by Act of Parliament; therefore, it was absurd to attempt to include them in the Bill, and he should certainly vote against them. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would take the reasonable course of allowing these matters of detail to be fixed by private arrangement.

said, he thought that as few Amendments as possible ought to be introduced into the Bill. It was proposed that one party concerned should make the other thoroughly acquainted with the persons to whom he had given authority to destroy ground game, who had not only to produce their authority to the proprietor, but to any number of agents whom he might send into his fields. It would be seen that there was, under the proposed clause, nothing whatever to guard the occupier from any amount of inconvenience on that account; and, therefore, he thought it would be better to leave the arrangement of the whole matter to the landlord and the occupier.

said, in answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), that any person not acting under the authority of the Bill would be in exactly the same situation as he would have been before it passed.

said, that being so, a person duly authorized to shoot, who refused to show his authority, would not, under the clause, be deemed to be an authorized person, and if brought before the magistrates they would not be entitled to acquit him of any charge on the ground that he was an authorized person. That seemed to him a substantial objection to the clause.

said, that addition to the Amendment seemed to him to introduce a new definition of the term "occupier." It had been his intention, therefore, to propose its amendment by leaving out all the words after "Act," and inserting "unless he be rated to the relief of the poor in respect of such occupation." Every occupier was liable to be rated to the relief of the poor under the Acts relating thereto; but as the hon. Member for Carmarthenshire (Mr. Powell) had stated that there were many occupiers in that county who were not rated to the relief of the poor, and as he (Mr. Pugh) understood the point would be raised on Report, he did not intend to move the Amendmeut standing in his name. His particular objection to the clause was that a great portion of the uplands in Wales were in a condition in which it was not easy to ascertain the tenure or right under which they were occupied, and, therefore, he was opposed to the insertion of a clause by which the rights in question might be prejudiced.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the sub-section before the Committee, which, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary accepted, would have the effect of removing some of the chief objections which he (Mr. Chaplin) entertained to that sub-section, and which he had taken the liberty of expressing upon the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." He complained of the Bill not so much on the ground of its interference with freedom of contract, as upon that of the harsh and unnecessary restrictions which it sought to impose upon individual liberty, and because it embodied the principle of confiscation. The principle of interference with individual liberty was one which appeared to him to be of a very dangerous character; it was one which was gaining ground upon the Front Bench, opposite, and ought, in his opinion, to receive a check. He had been severely taken to task on a former occasion for saying that the Bill involved the principle of confiscation; but he ventured to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and those behind him, that no answer had ever been given to that statement; and until an answer was forthcoming, he must beg respectfully to adhere to it. He had directed the attention of hon. Members to the case of the occupier who was also the owner of the land; and, secondly, to the case of an occupier who was tenant of the shooting, as well as of the farm, with the right of sub-letting the shooting. Upon that occasion he believed he had demonstrated clearly that in both, cases, the Bill would deprive those persons of a marketable commodity, and one possessing a pecuniary value, without giving them the slightest compensation for the loss sustained. If that was compensation, he could only say that the word had lost its meaning. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might contend that this argument was based upon a fallacy, because the Bill did not prevent a person in possession of the shooting from sub-letting it. He (Mr. Chaplin) granted that to a certain extent; but the Bill only allowed him to sub-let on conditions which would utterly destroy his value of the right. He need not point out to the Committee that no one would take shooting where the winged game he desired to preserve might be disturbed at all hours by another person who had the right to go after the ground game. At present, he must remind the Committee that in both of those eases the person in the possession of the shooting had the power of letting the sole right to the ground game. Under that Bill they were going to give the tenant the concurrent right to the ground game. Now, the sole right might be worth 1s., 1s. 6d., 2s. 6d., or even more, an acre; but the concurrent right was worth absolutely nothing. Therefore, they were, by the Bill, depriving people, in these two cases, of a right having pecuniary value, for which they gave them no compensation whatever. He asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept his Amendment, in order to remove a most evil principle from the Bill. What possible objection could there be to let an owner, farming his own estate, sub-let the right of shooting, free from any restrictions? He really hoped the Committee would accept so much as that, at all events. Then he came to the case of the occupier. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might tell him that that would defeat the whole intention of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "Hear, hear!" He (Mr. Chaplin) would tell them if he thought that would be the result, honestly, he would not propose it. They were now discussing the Bill with a desire to improve it; but he could not see how that was to be, unless they said farmers throughout England were the most hopeless people in the world. How could they compel a tenant to take the shooting, if he said he would not? Landlords, in these days, must let their farms; and he could feel, from his own experience, there was a very great difficulty to do that, and many were unable to do that on any terms whatever at present. The tenant was not obliged to take the shooting, and he could not be compelled to take it, and would not take it, unless he desired. He contended the Amendment would not interfere with the vital principle of the Bill, and it would preserve to the tenants, in whose interests the Bill was framed, a valuable right. He did hope that, under those circumstances, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see his way to accept the principle of the Amendment. He, therefore, begged to move his Amendment.

said, he would deal with the second portion of the Amendment first. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) had asked how the tenant farmer could be compelled to accept the right to kill game? He (Sir William Harcourt) would answer by saying nothing about it; by letting the lease be silent on that subject, and then Common Law would give the right. He would just point out how the hon. Mem- ber's Amendment would work, if it were accepted. The landlord would draw up a lease, saying nothing about the game. This was the favoured scheme of many hon. Gentlemen who had Amendments on the Paper. The lease would be silent about the game; and, therefore, by Common Law or Statute—it was disputed which—the tenant would be lessee, having the right to kill game with power to sub-let that right. That would be, if he took the lease. Then the landlord presented to the tenant an agreement to let the game to him, he having the right, to let it, and, that done, the Bill would be defeated. The Amendment would thus absolutely negative the whole principle of the Bill. That Amendment, and many others in something the same terms on the Paper, all had one object in view—that the tenant should first be given the absolute right to the game which, as he had said, could be effected by making the lease silent on the point, and then inducing the tenant to re-let the game to the landlord. That was his objection to the second part of the Amendment. But with regard to the first, his objection was not so strong. It was, however, entirely inconsistent with the words already passed, because they had declared in an earlier part of the Bill that the right to kill ground game was to be incident and inseparable from the land. The whole principle of the Bill was contained in those words, and if they were not adhered to, the Bill was useless. As he had said before, those words contained the whole of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 were merely explanatory clauses, and they were not actually wanted in the eye of the law; but they were put in in order to make the meaning of the Bill more clear than it might be to persons who were not in the habit of criticizing the words of a Statute. But the fact was, that the Committee passed the whole Bill when they passed the words—

"Every occupier of land, who is not otherwise entitled to kill or take ground game thereon, shall by virtue of this Act have, as incident to, and inseparable from, his' occupation of the land the right to kill and take ground game thereon."

"I will let you the shooting, but I must deal with the ground game; and if you are dissatisfied, of course you need not take the shooting again."

said, the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was a very ingenious one; and, as a fact, it might be true that a collusive arrangement might be made between owner and occupier; but he had overlooked the fact that occupiers of land, even under the Act, might sometimes be persons who would be desirous to sub-let the shooting. His nearest neighbour in Hampshire occupied a farm from a non-resident landlord, and held the shooting as well. At that moment he was endeavouring to let his shooting, and was asking 3s. an acre for it. In these days, when a man had absolute control over the land, he might find this right of game a valuable addition to his income, and it would be a great shame if he could not still retain that. But with regard to the owner, he did not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any answer to make at all. In Hampshire, he (Mr. Sclater-Booth) occupied himself 500 acres of shooting from a gentleman who was both owner and occupier of the land. They were neighbours and friends. There was no game on his friend's farm; but it was a matter of convenience to him to occupy it, because it came in between other lands on which he preserved game; and, of course, it was convenient to his friend to receive the rent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Amendment was contrary to public policy. The fact was, this was one of the numerous points which arose under the Bill, showing the extreme difficulty of dealing with this complex subject in this general and absolute way. He did not see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had answered the point in reference to the owner as occupier at all; while with regard to the second point, he was ready to admit that there should be a Proviso inserted.

said, he had received communications on this particular point which he wished to lay before the Committee. As to justice, he would not talk about that; for that was one thing, and the principles of this Bill were entirely another. No one could deny that the measure as regarded this particular case was monstrously unjust. He could ask the Committee to bear in mind the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the second reading of the Bill. What did he then say was the case for it? He rested his case on the fact that the intention of the framers of the Act of 1831 was that the right to pursue and kill game should be vested in the occupier of the soil, and that, by reason of a power which landlords possessed, that that right had been evaded. Suppose they admitted the grievance. It was a grievance, then, in the case of all occupiers whose landlords reserved the right of the shooting. But he wanted the Committee to consider, not the case of those occupiers, but the case of other occupiers who now, at that moment, had, by the Act of 1831, or at Common Law, the right to pursue and kill game on their lands. He had received from gentlemen in that position communications to the effect that, at the present moment, they did alienate and divest themselves of this right, and they were free to do so by the law, and they did it for a valuable consideration. Those gentlemen contended that if the Bill was carried in its present form, that right would be entirely valueless. Of course, no one would give anything for shooting of a mixed character over land where the tenant had a right which the State said he should not divest himself of. He maintained that no answer had ever yet been made to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Chaplin) on that particular point. If the tenant farmer in England at the present moment was not sufficiently powerful to maintain, as a condition of his occupation——

Sir, I rise to Order. I think the Question before the Committee——

Order, order!

said, he was distinctly in Order, he believed; but, of course, hon. Gentlemen did not like to have the truth told them. If the tenant farmers in this country were not now sufficiently powerful to obtain from their landlords, as a condition of their occupation, the right which the law gave them, how would they be able to make it a condition of their occupation that they should enjoy this inalienable right? The fact was, that even after this Bill passed, the question of ground game would continue to be a matter of agreement between the landlord and tenant; and the only difference between the two cases would be that at present it was a legal agreement, while in future it would be an agreement not legal, but nevertheless binding between the parties in honour. He knew, in this matter, the rules of justice and, perhaps, of political economy, certainly the principles of liberty, would not be considered by those who had determined to vote for the Bill, and to support the Bill for the purpose of obtaining some political advantage. He contended that those were the real reasons which actuated a great many hon. Members in the course they were taking in supporting a measure which infringed principles formerly held sacred by the Party to which he had the honour to belong. It was the last time he should protest against the Bill and its infringement of great prin- ciples; and, therefore, he would make one last appeal to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and beg to draw his attention to the words of an eminent Statesman, to whose utterances he thought his right hon. Friends would pay respect, if not, perhaps, reverence. Those words were addressed to a public meeting in 1872, at a time when the Liberal Party was in power, and when a certain system of social measures, restrictive in their character, had made that Government rather unpopular in the country. They were words of warning addressed by a Liberal politician to the Government—

"It is very necessary that those who take part in public affairs should make up their minds very clearly upon the limits of the province of the Government. There seems, day by day, a growing disposition more and more to invoke the interference of Government in every relation of social life. I believe this to be a most dangerous tendency, and one to which it is necessary to offer an early and determined resistance. It entirely accords with the principles of men who believe that the Government cannot govern unless it is always interfering with everybody and everything, and that the best way to do people good is to make them as uncomfortable as possible. But these are not, and never have been, the tenets of the Liberal Party. It there be any Party which is more pledged than another to resist a policy of restrictive legislation, having for its object social coercion, that Party is the Liberal Party. The proud title which it has assumed proclaims the principle on which it is founded to be that of liberty. I am against the whole system of petty molestations and irritating dictation, whether by a class or by a majority. I do not admire a grand maternal Government which ties nightcaps on a grown up nation by Acts of Parliament."

said, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would not accept the first part of the Amendment, he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) did hope that he would accept the other part; for he could not understand why persons, who were both owners and occupiers at the same time, were to be prevented from letting their shooting. He wanted to know who would be injured if owners let the shooting on their own occupa- tion? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could show any injury which would result from the insertion of that Amendment in the Bill, he would be very happy to support him; but, for the life of him, he could not see how anybody would have the slightest grievance if that part of the Amendment were accepted. As to the other part, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that all the landlord had to do was to leave out the mention of shooting in the lease, and the Bill would be defeated. This was a difficulty, however, which would be met if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would insert in the Amendment a condition that shooting should be mentioned in the lease, and consideration given for it. He did hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman would see that this was not an Amendment in opposition to the Bill. Hitherto, he had supported the measure because he believed it was a very good one, and was necessary for the preservation of the crops of the farmer from injury from ground game; but, at the same time, he did not wish to see that principle carried too far, and he could not understand why the Amendment should be refused.

said, where the crops and the land belonged to one man, he did not see that they had need to legislate for him. He was quite ready to admit that there must be some check upon the over-preservation of ground game; but the 1st clause did that effectually, and he was not aware of any grievance where the tenant owned the land. For his part, he (Mr. Biddell) thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) was quite correct in saying that the Bill did confiscate a right. He (Mr. Biddell) hired certain land, and when he hired it he gave more for it because of the game. He had got the land, and had on it the game; and he had something else—namely, rheumatism in his ankles, which prevented him going out after it. Now, under those circumstances, why should he be prevented from letting the game? Of course, it might be said that he could let it to a tenant who would rely on his honour not to shoot it. The whole of the Bill resulted from honour being broken. It was the offspring of misplaced confidence. No honourable landlord ought to eat up his tenant's crop without consideration. If they could rely on honour they did not want the Bill at all. They did not want any enactment where the tenant was landlord and occupier too. If he got hurt from game he must take the consequences. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would re-consider this question, and see whether, as a considerable part of the land in England was held by men who also owned the game, this law should be allowed to come in and interfere in such cases. Besides, if the Bill passed, he would not be able to let his harvest men kill rabbits without sending notice to the Inland Revenue. Why should the tenants have that put upon them? It seemed to him that the measure went a great deal too far, and he hoped it would be limited to cases where the owner preserved ground game.

said, the grievances which had been dwelt upon were entirely imaginary, as were the difficulties raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He (Mr. James Howard) happened to be both owner and occupier, and was, therefore, in a position to judge. Certainly, in the matter of game, he felt himself perfectly master of the situation, and if he felt inclined to let it, he saw no practical difficulties in the way. In regard to the position of his hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell), he would say that if he wished to let his game he could do so. Notwithstanding his concurrent right, his game undoubtedly had a certain value. If he killed it down, or interfered with the sport of the man he let his game to, the result would simply be that he would have a difficulty in finding a tenant next year. That was all this alleged grievance amounted to.

said, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had declared that his (Mr. Chaplin's) grievance was wholly imaginary, and seemed to consider that he had completely answered him by saying that he was owner and occupier. So far from his grievance being imaginary, he could tell the hon. Member that if he had ever made inquiries into the matter, he would find that he was entirely mistaken. The hon. Member said the game would continue to possess a certain value; no doubt, it would; but that was not the question. The point he (Mr. Chaplin) submitted to the Committee was, would the value of the game be the same, or would it be seriously diminished by the Bill? He maintained, against all comers, that the value of the shooting, when the Bill passed, must be seriously diminished; and by every sixpence that it was so diminished the Bill was confiscating the property of certain individuals. The answers of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary on these points had been completely unsatisfactory from beginning to end. He suggested that the landlord would evade the law by saying nothing about game in letting the farm. Was the landlord to be the only person who would have something to say at the letting? Was the tenant such a "ninny" that he would not see what the landlord was up to? It really seemed to be supposed in that House that the tenant-farmers were the most helpless people on the face of the earth. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was no such thing as confiscation, and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire had said the same thing, he would beg to put a practical case before them, asking the Committee to remember as an apology for that delay, that he was submitting a real grievance, and that he should be very sorry to see the principle of the measure carried without discussion, and in the unsatisfactory manner which appeared to be likely at the present moment. To take the case of an owner of land of 1,000 or 2,000 acres, which he farmed himself, situated at no great distance from the Metropolis, that would be a shooting for which there would be a great demand, especially when there was a desirable residence on the estate. He did not hesitate to say that the shooting on that estate would be worth something like £300 a-year; but if the tenant had the concurrent right to kill game, and to disturb all the game, would not that diminish the value of the letting? He could only say that after the Bill passed, he would not give 5s for the shooting, and that if he did he would be a great fool. The right hon. and learned Gentleman more strongly objected to his (Mr. Chaplin's) second proposition. Well, then, he would make a compromise with him, and would move his Amendment down to the word "thereof" first; and in doing that he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept it, and would not be thoroughly false to what they would otherwise be obliged to suppose were all flashy sentences, in days gone by, about the liberty of the subject, the liberty of individuals, and the liberty of the Liberal Party. That must be the conclusion that they would have to come to, if they found him, on an occasion like this, forcing this Bill with the aid of his mechanical majority down their throats; a Bill in which the liberty of the subject was interfered with in a way that it had never been in English history before.

It will be necessary first to withdraw the Amendment as a whole, and then to propose the first part separately. That this Amendment be withdrawn ["No!"] Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The Question is—["No, No!"]—Is it your pleasure that this Amendment be withdrawn. ["No!"]

What, Sir, is the position of the Committee?

Permission to withdraw an Amendment must be unanimous, and as that permission was not unanimous the Amendment stands. The assent was not unanimous.

I must object, Sir, and I must ask for your ruling on this matter. I distinctly heard you say "Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;" and then the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, after you had used those words, challenged your decision.

The "Noes" did not reach me actually; but I was told that there had been cries of "No," and, therefore, I was bound to take notice of them.

I rise to Order, Sir. After you had said that the Amendment was withdrawn, I heard you go on to say "the Question is" as if you were going to put the further Question. Then it was that the challenge was given. I heard you distinctly say that.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) is perfectly right. The cry of "No!" did not reach me, and I said—"Amendment, by leave, withdrawn." I was assured here that there was a cry of "No!" before I said so, and it is always the practice to correct a misapprehension by again putting the Question.

I rise to Order, Sir, and I should like to ask that Mr. Speaker be called in, if there is any doubt upon the matter. The question is, whether when the Chairman of Committees has said that an Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn, and has begun to put another Question, it is then possible for the decision of the Chairman of Committees to be withdrawn, and for the Question of the withdrawal of the Amendment to be again put? I should say that a decision once given cannot be afterwards retracted; and it is not possible, after it has been given, for any hon. Member to contradict it.

I believe, as a matter of Order, that if the Chairman or the Speaker puts a Question "Aye" or "No," and says—"The Ayes have it," and it is challenged, even after having determined that the "Ayes" "have it," he can put it again. All I can say is, that from the very moment the question of withdrawing the Amendment was put, I cried "No!" and so did a dozen hon. Gentlemen behind me. I cannot understand how there could be any misapprehension on the point.

There is no appeal from the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker. This question is of quite common occurrence. If by some mistake the word "No!" does not reach the Chairman's ears, and there is a misapprehension, it is a very customary thing to give the Committee an opportunity of correcting the mistake. In this case, the cries of "No!" were not heard by me, or by either of the Clerks at the Table; but as I was assured they were uttered, I desired to remove misapprehension by again asking the Committee.

I was going to say, Sir——

I rise to Order, Sir; and, if necessary, I shall move to report Progress. It is not an appeal to you, Sir, and the illustration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary is not in point. It is not a question of whether "Aye!" or "No!" was said. You said—"Amendment, by leave, withdrawn;" and then you added—"The Question is." On which some of those Gentlemen opposite them challenged the decision you had already given. Every hon. Member heard it, and I think it is most important that when you have given a decision you should not go back upon it, because some of those hon. Gentlemen say it is wrong.

Well, Sir, not to waste time, I will ask hon. Gentlemen behind me to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn.

said, he could not help envying the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) in his proud position of owner and occupier—master of the situation. It reminded him of the famous words of the poet Cowper—

"I am monarch of all I survey;

My right there is none to dispute;

As occupying owner, I say,

I am lord of the fowl and the brute."

said, the wit of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was, unfortunately, lost to him (Mr. James Howard), and to hon. Members sitting near him, on account of the imperfect articulation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he had missed the whole point of his (Mr. James Howard's) argument. The simple question before the Committee was the value of these sporting rights; and, on that point, he maintained that an owner or occupier had the matter entirely in his own hands. If he behaved well to his shooting tenant, the sporting rights would be of the same value as heretofore; and if he did not, but took an undue liberty with them, then their value would be reduced. And this held good also in respect of a tenant who had the power to let his shooting.

said, the next Amendment he had to move was of a different kind; but he was almost afraid to move anything now, after the rejection of his last proposal, which appeared to him the most reasonable Amendment which probably ever was moved. The object of his Amendment now was to avoid the annoyance, which would occur under the Bill, to a gentleman who was an owner of a residence and park, who let his park for grazing, and lived at the house. It would, of course, be highly objectionable to a gentlemen when he was in the residence, after he had let his park for grazing, that he should be annoyed night and day by persons being about killing ground game. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment.

said, he had intended to meet this Amendment as far as he could by the last sentence of sub-section 2. He knew that land was let out for the grazing of cattle a good deal in England, and in his own part of the country they called it "agistment." He was obliged to place the limit at nine months in that subsection, because if he had made it twelve it would have taken out of the Bill all grazing land, and would have excluded from its operation every case of permanent pasturage, although pasturage suffered as much from rabbits as any land. It could not, of course, be admitted that all pasture lands should be omitted from the operation of the Bill. He fully admitted that when a man let the grazing of his park he ought to be protected from disturbance of persons shooting the game there; but the second part of subsection 2 would really do that, because nine months covered the Whole time for which parks were occupied for that pur- pose. A man would let his park for nine months for grazing, and then he would have the protection of the subsection.

said, he knew that certain parks were let from year to year, and that letting would have to be altered in order to bring those cases within the operation of the sub-section; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make it twelve months in his sub-section instead of nine no difficulty would arise. They evidently both had the same object in view; but he only wished to carry out the arrangement completely.

said, that if he did alter it to twelve months, that would practically bring in the case of all pasture in England, which was let usually on yearly agreements. If the hon. Gentleman was very much dissatisfied with that he would consider it, and deal with the matter fresh on the Report; but he really thought his sub-section met the difficulty, and he could assure him he was very anxious to effect what he desired.

said, he did not wish to stop the Committee; but he would press the importance of making this twelve instead of nine. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"]

said, he must press his further Amendment, which dealt with the case of tenants who had game to let. He had been told by several hon. Gentlemen that they would suffer serious loss if the Bill passed. He knew cases where the whole of the shooting on the land was let to the tenants at 6d. per acre, and the tenants had sub-let it for 1s. or 1s. 6d. They thought that that right, after the passing of the Bill, would not be worth anything at all. His Amendment was moved in the interests of the tenant; and, therefore, he must have a division on the Amendment, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give them an assurance that, before the Bill was finished, he would introduce some clause giving compensation to the tenants for the loss thus inflicted upon them. If he would do that he would not go to the division. If, on the other hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman persisted in his present proposition, he must ask the Committee to divide.

said, if twelve months would shut out the whole of the pasture land in England, why could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary make it ten or eleven months instead of nine? He might, at least, put up his limit to the longest possible period.

said, he had an Amendment before they came to the word "nine." It was to leave out the word "less" and insert "not more."

