688 MR. DILLWYN said, he looked with, They were dealing with men of a very great jealousy upon the proposal now different class to those affected by the made by the Under Secretary of State Explosives Act. The proposal affected for the Home Department, who told poor men in a small way of business, them it was desirable to place this large who were very useful to a large porpower of making regulations in the hands tion of the community, especially in of the Executive. No doubt, the hon. country districts If it were accepted, Member would say there was a pre- the Secretary of State might make some cedent for giving that power to the Go- new regulation; a hawker, without vernment. He might say that the Exe- knowing it, might infringe that regulacutive had power to regulate the sale of tion, and his trade might be immediately gunpowder; but the two cases were not stopped. It might be stopped until parallel, inasmuch as gunpowder was in Parliament met again, and probably for the hands of a very few persons, and 40 days after Parliament had met, and was not hawked about the streets, whilst possibly much longer, because, as had petroleum was used by very nearly every- been pointed out, a private Member one, and was taken from door to door would experience considerable difficulty for the convenience of the public. He in bringing on the question within the thought the dispensing power which the specified 40 days. The poor man might, hon. Member sought to obtain was ob- in the meantime, be absolutely ruined, jectionable, and ought not to be sanc- because they would take away from him tioned by the Committee. In his Amend- the power of dealing in petroleum and ment the hon. Gentleman proposed that carrying it about from house to house. the rules should be laid on the Table of He trusted the Under Secretary of State Parliament, and unless objected to within for the Home Department would see his 40 days, should become law; but they way to withdrawing the proposition. all knew, in a Session such as the present, for instance, what difficulties a private Member experienced in bringing forward a Motion, and in getting a question decided. It might be impossible for any step to be taken within 40 days. As the Government would be in favour of the rules they proposed, it could not be expected, if any Member took exception to them, that they would put themselves out of the way to give him an opportunity of making his objection, so that, as he had said, a private Member would have very little chance of bringing forward his case within 40 days. There was a very strong objection to this proposal on the part of many hon. Members, and he earnestly hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), who had already objected to certain modifications suggested in the 2nd clause, would make a concession in the present case. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had accepted the hon. Member's verdict with regard to the 2nd clause; but he trusted the hon. Member would himself give way on the point under discussion, yielding to the very strong feeling expressed on every side of the House.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND said, he agreed in the hope that the hon. Member would withdraw the proposal. The result of adopting it might lead to hardships amongst a poor and useful class.

MR. COURTNEY said, that whilst he must confess he did not agree with many Members of the Committee upon these matters, he could not disguise from himself the fact that