When the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) is disposed of, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member can be put.

wished to know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary objected to his Amendment?

said, that he was aware that the period mentioned in the sub-section was not the ordinary period of letting, but that of grazing, in Scotland especially. If he allowed "twelve" to be inserted the Bill would be evaded, by letting a farm for 364 days, for instance, instead of 365. The period fixed upon was one by which they hoped to avoid evasion.

asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that in certain parts of Ireland the letting was for eleven months? In that case, or where the letting was for twelve months, they would clearly come under the operation of the Bill.

said, he would submit that the Bill ought to be confined to what appeared on the face of it—namely, bonâ fide tenants or occupiers; and as long as the owner, or lessee who was not the owner, occupied the land himself, his right to the ground game should be unrestricted. Nothing less than twelve months made a man an occupier, or a ratepayer even; and, therefore, he would submit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not consistent when he placed a period of less than twelve months upon the Paper.

said, he thought the hon. Member for Cam- bridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) did not quite understand the object they had in view in putting that period in the sub-section. It was to make it perfectly clear as to who would be, and who would not be, considered an occupier for the purposes of that Act. The object was, in fact, to clear up any doubt which might exist.

said, that the Preamble stated that the Bill was introduced—

"In the interests of good husbandry, and for the better security for the capital and labour invested by the occupiers of land in the cultivation of the soil."

said, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept twelve instead of nine. In some parts of Ireland, as he had already stated, it was the custom to let land for eleven months; and, therefore, if nine were retained in the Bill, the tenant for eleven months would enjoy a right which the tenant for nine would not possess.

said, that if he accepted the Amendment the greater part of the grazing land in England would be excluded. He must, therefore, decline to do so.

moved to omit the word "less," and insert the words "not more," in line 4 of the sub-section.

said, he would now ask leave to move an Amendment to add words at the end of the sub-section which would give the tenant the right to sub-let the shooting. Many landlords let the shooting to the tenants, and the tenants sub-let it. He wished to preserve to the tenant the property he had thus acquired.

said, that he would not repeat the arguments that he had already used to show why the Amendment should not be accepted. That identical Amendment had already been before the Committee, and had been withdrawn. He had already stated that the Amendment would allow the whole Bill to be evaded, for it would enable the tenant, on whom a right was conferred, to sign it away. He should like the Committee to remember the remark of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell)—namely, that the Bill did not deal with rights larger than those of a tenant farmer. That, he wished to say, would be adjusted by an Amendment which would be found on page 20, by which he proposed to add, at the end of Clause 2, these words—

"Save as aforesaid the occupier may exercise any other or more extensive right which he may possess, in respect of ground game and other game, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as if this Act had not passed."

said, he did not know whether the illustration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was really meant to be taken literally; but he would point out that it was entirely at variance with the 3rd clause of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that where a shooting tenant agreed to give £30 for the shooting he might say—"If you exercise your concurrent right so as to damage my interest I shall not pay you £20." The Committee would see that, according to the terms of the Bill, "any agreement which gave any advantage in consideration of forbearing to exercise his right should be void."

said, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had declared that his Amendment was aimed at the vital principle of the Bill. He entirely denied the accuracy of that, except on the supposition that the farmers were the most stupid and helpless people in the country, instead of being, as he believed, the best men of business. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not met the charge that he had brought—namely, that he was depriving the tenant who had possession of the shooting of a valuable right without giving him any consideration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and quite truly, that the tenant might let the concurrent right, perhaps, at £50 a-year. He contended that the concurrent right was infinitely less valuable than the sole right. Where one could let the concurrent right for £50, the sole right would be worth £150. It was that £100 a-year they were going to deprive them of without any compensation whatever. He protested, once for all, against legislation of that kind; and, therefore, he must divide the Committee upon the Amendment.

said, he merely wished to state that if his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) divided the Committee he should divide with him. If his right hon. and learned Friend, after what had been said in that debate, wished it, he would give him privately the name of a large landowner whose tenants possessed the sole right, and would not be able after the passing of that measure to make anything like the same amount by letting the shooting.

said, that the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) seemed to misunderstand the object and scope of the Bill. He (Mr. Rodwell) had protested against its being said that the tenant farmers could not, under the existing law, protect themselves. That was, no doubt, the cause of the Bill, and its object was stated to be also in the interests of good husbandry. The hon. Member had referred to the subletting of the shooting at 1s. an acre, and had asked whether they supposed the farmers to be feeble and helpless. It was exactly because they were feeble and helpless, and that they had proclaimed themselves to be so, that that Bill was brought forward. It was only upon that ground that the Bill could be justified. Therefore, he did not think that his hon. Friend could ask the Committee to introduce a clause which would not protect the farmer, or be in the interests of good husbandry. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment. He did not know whether others took the same view of it; but it appeared to him (Mr. Rodwell) to be entirely foreign to the Bill, and opposed to it.

said, there could be no doubt that considerable injustice had been done, and that the object of the Bill was to take away a right from the landlord and confer it upon the tenant, in order, if possible, to remove that injustice. He trusted that the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) would withdraw his Amendment.

said, he believed there was a good deal of truth in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). Many tenants did, undoubtedly, value their right to sub-let the shooting. An agent of some large properties had told him that there were, at the present time, tenants waiting to know the results of the Bill, and two or three would refuse to take their farms if it became law, because they had been in the habit of making 1s. or 1s. 6d. an acre by the shooting. He believed that it would be a bonâ fide wish of the tenant farmers that the Bill might be defeated, especially when they knew that they would not have the opportunity of letting the right to shooting to the landlords.

said, that what the hon. Member had just stated might be true, if they were going to place anything invidious to the farmers in the Bill. It was precisely because they had no intention of doing that that they refused to accept the Amendment.

rose to say that the Bill was of so extraordinary a character that it was desirable, on every possible occasion, to dot the i's and cross the t's. [Cries of "Divide !"] He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. He wished to know whether he would not protect hon. Members speaking in that House. He objected to hon. Members opposite, who had only occupied their seats but a very short time perhaps, and representing Radical constituencies or newspapers, interrupting his remarks, when he had not said anything whatever disagreeable. He trusted that the Chairman would give that protection they had a right to expect from him. Having said that much, he would pursue his remark. He wished to point out a remarkable thing in that discussion, and that was that a Gentleman such as the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), who posed before that House and the country in the character of the farmers' friend, should make such a statement as they had just heard—namely, that the farmers were in a state of infantile impotency, and incapable of making a bargain.

said, he never made use of any such expression. What he did say was, that the farmers were, to a certain extent, feeble and helpless. That was a very different thing from "infantile impotency." He would explain what he meant, and he thought that the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) would see that he was right. On large properties in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, for instance, the abandonment of the sporting was a condition precedent to a lease. Farmers could not go to the landlords and ask them to give up the right of shooting, however much damage might be done to their crops. Therefore, to that extent, they were helpless. They had a bare right, but no power. He did not doubt but that, in other respects, they were as fully competent to carry on their business as other people. A tenant would as soon think of asking for the use of his landlord's drawing-room or cellar as for the right of sporting over his farm.

said, that what he stated was that it was the friends, or rather those who posed as the friends of the farmer, who spoke of the farmer as being in a state of infantine helplessness. The expression used by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Rodwell) was feeble and helpless. He (Lord Elcho) believed infancy was feeble, and infancy was helpless; therefore, he had simply expressed the same sentiments in other words. But, as to the point raised, it had been said that the tenants in Suffolk had not the right of shooting, and that the landlords would be very much astonished if they asked for it. He had enjoyed many day's shooting in Suffolk, and he knew that the farmers in the county were called upon to pay 5s. per acre less than the market value, in consequence of the shooting right being reserved. ["Oh, oh!"] It was so, and he repeated it as a fact. He had shot very many times on an estate which, as he thought, had far more ground game than there ought to be on any farm; but the tenants did not complain, and why? Because they got their land at 5s. per acre below the market value. And what would be the effect of the Bill? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary knew quite well that the measure was a sham, and that land, instead of being let at 5s. per acre below its value, would be let at its full market value. If, however, the tenant did not exercise his rights, probably the full value would not be pressed.

said, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rodwell) had stated that the farmers of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire were feeble and helpless, and unable to protect themselves. That was the character his hon. and learned Friend gave the farmers, and not the character he (Mr. Chaplin) gave them. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) told them that, as far as he was acquainted with farmers, instead of their being unable to protect themselves, one-third of the farmers of the whole country already enjoyed the right of sporting. Farmers with whom he (Mr. Chaplin) was connected were amongst the most independent men he knew in the country; and he thought the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rodwell) was an admirable argument in favour of scheduling certain districts of the country in the Bill. If his hon. and learned Friend cared to move an Amendment scheduling Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire, and other parts with which he was acquainted, in the Bill, he would not oppose him. He hoped, on the other hand, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow him and others to say that they would rather be exempted from the operation of the Bill. In spite of all the appeals made to him on that question, he should divide the Committee; because it was one upon which he felt very strongly. He should divide the Committee in the interests of one-third of the tenants of England, who, on the authority of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. James Howard) had the right of sporting already.

said, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) suggested that certain counties should be scheduled in the Bill; and he (Sir William Harcourt) supposed that the hon. Member also meant that other counties should be excluded. He would like to ask the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench what their opinion was. He would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) would like to have Hampshire excluded? and he saw sitting on the Bench opposite the two Members for the County of Devon. He would like to know whether they would like Devon to be excluded? In fact, he would extremely like to know the views of county Members generally on that subject, and who were the people intending to be candidates at the next Election who would vote for the exclusion of their counties from the operation of the Bill.

in moving to add to Sir William Harcourt's Amendment in page 1, line 16, after sub-section 2—

"Or by reason of his holding (whether fenced or otherwise, extending into a mountainous district, except on those parts of such holding as shall be actually under meadow or crops,"

said, that the effect of adding the proposed words to sub-section 2 would be that the Bill would not operate on those lands at all. He did not wish to place Irish tenants in a far more disadvantageous position than the English or Scotch tenants, which would be the effect of the Amendment. The truth was that in Scotland the occupiers of moorlands had insisted upon the necessity of having protection, at all events, during the limited part of the year. If he were to agree to the Amendment, he would consent to the Irish tenants farming mountain lands having less protection than was given to Scotch and English tenants. He could not see any justice in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman. The mountain lands in Ireland ought to be placed on exactly the same footing as those in Scotland—that was to say, the right would not be exercised at a period when, in the opinion of Scotch landowners and tenants, it was desirable that they should not be interfered with for the purpose of preserving grouse. He did not wish to interfere with grouse or with grouse moors; and, by general concurrence, it had been agreed that sub-section 4 provided adequate protection for them. He could not assent to the Amendment.

said, he was very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had refused to accept the Amendment, for it was already felt that the farmers of Ireland were placed in a worse position than those of England or Scotland. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tottenham) had spoken of a conference of Irish Members. He (Mr. Sexton) was not aware of any such conference having been held; and he was confident that the Members of the Irish Party with whom he generally acted knew nothing of it. On the contrary, they were unanimously opposed to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

moved that sub-section 3 be added to the Bill—

(3.)"The occupier shall not, nor shall any person authorised by him, use any firearm 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 authorized by him, shall employ spring traps above ground for the purpose of killing ground game."

asked, if his Amendment to omit the whole sub-section had better be taken at that point, or after the Amendments to the clause?

The Amendment to omit the whole of the sub-section would come here.

said, it would facilitate the course of Business, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would say whether he would accept the Amendment.

said, he could not give the hon. Member (Mr. Brand) the slightest encouragement. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the proposal to strike out the limitations contained in the sub-section was only another method of defeating the Bill. These limitations were introduced in order to satisfy a good many hon. Gentlemen who would otherwise have opposed the Bill. He was very happy to think that on that side of the House the spirit in which the sub-section was proposed had been accepted in the most cordial manner. A number of hon. Gentlemen, who at first were inclined to oppose the Bill, now gave it their cordial and loyal and constant support. He did not think there was anybody on that side of the House, except the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand), who, since these Amendments were put on the Paper, had shown any hostility to the Bill. Under those circumstances, he should consider it very unfair to those Gentlemen who now supported it in consequence of these Amendments to withdraw them or any of them upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stroud, who, in the first instance, attacked the Bill from the extreme Liberal point of view, and then, when it was not successful, from the extreme Conservative point of view.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well that he had persistently opposed the Bill. He (Mr. Brand) admitted that the principle had been accepted by the House; and, that being so, it was a very ungracious thing to include these restrictions, which were exceedingly vexatious and annoying. There was one reason why the Committee should not accept the proposed limitation—namely, that the limitation must be enforced by a penalty. He wished the Committee to bear in mind that these limitations and all other limitations must be enforced by a penalty, either in the Bill itself, or else by a penalty under the Poaching Act. There was an Amendment on the Paper to omit Clause 7 and insert a clause repealing the 12th section of the Act of 1 & 2 Will. IV. He understood that the 12th section of that Act, so far as it was inconsistent with the present Bill, would be repealed; but still the penalties in that Act would be maintained, so that if the tenant acted in contravention of that clause, and either shot before sunrise or after sunset, or employed traps above ground, he would be liable to a fine of £2, and to £1 for every animal he killed. That was a very curious limitation to attach to the right. A great many hon. Gentlemen in the Committee supported the limitation on the ground that it would encourage sporting. At the present moment, the sporting was entirely dependent upon the goodwill and concurrence of the tenant; and what he said was—"Let them trust, in these matters, to the goodwill and good understanding between landlord and tenant. Let them make agreements in that, as well as other matters; and do not let them put into Acts of Parliament penalties to enforce these limitations upon the tenant farmer." It was agreed, too, that traps used above ground were cruel. If that were so, it was a good reason why the restrictions should be imposed upon all alike. There was no justice in imposing the restrictions upon tenants and not upon the landlords themselves. Believing that all these details would be best met by the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), and intending, as he did, to vote for that Amendment, he begged leave to omit the subsection.

really wished to know at what point the Committee had arrived. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had risen to answer the statement of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand); but the Chairman of Committees ruled the proposal to be out of Order. He, therefore, assumed that some doubt might arise as to the remaining portion of his Amendment. He did not intend to go into the matter; but he was bound to say that his right hon. and learned Friend had not set the good example they would naturally have expected from him, especially when they had been getting on so quickly with the Bill. The question which he had to raise was a very important one, and it was one which, although it had been referred to, had never been absolutely raised in the discussion of the Bill up to the present time. He referred to the question as to the use of the gun. He daresay that, so far as his own county was concerned, there would not be the least objection to allow the use of the gun to the tenant farmers.

The hon. and gallant Baronet's Amendment will come on subsequently; I have only read down to the words which precede his Amendment. If they are negatived, then the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet will come next. I had only read down to the words "ground game." The Question is that those words be there added.

wished to know exactly what the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was.

understood that the Amendment applied to the rejection of the entire sub-section 3.

thought the way in which the Question stood at present was this. The Chairman had put the words of the sub-section down to the words "ground game" in the 2nd subsection, and the Question proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was that those words should be there inserted. If these words were carried, then the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) would be at liberty to move the rejection of the entire subsection; and in the event of the proposition of the hon. Member not being carried, it would be competent for other hon. Members who had Amendments on the Paper to move them. At present, the whole of the sub-section was not put to the Committee, but only part of it.

apprehended that there was one point which hon. Members did not perceive. It was this—that they could not put a subsection in the way in which they would put a clause. They must first amend, and then vote for a clause; but a subsection occupied the place of an Amendment, and must be taken line by line; and if a vote was to be taken upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stroud, it must be taken at the beginning, or it would be too late. In the first place, the Committee would, as it were, decide the question of principle whether there ought to be anything in the clause in the nature of the sub-section proposed, and if it was decided that there should be, it became competent to discuss the wording of the sub-section.

The Amendment is that—

"The occupier shall not, nor shall any person authorised by him, use any firearms for the purpose of killing ground game."

said, he had a word or two to say in regard to the Amendment. He quite entered into the feeling of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) that if they could not deal with the Bill in the broad way in which they had proposed to deal with it, perhaps it was hardly worth while fighting over the mere details of the measure. But it was stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite hat the object of the Bill was good husbandry and the protection of the crops of the tenant by keeping down ground game. But that could be done more effectually by traps, gins, and nets, than it could be by guns. That was notorious to anybody who knew anything of the matter. Therefore, if his right hon. and learned Friend was simply anxious to do what he professed to do, he would exclude the use of the gun altogether. But the argument for the use of the gun by the farmer rested altogether upon another ground—namely, upon a sentimental basis. The argument used on that (the Opposition) side of the House was a very strong one, that if the farmers were to shoot at all it would be practically doing away with winged game. He did not mean to say that the farmers would shoot winged game if they were not debarred. Far be it from him to say anything of the kind; but the argument used on that side of the House was perfectly sound—namely, that it would be impossible for one, two, or any number of keepers to run to every part of an estate, when they happened to hear a shot, in order to ascertain if it was fired by a farmer who was entitled to shoot, or by a poacher. It was a fact that that was the reason why, where leave was given already to the tenants. To kill ground game and keep it down, it was left open, whether they should be allowed to do so by shooting, or by the use of traps and gins. Where traps and gins only were used the farmer was debarred from shooting, so that when a gun went off the keeper knew it was fired by a poacher. To his (Lord Elcho's) mind, that was a very important part of the question, and care should be taken, in granting the right of shooting to the farmer, that it was granted under proper precautions.

said, he did not rise for the purpose of offering opposition to the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to the use of firearms; but this he must say, that he thought, by this proposal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was restricting the right of the occupier as exercised at that moment. He know of many cases in which that would be so. They were all aware that rabbits came out of the preserves in the evening and found their way on the land, and many owners and occupiers were in the habit of killing rabbits with guns after sunset. Indeed, that was the only way of getting rid of them. He was, therefore, of opinion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, by that proposal, was contradicting himself, and restricting, and taking away from the occupier, rights he was in possession of at this moment.

sincerely trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would stand firm by his proposal, and would not be led away by any statements which might have been made on the other side of the House. One of the most experienced farmers in Aberdeenshire had written to him to say that if the Government put in a clause prohibiting farmers from using the gun in killing hares and rabbits they would have done better not to have brought in the Bill at all. He, therefore, hoped the Government would not accept the suggestions which had been made to them.

said, he now came to the question of the gun; and he begged to move to leave out, in sub-section 3, from the word "game" to the word "sunset," in line 3. To a certain extent, the question had been raised before; but it had not been so distinctly raised as it was by his Amendment to the sub-section under notice. If the whole of the country was like his part of it, the county of Sussex, he would not object to the gun; but they had to deal with the whole of England, including the manufacturing districts and the large towns, with occupations in the immediate vicinity of those large towns. As far as they had gone, they had passed a provision enabling the occupier of the land to allow all his labourers, all his family, and one other person to destroy the ground game on his farm. Take the ease of an innkeeper, living near a town, who rented a farm. He would find it very pleasant to allow people visiting his hotel to go out shooting; and under this Bill he could do so by giving them a written permission to go out and shoot ground game. Probably, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that. It was an abuse which would be created under the Bill, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent it. They all knew perfectly well what guns would be used by a great number of these people. They would be far more dangerous to themselves than to the animals they shot at. He did not believe that the indiscriminate use of the gun was ever intended in the first instance, or that it was wished for by the great majority of the occupiers of the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary said this was a Bill for the promotion of good agriculture, and not to confer sporting rights; but here it was a clear sporting right that was given up. He wished it to be clearly understood that that was one of the questions raised by this subsection. A clear sporting right was given not to one person only, but to a large number of people. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could restrict the right, as it was originally proposed to be restricted, to the occupier and his son, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should have said nothing about it; but now they were to have the indiscriminate use of firearms by all to whom the occupier chose to give the privilege. Was it to the advantage of any human being that such a right should be granted? If the Bill passed, could they not trust the landlord to say whether the tenant should use the gun or not? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he could not. He said that he could trust the tenant, but not the landlord. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) denied that the landlord was unworthy to be trusted in the matter, and the Bill cast a most unjust imputation upon him. He denied it, because he knew that, in the great majority of instances, the landlords had already done what was right in the matter. It was a certain class of owners who refused the privilege. It was admitted that one-third of the occupiers were able to sport over their farms already, and he should like to know how many of the landlords had given to their tenants the right to destroy ground game. The question would never have been raised at all if it had not been for the course taken by the over-preservation of game by some few large owners. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

remarked that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had asked—"Cannot you trust the landlords of England to allow the occupiers the use of the gun?" and had pointed to the fact that already one-third of them allowed their tenants to shoot. Then, what was the meaning of that vehement desire to exclude the rest, and what was the meaning of the extravagant lengths to which the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) went in opposing the Bill, if it was not a desire to prohibit the tenant farmer from exercising the right of shooting? The noble Lord said that if they allowed the occupier to use a gun they would never be able to preserve winged game, because if a gamekeeper heard a gun go off he would never be able to find out who fired it. Now, the noble Lord represented a part of Scotland which was the main cause of the grievances complained of by the supporters of the present Bill. [Lord ELCHO: No, no!] It was a part of the country in which game preservation had been carried to an extent that was found to be a great abuse. [Lord ELCHO: No!] He thought the noble Lord objected to interruption; but it seemed that it was only in his own case that he objected to it. He quite agreed with what his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) said, that the treatment of farmers in England generally was much more liberal than in Scotland. In some of the Scotch leases the tenants were forbidden not only to carry, but even to possess a gun; and now it appeared, according to the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, that this was only because the gun might accidentally go off, and would disturb and distract the embarrassed mind of the keeper. Now he (Sir William Harcourt) had been told by an hon. Friend that a farmer he knew expressed his delight with the Bill, and said he had never approved of any measure introduced into Parliament on the subject before. The result of the Bill, however, would be that in future the tenant farmer would be consulted by the gamekeeper, and not insulted by him. It was impossible to represent the objects and results of the Bill more accurately than that. The noble Lord said—"Do not let the occupier have a gun, because he may fire it, and if he fires it off the keeper will not know what to be at." Now, that really expressed the animus of the opposition to the Bill, and it was because he (Sir William Harcourt) thought that that animus was an unfortunate animus, and that such a feeling ought not to exist between the owners and occupiers of this country, that he believed the measure would be, in the highest degree, beneficial. His noble Friend said that he (Sir William Harcourt) knew nothing about shooting. Unfortunately, he had not been able to devote as much time to it as he should have liked, or as many other hon. Members had; but what spare time he had devoted to it he had enjoyed very much. Indeed, it was because he had enjoyed it that he was not as anxious as the noble Lord was to exclude everybody else from a similar enjoyment. They who enjoyed it should be the last persons to prevent the tenant farmers from obtaining a day's shooting, even by accident. He really could not understand the feeling which prompted certain hon. Members to make provision that nobody but themselves should be allowed to carry a gun. He admitted that there was a monopoly at the present moment; but if, incidentally, they said that shooting was an effective method of keeping down hares and rabbits, why was it to be prohibited accidentally? It might afford a little sport to the tenant farmers. He thought it a little hard that his hon. and gallant Friend should have moved this Amendment, because the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, the late Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. E. Stanhope), had proposed an Amendment which involved the same proposition, and the Committee rejected it. The hon. Member proposed that only one person besides the occupier should be allowed to have a gun. The present proposition practically brought up the same proposition again, and a proposition upon which the Committee had already pronounced a decided opinion. They had declared that, at any rate, the occupier and one other person should be allowed the use of the gun. His hon. and gallant Friend now proposed to omit a certain portion of the sub-section which would have the effect of enacting that neither the occupier or his agent should be permitted to use a gun. He would say no more on the subject. The Committee had already rejected the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, and it was utterly impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment now submitted by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex.

said, he was not surprised at the Amendment which had been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). No man was more anxious to protect the crops of tenant farmers from devastations of ground game than he (Sir Massey Lopes) was; no one was more desirous to afford every efficient mode and means for attaining this object, to remedy a genuine grievance, and he admitted that ground game was a genuine grievance. But the Bill, as it was submitted to the House, had two objects in view; the first was its avowed and ostensible one—namely, that of protecting the crops of the farmer, and with that object he heartily sympathized; the second was a latent and concealed one, and that was the handing over of sporting rights from the owner to the occupier. The first object he regarded as a good one. It might be, to a certain extent, a legitimate one, and necessary to the interests of the community. It might be justified even if, to some extent, it interfered with the freedom of contract; but, so far as the second object was concerned—namely, that of giving the right of sporting to the occupier, he contended that it was an object which was unnecessary, impolitic, and unjustifiable. He did not think they would be justified in handing over the sporting rights from one class to another without much more adequate grounds than had already been shown. He admitted that rabbits and hares, ground game generally in any quantity, were a great grievance; but they never would be got rid of by shooting, or by the use of the gun. He did not hesitate to say that the use of the gun in the unlimited way in which it was proposed by the Bill would virtually destroy all sporting. He might mention a case which had occurred within his own knowledge. He happened to have property which was light land, and, therefore, particularly well suited for rabbits. But he found that by giving the tenants the right of netting and ferreting the rabbits all the year round, and of trapping them during three or four months in the year, there was no property of the same extent as free from ground game as his. He believed that rabbits were not to be got rid of or kept down by the use of the gun. The only effectual way to get rid of them—and everyone who had had any experience of sporting knew it well—the only efficient way of keeping down ground game was by netting and ferreting, trapping and snaring. He objected to the Bill, and to the unlimited powers which it conferred, for these reasons. He said, in the first place, that it would tend to discourage and determine leases. Nothing gave so great a security to the tenant farmer, and more conduced to good husbandry, as a lease. In the second place, it would induce owners to take the land adjoining them more into their own hands, so as to have greater control over it, and in order to avoid any differences with their tenants. It was calculated to disturb the harmonious relations which at present existed between landlord and tenant; would be a fruitful source of dissension between them; and Would be an inducement to the occupier to keep up a certain quantity of rabbits and ground game upon his farm. If they were going to give the occupier, all his sons and labourers, and others, the power of shooting, they would take care to have something to shoot at. He was anxious to avoid that as far as possible. He believed there were many farms on which ground game would pay better than sheep; but he did not think it was for the public interest that they should substitute hares and rabbits for sheep. He had been much struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Pugh), who said it was a very questionable move for the occupier. He fully concurred in that observation. He was afraid it would be found if they gave the occupier, his sons, and his labourers, this power of shooting, they would prefer that as an occupation rather than attend to the interests of the farm. The occupier could limit, by this Bill, the number of guns on his estate; but the owner had no power. By this Bill the legislation for a small farm of 20 acres was just the same as for one of 1,000 acres. There was nothing in the Bill to make any distinction, and the man with an allotment of one or two acres would have the same power of shooting over that allotment, not only by himself, but by his sons and his servants, as the man with 1,000 acres. He questioned very much whether such a change would have a beneficial effect. He could instance a property of 10,000 acres, in which there was no farm larger in extent than 100 acres. Estimating, then, that there were 100 farms upon the whole 10,000 acres, they would have at least 400 or 500 men upon it with the right of carrying a gun for the purpose of shooting ground game. Could there be much other sport upon that property, when all these persons would have the right of shooting upon it? It would be perfectly absurd to think that the right of sporting would not be entirely done away with. He wished to know what the arguments of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary were in favour of the unlimited and indiscriminate use of the gun. He told the Committee it would be a gracious act on the part of the landlord; he did not say that it was necessary in order to remedy the grievance complained of. Surely the act of grace should emanate from the landlord, and should be a matter for private contract; it was not necessary to transfer proprietory rights from one class to another, to attain the object in view; and there was no reason why such a right should be made statutory and compulsory by an Act of Parliament. It should be a pure matter of agreement between landlord and tenant. There might be reasons, in some cases, why the rights of the landlord should be restricted; but, in this case, there was no reason for practically depriving the owner of the right of legitimate sporting, which, he contended, would be the effect of this Bill, if carried out as now proposed, and there was no just cause why Parliament should interfere with those relations, in this respect, which had always existed between landlord and tenant. He ventured to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he was really anxious to carry out the object he had in view—namely, that of destroying, or, at all events, of keeping down, ground game—that object would be far better attained by the means which he (Sir Massey Lopes) had pointed out—namely, by netting and ferreting, snaring and trapping—than by the unlimited use of the gun.

wished to point out to the Committee that the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seemed to misunderstand the powers which the tenant farmers would have under the Bill in regard to shooting. According to his (Mr. J. W. Barclay's) idea of the Bill, the tenant farmer would only be authorized to deal with hares and rabbits on his farm by the aid of the members of his family, his ordinary servants, and one other agent specially employed for the purpose. The case suggested by the hon. and gallant Member of an occupier inviting his friends out for a day's shooting on his farm could not take place under the Bill so far as it had been passed. In regard to the position taken by the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the Committee (Sir Massey Lopes), it was somewhat contradictory. At one time the hon. Baronet assumed that there would be no game of any kind left on the land if this Bill were to pass, and the next moment he assumed that the sons of the small farmers would be demoralized by hunting over the farm with dogs and guns. It showed how much imagination entered into the objections raised against the Bill.

said, he was anxious to try and persuade the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to re-consider the Amendment. He (Viscount Newport) understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that his wish was to give to the tenant as much protection as possible, and, at the same time, to interfere as little as he could with sporting rights. He (Viscount Newport) happened himself to live in a very populous district, close to a large town; and he had no hesitation in saying that if this provision were allowed to remain in the Bill, in the part of the country in which he lived, the ordinary preservation of ground game, or the preservation of any game whatever, would become absolutely impossible. He thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstood the argument of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The Bill, which appeared to be aimed at ground game only, would hit mortally all the partridges and pheasants also in these populous districts. He should not have opposed the sub-section had it not gone beyond the purport of the Bill as explained in the Preamble. Everyone acquainted with the question would know that the way to get rid of hares and rabbits was by nets, snares, and traps; and those modes of capture would, he was satisfied, give the occupier ample means of extermination, without the use of firearms. The permission to use the latter was, therefore, unnecessary for the purpose of the Bill.

said, he had never heard a more selfish Amendment supported by a more dog-in-the-manger argument. It appeared that a great many persons derived pleasure from shooting game who did not derive any pleasure from trapping game. Therefore, the opponents of the Bill said—"We will allow you to trap, but we will not allow you to shoot." He wished to know whether the English farmers were to be humiliated in that way by hon. Gentlemen opposite who were their very best friends. The fact was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were pledged to make some concession which they did not like; because, if they did not make it, they would not, at the next Election, obtain the votes of those who returned them to the present Parliament. The concession they were obliged to make was, however, conceded in the most ungenerous manner possible, by their endeavouring to mark the distinction between trapping and shooting—namely, that the former was the act of a humble man, the latter the pastime of a gentleman.

said, he thought the noble Viscount behind him (Viscount Newport) had very truly stated the probable effects of giving the tenant farmer, and anyone he chose to appoint, the right of shooting. He (Mr. Onslow) certainly thought the point raised by the noble Viscount was worthy of the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. It was not, he thought, likely to be an uncommon thing for the agent of a tenant farmer to be somewhat short-sighted; and, under those circumstances, he might endeavour to excuse himself for having killed a partridge or pheasant instead of a rabbit. It would be impossible to prevent this being done to a large extent, when guns were being fired in all directions, so that, under the guise of killing rabbits, all the pheasants and partridges would be got rid of. Therefore, if they were to have any sport left in the country, he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that tenant farmers should only be allowed to kill ground game by means of nets and traps.

said, at the present time, farmers had the right by law of walking over their farms with a gun; but they were not in the habit of destroying winged game in the manner suggested. Therefore, he could not see why they should not have the right of shooting ground game, when the law would allow them to take and kill it. Then they were told that the farmer's agents would kill the winged game in all directions. But he had never found anyone on his own farms, where the principle of the Bill existed, in the habit of shooting, except the occupier or one of his own family; and, as to the servants, the farmer would have something better for them to do for their wages than to find them with guns and certificates to go shooting. With regard to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that publicans would be able to give permission to parties stopping at their houses to shoot game, he did not think that his view would be confirmed, for it would be impossible, under the Bill, for an innkeeper to allow more than one stranger to shoot. He trusted his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would stand staunch to the sub-section he had proposed, and not consent to the Amendment, which would be most humiliating to the farmers and create a just grievance.

said, he would answer the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down, by saying that a farmer, in his neighbourhood—one of his own tenants, who was accustomed to let lodgings—had stated to him that he was glad the Bill had been introduced, because it would enable him to let his lodgings at a better rent, as he should be able to give his lodgers the right to shoot. He understood, as the Bill now stood, any of the household resident on the premises, that was to say, persons living on the farm, as in the case he had just mentioned, would become members of the household, and have the right to go out shooting with guns. It struck him that hon. Members opposite unfairly accused those Gentlemen who opposed the sub-section of an attempt to take away from the farmer the right of shooting. The Bill was introduced to keep down an excessive amount of ground game; but they were assuming that the object of the Bill was to give a right to shoot for the pleasure of the thing. If that were so, he had no objection to it, if done openly and under a proper name, and do not let the Bill be introduced as it was expressed in the Preamble, simply in the interests of good husbandry. It was well known that land was worth so much more with the right of shooting; but he maintained that the Government had no right, under the cloak of giving the tenant the power to destroy ground game, to take away a right from one person without compensation and give it to another. He rejoiced that some legislation on the subject had been introduced; but he asked why it had not been based upon sound principles of legislation? Under the circumstances he had referred to, he trusted the Government would agree in some way to the modification of the clause.

said, he rose for the purpose of pointing out that the person who let lodgings and expected his custom to increase by the operation of the Bill, had taken advantage of the fact that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Grantham) had not read the Bill, and had misled the hon. and learned Gentleman as to its provisions. If he had read the clause, he would have found that the persons authorized to shoot must be bonâ fide employed by the occupier.

said, they had been asked more than once why the landlord was not to be trusted in this matter; but experience had shown that that could not be done. The law already gave the game to the tenant, but the landlord reserved it for himself; and now, when it was proposed that a portion of it should be given to the tenant, it was proposed to leave it to the landlord to do just as he pleased. It had been urged that if the tenant had the privilege of shooting ground game he would destroy all the sport in the country; but it was well-known, with regard to one-third of the country at least, that when the tenant farmer had the right of doing what they pleased with what they found on the land that the land was not devoid of game. Again, it had been pictured that the tenant farmers would be brought up in idleness and think of nothing but their guns and dogs. But that had certainly not been the case hitherto; and, no doubt, many hon. Members on both sides of the House could say that there were as good and industrious farmers with the right of sporting as there were without it. The evil, therefore, which had been held up to the Committee as an argument against the sub-section was clearly imaginary.

said, he thought it would be a hard thing to prohibit the farmer from shooting hares and rabbits, although he agreed it would be good policy to restrict his right to do so. He thought it would be quite sufficient to authorize the use of the gun by two persons only on each farm, and that view had been taken by a number of intelligent farmers who discussed the question in his company on the preceding day. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would provide that the number of persons authorized to shoot should be limited to two.

said, he had been struck by the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes); first, by his statement that the use of the gun was unnecessary for the main object of the Bill; and, secondly, when he said that if the use of the gun was conceded to the tenant it would probably destroy game preserving altogether. As he had before said, he (Mr. Chaplin) was opposed to all these petty limitations; but the present Amendment raised a very considerable question—namely, whether the Bill was intended both to protect and to confer a sporting right upon the tenant. If that were so, well and good; but then it should be openly stated. Do not let it be pretended that the Bill was for the protection of crops, when what was really intended was a transfer of the right of sporting. If the Government were sincere in not wishing to destroy sport, then he thought they ought to accept an Amendment of the proposed sub-section. He was bound to say that he could not consider that a tenant's right of sporting was an adequate reason to justify the Committee in abrogating freedom of contract. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had just told the Committee that the practice of shooting on the part of the tenants had existed for years on his own estate, and had opposed that fact to the argument of his (Mr. Chaplin's) noble Friend (Viscount Newport), who said that the permission to use guns would abolish game preserving altogether. But he (Mr. Chaplin) was bound to say, from what he knew of the hon. Member's estate, that there was not a head of game upon it. The use of the gun as proposed would lead to many difficulties. For instance, the landlord and the tenant might both be out shooting on the same day, and it might very well happen that they shot at the same hare which would be claimed by both, under circumstances in which it would puzzle the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary himself to say to whom it belonged. He thought, therefore, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman desired, as he professed, to interfere no more than was necessary with the right of sporting, he ought to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).

said, he hoped the Committee would understand upon what they were about to divide. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wanted to prohibit the use of the gun to the farmer. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Biddell) wanted the right restricted to two persons on the occupation; and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had put to him a question as to the ownership of a hare that had been fired at by two persons. He really thought they were wasting time by dealing with such trifling questions. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex, which would allow the use of traps and nets, but not guns, reminded him of Lord Macaulay's description of the Puritan's objection to bear-baiting, which was founded not on the pain suffered by the bear, but on the pleasure which it gave to the beholders. He could not understand the extreme jealousy with which hon. Members opposite regarded any proposal which would enable the farmer to join in the sport of shooting. Was the use of a gun to be the privilege of only one class, and was the farmer to be debarred from the pleasure of using one? He was acquainted with but few tenant farmers in England who had not a gun, and although they might not shoot game with it they shot crows and pigeons. There was no precaution against that taken in England, as there was in Scotland. He was certain that if they prohibited the occupier of land from using a gun for the purpose of destroying ground game, it would be utterly unacceptable to the class it was intended to benefit. From the moment of his first introducing the Bill, he had said that if it was to be carried out at all, let it be carried out fairly, and for that reason he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex.

said, he was surprised at the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He had proposed the other night that only the occupier and one person should be permitted to carry a gun, and he was prepared to accept that now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was always trying to throw dirt on hon. Members who sat opposite him; but he could assure him that the Bill would not be carried in that way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not satisfied with allowing the occupier and one other person to carry guns, but would have a host of people doing so, and for that reason he should press his Amendment to a division.

said, an especial reference made to himself by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, obliged him to offer an explanation with reference to the point before the Committee. His right hon. and learned Friend accused all those who wished to restrict the operation of the Bill to what they believed to be the original purpose and intention, of keeping down ground game, of using extreme rights, and being engrossed by selfishness. All he would say in reply to those observations was, that the Amendment before the Committee was the test of the honesty of the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that his (Lord Elcho's) county was the cause of this Bill being brought in, and he would now ask him to state upon what authority he made that statement?

said, he was of opinion that a very extravagant view of the Bill was taken by some hon. Members. It was his belief that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred an amicable arrangement would be arrived at between the landlord and tenant, and there would be sport for both. But where there was no agreement there would be no sport for either.

said, he fully endorsed the opinions expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and was glad to hear that he was ready to accept as an Amendment that the occupier and one other person should be allowed to shoot on the farm, instead of the original Amendment to allow any number of persons to do so. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would see his way to accept that proposal. Some limitations of the number of persons allowed to shoot was certainly necessary.

said, if the farms of England were all of one size, he could understand the reasonableness of fixing the number of men allowed to carry a gun for the purpose of shooting ground game. But, taking the last suggestion that had been made upon the point, was it reasonable that a person farming, say, 2,000 acres, should be allowed to have one man only to shoot the ground game? It would be absolutely impossible that anything like the desired result could be obtained by such limited means. He maintained that to kill down the rabbits and hares upon one estate of 2,000 acres half-a-dozen men would be required at certain seasons of the year. Until all the farms of England were of a uniform size any such proposals were absurd; and he trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would not for a moment listen to them.

said, he was unable, on the present occasion, to vote with hon. Gentlemen with whom he usually acted; and he, therefore, wished to explain the reasons of his decision. He desired to preserve ground game for fair purposes of sport, and he was very much inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Brand) that the effect of the Bill would be by no means entirely to destroy the ground game throughout the country. He would rather hope that it might put down over-preservation; and that, on the other hand, where there was very little ground game now, there might be some after the passing of the Bill. The game was preserved at present, not owing to any legislation, but owing to the good feeling between landlord and tenant. Where they were not on good terms, there was usually no game on the farm; at least, that was his experience, and he had taken some little interest in the question. As a rule, landlords and were on good terms, and, therefore, there was ground game; and if this Bill passed in a fair shape he believed there would still continue to be ground game. It had been decided that in future the tenant was to have a right which he had not hitherto had—namely, the concurrent and inalienable right to the ground game. If that was taken as granted, the question they had now to discuss was how that right was to be exercised. Well, would it not be better for the preservation of good feeling that they should not deprive the tenant of the power to exercise that right in the most agreeable way? If they were to say in an Act of Parliament that a farmer who, in the parts of England with which he was chiefly acquainted, usually had large holdings, and was often in the habit of sporting with his landlord, was not to have the right to use a gun, although he had the right to kill ground game—was not, in fact, to do that which he now did by agreement—they would do more than anything else to set the tenant against that fair preservation of ground game which they all wanted to encourage. Therefore, he should vote in support of the clause as it stood. He wished, however, to make one appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, and that was that he should limit the number of persons on a farm who were to be entitled to use guns. He voted in support of the proposition that the tenant and one other person should be entitled to use a gun, and that seemed to him a fair and reasonable proposition. It was sufficient for the purpose, and was reasonable, as preventing the danger of unlicensed shooting by people who had no right on the place. He hoped it would be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider that subject on the Report; and if he did, all that was necessary to be done would be done in the Bill, and it would be passed in the shape to which he could entirely agree.

said, he was sorry to trouble the Committee; but he had not yet received an answer to his question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to hold him up to the odium of his constituents; but as he had now represented his county for 33 years, which was more than the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say regarding his own late seat, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had better leave him to settle this little family matter with his constituents, and not interfere. But when the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was responsible for this very curious piece of legislation, creating all sorts of new principles, said that it was the excessive game preservation in his (Lord Elcho's) county which had rendered its introduction necessary, he thought he had a right, on the part of the proprietors of his county whom he had the honour to represent, and on the part of his intelligent constituents, the occupiers, who had apparently submitted to this state of things, to ask the right hon and learned Gentleman directly, as far as the Forms of the House would enable him—and he should use those Forms as far as it was possible to get an answer—to state on what authority he made that assertion? His objection to the Bill was that, for the first time, they took away, by Act of Parliament, the immemorial right of one class and gave it to another. He had no objection to that being done by agreement; but to do it by legislation was unprincipled and vicious. ["No, no!"] That was his opinion; and while hon. Gentlemen held theirs, they would, perhaps, allow him to hold his own. This proposition was based on the argument of humiliation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told them the farmer would be humiliated if he could not shoot a hare or a rabbit; but would not there be left a rankling in the bosom of the farmer in a still worse form, so long as he was precluded from shooting winged game? Would there be no humiliation of the farmer, as he walked through his turnips, if he was allowed to shoot a rabbit, to be prevented from shooting partridges? Would there be no humiliation if he could shoot the creeping thing at his feet, but not the rocketting cock pheasant over his head?

said, in the Report of the Committee of 1873, it was stated that the grievance of ground game was especially existent and flagrant in Scotland, and great emphasis was laid upon that. It was quite true that it was the over-preservation of game, especially in the Lowland districts of Scotland, which had brought this matter to a point; while, according to his inquiries and the information which he naturally possessed, as being in charge of the Bill, the most gratitude for it was felt in the Lothians, and he believed he was correct in saying that Haddingtonshire was compromised in that part. He had not been so much in Haddingtonshire as the noble Lord; but he had been there a great deal, and he did believe that this state of things existed there. He had been again asked to limit the right of shooting to one or two persons besides the occupier; but he could not do that, because the Committee had already decided another way. How could he show that they agreed to what the Committee said it would not agree to? Their opinion had been asked upon that point, and by a majority of three to one it had been decided. Therefore, they were wasting their time in discussing the matter any further.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had asked them, if they passed the Bill at all, to pass it fairly and generously. In that view he entirely concurred, and it was with the view of acting in that spirit that he ventured to suggest to him that he should accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and should give those who had the right of shooting partridges the privilege of exercising it without being interfered with by other people. He must maintain that it was only fair to those who had partridge shooting that their sports should not be interfered by persons using guns at the same time for another purpose. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give the owners of partridge shooting three months for the uninterrupted enjoyment of that sport, he should be, for one, ready to give the occupiers the fullest permission to kill ground game as they liked afterwards.

said, he was not at all satisfied with the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the state of things in his (Lord Elcho's) county was the cause of the introduction of the Bill. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: One of the counties.] No; the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the state of things in his (Lord Elcho's) county was the cause of the introduction of the Bill.

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to submit to you, whether the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) is in Order in discussing what passed on the second reading? Is he addressing himself sufficiently to the Question before the Committee?

I think the noble Lord is speaking to the Question before the Committee, because the remarks to which he takes objection were uttered in Committee.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Illingworth) who rose to Order, and was himself so disorderly, could not have been in the House when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary made his speech. If the hon. Gentleman had heard that speech, he had no excuse for his interruption at the present moment. [Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I was not in the House.] Then he (Lord Elcho) might explain to the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was in consequence of the over-preservation in the county which he had the honour to represent——

I rise to Order. It is usual when a Member of this House has said that he has not used the words attributed to him to accept that statement. I was speaking of all Scotland, and I said the county represented by the noble Lord was one of those in which over-preservation occurred. I expect that that statement of mine should be accepted.

said, he was very glad to accept the statement as it was now made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, though he still denied the over-preservation.

said, he could not help feeling that it was a hardship to exclude an occupier from using a gun on his farm; but, at the same time, the unlimited use of guns was very objectionable. When they were discussing gun licences, that seemed to be the opinion of the Committee, and those licences were introduced in order to prevent the indiscriminate use of guns up and down the country, which, especially at holiday time, it had been shown had caused many accidents and a considerable loss of life. For his part, he (Mr. Gregory) thought it was a fair proposition that the occupier alone should be entitled to use a gun. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that point had already been decided, because it had been carried by a large majority that any number of persons might be appointed by the occupier to destroy hares and rabbits on a farm. But, for his part, he thought it would have been better if they could have decided, in the first instance, the times of year during which the right of killing hares and rabbits was to be exercised. If they had done that, it might have saved any discussion on the present question.

said, he merely rose to repudiate the construction which had been placed on the speeches delivered on that side of the House. He supported the Amendment, because he believed that the Bill was intended solely to protect crops from the ravages of game, and because he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sincere in his profession, that his object merely was to meet the grievances of the tenant farmers throughout the country. But now it turned out that the Bill was not merely intended for the protection of crops, but wanted to give sporting rights to the tenants. But why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop when he did if there was any value in what he had said about the humiliation of tenants? Why, if he was to have sporting rights in regard to ground game, should he not be allowed to shoot the winged game as well? [Cries of "Move!"] Well, as he was opposed to the whole Bill, that Motion would come better from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he did maintain that if there was one particle of sincerity in the Committee they ought not to stop at ground game, but they ought to extend the Bill to all; and he was not sure whether, under the circumstances, if that were proposed, he should not have supported it.

said, he did not regard the question so much of whether they were starting afresh, but as a question of abrogating a grievance already made between the farmers and landlords. A farmer bargaining for a farm went through the various points in his lease, and one of those was, that he agreed to give up the right to sport. He, probably, would not have got the farm except on that condition. Now, it was proposed to override that agreement, and to say that there was such a public necessity that the tenant farmer should have the right of shooting ground game that the agreement he had voluntarily made should be overridden. [Cries of "No, "no!"] He ventured to submit that the Bill would have that effect. It was proved, besides, that the game could be kept down without this right of sporting; and why should they give the tenant by law that which he had already agreed to give up to the landlord?

said, he should vote for the Amendment, not because he agreed with the actual words of it, but because he thought hon. Members on that side of the House were forced to vote for it by the refusal of the Government to give way on either of two points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would neither limit the number of guns nor limit the months during which these guns were to be used. It was because he would not give way on either of those points that he (Sir Henry Tyler) felt himself forced to vote for the Amendment.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was now absent, and there was nobody on the Treasury Bench to whom he could appeal to accept his Amendment. He would, therefore, move it as it stood in his name.

said, in order to put himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. Since he had been in the House, he had never known such rapid legislation as that they had just witnessed. The Chairman of Committees left the House a minute or two after 9, and the Members of the House went as usual to the accustomed place to get a little refreshment. The Chairman of Committees returned; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was not in his place when the last Amendment came on. The Chairman of Committees, as a rule, left the House for 20 minutes; that was the time which the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, to his (Mr. Onslow's) certain knowledge, used to take in former years. Many hon. Members took a great interest in that Bill; and he should like to know how it was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was not in his place to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman behind him (Captain Aylmer)? He begged to move to report Progress.

As to the question about my coming back, unless I am especially requested to remain longer, I rarely take more than 10 minutes. Today I took 12, and after I had come back I stood behind the Speaker's Chair for a minute or two for hon. Members to come in, as the House was not very full.

said, he did not know what explanation was wanted from him; but if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Onslow) wanted to know where he was, he had only to say that after having been in the House five hours and a-half he had gone to have a plate of soup. His impression was, that during his absence an attempt had been made to snatch a victory.

said, he would now move his Amendment, in the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary would vary the monotonous order of things by accepting it. At present, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was the only Member who had been lucky enough to induce him to accept his proposal. When the Bill was introduced, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he wished Amendments should be moved, and he would be quite willing to accept them. But he had not shown much of that willingness at present. The occupier of land was to be allowed to trap, to ferret, to net, and to use dogs; and he appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether that was not enough to enable him to keep the hares and rabbits under control? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that he did not wish in any way to interfere with sport; but he must be aware that snares above ground would catch foxes, pheasants, and partridges. Those were objects of legitimate sport. He did not care a bit what happened to hares and rabbits, and he believed most of the hon. Members in that House did not care either. But most of them did care very much for sport; and he was sure that the occupiers of land, with all the facilities already granted to them, would not grudge in the least allowing this one item of snares to be erased from the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself had said that he thought traps above ground were cruel things, and that he hated them, and he looked upon snares as the most vicious kind of trap. He begged to move his Amendment.

said, everyone knew that the best way of killing rabbits and hares was by snares properly set. It seemed to be the object of hon. Members opposite to deprive the farmers of every possible means of taking ground game. He had already introduced a limitation into the clause with regard to the use of spring-traps above ground; and, therefore, he could not consent to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

said, he ventured to propose an Amendment to the sub-section now before the Committee, with the object of preventing the use of poison for the purpose of killing ground game. He did not wish to imply that the occupiers would be more likely than anybody else to use poison; but he thought great danger did very frequently arise, by poison being set for animals, which, being killed, were afterwards picked up and eaten by human beings. He had known that to have occurred with wood-pigeons, and it might very possibly happen with rabbits. He held that it ought to be illegal for anybody to put down poison for such purposes as that, and he would gladly support any proposal of the kind applying to all classes of persons. He begged to move the insertion of the words "or poison" after the word "ground."

said, he hoped his right hon. Friend would not insist upon inserting these words at that moment. His (Sir William Harcourt's) impression was, that the use of poison was already prohibited by law; but if not, the matter should be dealt with on Report.

said, he wished to represent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the right of shooting were given to the farmer, he hoped, before the Bill passed through Committee, or on Report, he would take some steps to enable the farmer to shoot, if necessary, or at any time before sunrise or after sunset. He would point out to the Committee that it was just after sunset that the shooting would be of any use at all. If the right was to be given at all, it was desirable that it should be given without any limitation.

said, he did not think it desirable that people should go about with guns at night; because, at that time, it was not possible to ascertain whether they were properly occupied. He thought the hours named in the sub-section, before sunrise and after sunset, was quite sufficient for all purposes.

said, it was the practice in some towns for the game-dealers to make an offer of so much a year for the right of killing ground game on farms. Now, it might happen that the tenant, having an offer from a respectable dealer, might get another offer at an advance of £10 or £20 a-year from a person not so respectacle, whose object was to recoup himself by shooting the phea- sants and partridges. Having made an agreement with a person of this kind, he was sure that the farmer would be the first to regret it. But how was that agreement to be revoked? To meet this ease, he proposed to make the authority to shoot ground game determinable at a fortnight's notice.

said, it was not necessary that there should be a fortnight's notice. A man acting in the way described could be turned out at a moment's notice. The law of the country was that you could not give an irrevocable right as to land to another, except by deed.

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide on that Amendment. The Amendment was not proposed to be inserted in its proper place—it ought to come at the end of Clause 1.

said, he also trusted his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee on that Amendment. At the same time, the point raised was of importance; and he should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with it on Report. The object of the Amendment was to enable a tenant having given authority to kill ground game to an improper person, to determine the employment without being liable for damages.

said, the use of the Amendment would be seen in cases where the occupier, as was the practice in some parts of the Kingdom, though not in England, gave authority to some outsider, a dealer in game, for instance, to kill ground game on his tenancy. Such licences were usually for one year. The matter was worth consideration by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and he trusted he would be able to deal with it on Report.

said, he was never more surprised than when he saw this sub-section on the Paper. When his right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill, and even on the second reading, he turned to hon. Gentlemen behind him, and warned them that he would consent to no Amendments which struck at the principle of the Bill, which principle was to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom without any exception whatsoever. But he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been informed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had learned that there would be the greatest difficulty in making progress with the Bill, unless he conciliated those hon. Gentlemen who had moorlands in Scotland and in the North of England, who declared that if the Bill went on in the shape in which it then was they would do everything they could to prevent its passing. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) might be in error; but he believed it was to meet the views of these large proprietors that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had intro-duced this sub-section. Only a night or two ago, when the question was that of killing hares and rabbits over these lands in Scotland, he said it was impossible they could be kept down unless there was a large number of people employed to keep them down; but then he went on to say, that which he did not admit to be in this Bill, the sporting rights were to be considered. He said, in effect—"I do not care a farthing for you small people down in the South, with your pheasants and partridges; but I like grouse, and, therefore, I shall preserve them as much as possible." It was a pity the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that grouse should be kept quiet in the breeding season. If that were so, why should not pheasants and partridges also be kept quiet? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said grouse shooting ended on the 12th December, and there would be plenty of time to kill down hares and rabbits between that date and the 31st March. Well, if that was time enough on the large moorlands of Scotland, in which there was a great area of arable land included, why was it not time enough in England? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had admitted that there were, after all, some good fellows amongst the English landlords; and now he was treating them differently to those in Scotland, when, on all good estates in England, arrangements had been made in accordance with the spirit of this very clause, that the tenants should have power, during a certain time of the year, to kill hares and rabbits, and the sporting right was in no way interfered with. Now, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to interfere with sporting rights; but not with those of the large proprietors to whom he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had referred. He called the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway to the fact that in passing this sub-section they would do an illegitimate act, through the pressure which had been brought to bear upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He simply asked that the time named in the subsection should be extended to the whole country, which would afford ample time for the protection of the growing crops.

said, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had entirely misunderstood the meaning of this subsection. He must know there was a great difference between the case of moorlands and the case of cultivated lands. The evil against which the Bill was directed existed in a greater degree in reference to cultivated lands than it did in reference to uncultivated lands. That would be obvious to the intelligence of anyone; and, therefore, the sub-section was consistent with the principle which he had over and over again stated—namely, that where he could accomplish the object of protecting crops without injuring sport he would do so. Now, on the moors, they could protect sheep-grazing in a shorter period, and by a less stringent method, than in the case of cultivated land. On all moorland the only question was, what protection was essential to preserve sheep-grazing for the farmers. He had been willing to take the opinion of the farmers themselves on that question. The hon. and gallant Member had suggested that he had been put under pressure; but it would be remembered that on the night of the introduction of the Bill he said there might be modifications made in the case of moorlands. Two proposals had been made to meet that case. The first, made at a meeting of farmers at Inverness, was that the time for killing hares and rabbits should be six months without the gun. The second was, that the period should be three and a-half months with the gun. Therefore, on further consideration, and consulting, as far as he could, the opinion of English and Irish, as well as Scottish farmers—for there were moorlands in England and Ireland—he found that the time given between the termination of grouse shooting and the nesting of the birds was regarded as being sufficient to enable sheep-farmers to protect their crops. But the effect of the proposed Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex would be, that, on cultivated lands, nobody could touch hares and rabbits from March to December. That, in his opinion, was a monstrously unreasonable proposition. They would not find a farmer in England who would not insist, in case he was to have the right of killing at all, on having that right during some of the months which the hon. and gallant Baronet proposed to exclude. The Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would render the Bill totally valueless, and it would be obvious that he could not accept it.

said, he was quite certain, from having fought two contested elections, and having heard all that the farmers had to say about game, that the three and a-half months proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would be quite sufficient to clear the farms of ground game, if the farmers were so minded. He had himself a large extent of land let on lease, and in none of the leases were rabbits reserved, although game was so. He had had occasion to clear some districts of rabbits; and he knew very well that one good trapper in six weeks could clear 1,000 acres with the greatest ease. If anybody tried to do the same thing with a gun, without the assistance of traps, he would most certainly fail. Half-a-dozen guns would not do as much as one good trapper who understood his business. Such a man with 100 traps would clear a large district in a very short space of time; while with snares, he (Mr. Knight) believed it could be done more rapidly. But, under the Bill, it would be mostly labouring men who would be set to kill rabbits, and they were to be allowed to use guns. The result would be that after they had failed to clear the land poachers would certainly have to be employed for the purpose. The space of time proposed in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member was enough to keep down the ground game, and that space of time was now usually given in most well-managed estates. Much of what it was proposed to offer the tenants he had never heard them ask for. What they wanted was a certain number of months in order to clear their estates of ground game, and compensation for damages done by game. He (Mr. Knight) had had the honour to lay a Bill upon the Table to effect those objects, and he believed it would have worked most satisfactorily. It was the same system which had already been introduced into one part of the Kingdom by Mr. M'Lagan's Act. He (Mr. Knight) had explained that Act to the farmers during his canvass, and they had expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied with its provisions. The Government Bill offered them a great many things that they had never asked for, and which many of them would not accept when they were given; the consequence being that, in many cases, things would remain much as they were. He thought that the Government had been accusing landlords most unfairly, and, further, that they were trying by that Bill to make political capital of the Game Question. That question was one which he wished to see settled, and he had made representations to the late Prime Minister in 1874 to that effect. He was quite sure that the Government would not gain the farmers' votes by any such means as were then being adopted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had thrown the Game Question in the teeth of the landlords; but he seemed to forget that the Liberals looked forward to the destruction of the whole political influence of the farming class, if the labourers were admitted to the franchise. The farmers well knew that such was the intention of the present Government, and their votes could not be bought by the bribe of a few rabbits. As he had previously stated, on all well-managed farms, they then had two or three months in order to clear the ground game; and if that was secured to them in all cases he was certain they would be perfectly contented.

said, that he had an Amendment on the Paper which he should not move. He wished to say that rabbits and hares could be kept down in the two months of spring very well. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's object in that Bill was to turn all the farmers into sportsmen, no doubt, they should have the sporting all the year round. But if they merely wanted to protect their crops, two months was sufficient for anybody for that purpose.

said, he could not quite agree with what had just fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton). He believed that if a limitation were inserted, such as that of three and a-half months, the effect would most probably be that ground game would be exterminated. The Bill ought certainly to give the right during the whole year. In that case, a farmer would, he believed, exercise his discretion, and allow a number of hares and rabbits to exist; but if they restricted him to two or three months, he would probably exterminate them, and so make sure that he would not have any more trouble with them during the rest of the year.

said, he would maintain that the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was a reasonable one. The other day he (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) proposed an Amendment to the effect that the time for hares should be limited to the months of February, March, and April, and he then stated that he should not object to rabbits being taken all the year round. He still maintained that his proposition was a reasonable one; and, therefore, he should back up the Amendment, inasmuch as it went in the same direction. He did not wish to have a limit, except in the case of hares. If the object of the Bill was really to protect the crops of farmers, and not to make political capital, then he thought that surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman might fairly accept the suggestion, as far as hares were concerned.

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) was in favour of rabbits being taken and killed all the year round; and yet he was willing to vote for an Amendment which would give a close time to rabbits of eight and a-half months during the year. The hon. and gallant Member wished to make that an effectual Bill, and yet was willing to vote for that Amendment, after what he had said with reference to rabbits. He had heard with surprise the statement of the hon. Member for West Cheshire (Mr. Wilbraham Egerton) that two months was sufficient to clear the estates of ground game. He knew instances where they were striving for 12 months in the year and could not keep them down. The close time, which was the subject of that discussion, was, he ventured to say, wholly inconsistent with the object of the Bill.

objected to the remark which had just fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Undoubtedly, it was the rabbits which caused mischief to the crops; but he objected on different grounds. They must remember that they were giving sporting rights to the tenant as well as protection to his crops; and he did not see why they should limit the sporting rights on un-inclosed land more than on arable land. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had considered the question of sheep-grazing, and had proposed an Amendment, to give adequate protection in that branch of farming; but sheep grazing was not confined to England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that the greater part was conducted in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been at great pains the other night to tell them of the enormous mischief done by blue hares to sheep-grazing. So far as he was acquainted with the subject, he (Mr. Chaplin) believed that that enormous mischief was mythical. He was, however, prepared to accept the superior knowledge and intelligence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he wished to point out to him the effect of the restriction in the case of Scotland to a period between the 11th December and the 31st March. What was the condition of Scotland during that time? He must know that the Highlands were covered with many feet of snow. How was it possible to allow of such a close time as that proposed? The hares were there in hundreds and thousands, and during those months they travelled many miles for their food, which was only to be obtained on the arable land; but they were not allowed to kill them there except for the first hour after sunset. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT said, they might be snared.] If they might set snares they could not be shot; and how were they to be snared on tens of thousands of acres covered with snow? The effect of that part of the Amendment would be to defeat the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own object. He would point out to his hon. and gallant Friend that the owners of sporting rights were to be treated in a different manner than those of England. He did not know why there should be that difference, and on that account he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would divide the Committee upon his Amendment.

said, he was afraid that he could not support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), because he believed that restriction as to killing hares and rabbits would operate mischievously. He quite believed that hares and rabbits could be kept down within a limited period; and with regard to the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to working hard for 12 months to effect that object, he could only say that there must be very bad management. But that was not the question. It was, whether they could lay down a hard-and-fast rule in that matter which would suit all cases. The effect of the Amendment would be to impose restrictions on a farmer, except during the nesting season, therefore there was enormous difficulty, besides that of interfering with sport. His argument against the Amendment was that while, as the Bill stood then, the farmer in the vast majority of cases would exercise his right during those seasons which were most convenient to him and the landlord, if a restriction such as that proposed were inserted, in order to limit the power of the tenant to certain specified months, which might be inconvenient to both parties, there would be no other course open to the farmer than to exercise his right, as pointed out by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. W. Barclay), most strenuously. Therefore, he trusted his hon. and gallant Friend would not press the Amendment; for, if he did, he (Earl Percy) should feel bound to oppose it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had a similar Amendment on the Paper, which was much more feasible, where the actual time of restriction was not proposed to be inserted in the Bill.

said, that there could be no doubt that there might fairly be a suspension of the power of killing game during a certain period of the year; but he was afraid that if the period mentioned in the Amendment were adhered to it would give dissatisfaction in many ways. He believed that what his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to bring about would be better done by another Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth), by which a certain period was to be reserved by special agreement, but not actually stating what those months should be. That Amendment he (Mr. Gregory) was willing to support; but he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would not go to a division upon the present one.

said, that he believed his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was under a misapprehension with regard to his Amendment. He appealed to the Government to adhere to their proposed concession, for they had not shown themselves too liberal in what had been conceded to the landowners hitherto. It appeared that a great deal of the best shooting would be left undisturbed for eight months in the year. He (Mr. Rodwell) could not help thinking that his hon. and gallant Friend was under the misapprehension that this clause was confined to grouse moors, and, therefore, trusted that he would not divide the Committee upon it. He himself was not so much interested in grouse as in partridges; and he believed that if the proposed alteration were made it would give rise to much dissatisfaction. It had been said that hares and rabbits might be kept down in three months. He would defy anyone, unless he was an expe- rienced trapper, to keep them down in any such period; it was perfectly impossible where they abounded. Therefore, he hoped that the restriction would not be extended to arable land, because he was sure, in that case, the Bill would by no means give satisfaction. It was said to be passed "in the interests of good husbandry, and for the better security of capital, &c., in the cultivation of the soil;" and, keeping that object in view, he did not see how it would be furthered by the acceptance of the present Amendment. He, therefore, hoped it would not be pressed.

said, that exception had been taken to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), because it appeared to limit the time during which occupiers were privileged to kill hares and rabbits to three months. They should, however, bear in mind that that limitation did not proceed from the hon. and gallant Member, but from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. All that was asked was to extend the limitation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had imposed on Scotland and the North of England to the other parts of the Kingdom. He did not himself wish to see the time limited to four months; he had never advocated that, and should not do so then; but he did say that, in common justice to all parties, the law should be applicable to all the United Kingdom. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman insisted upon that limitation to apply only to Scotland and the North——

said, perhaps he might be allowed to explain. The hon. Member (Mr. Hicks) was mistaken in supposing that there was any limitation to a part of the United Kingdom. The sub-section referred to moorlands, and therefore to Dartmoor as well as to Scotland. The distinction was not between one part of the Kingdom and another, but one kind of land and another. There was no geographical distinction whatever.

said, that there might be no geographical distinction, but there was a sporting one. Grouse were on one side and partridges on the other. The same law ought to be applied equally to both. It was not a new subject, that of the over-preservation of game. If they looked at the Report of the evidence before the Committee of 1872–3, they would find that it was not only in Scotland, but in all places in the neighbourhood of moors, that the farmers Buffered from damage caused by the game; and yet, by that sub-section, he was to be debarred from killing that game, except within a very limited period. For his own part, he (Mr. Hicks) did not think that four months was sufficient to keep down hares and rabbits; but, at the same time, he thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was the one which tended in the right direction, and he thought that might be well agreed to without a division. If no Amendment were adopted, he must say that it appeared to him that they were being unfairly treated in regard to that matter.

said, wherever there were uninclosed grounds, like Suffolk Heath, bounded by arable lands, there were sure to be a lot of rabbits; and if the tenants were not to be allowed to kill them between March 11 and December 12 they might lose their best time for selling rabbits. He totally objected to the clause. A great injury might be caused if rabbits were to be allowed to breed in this close time.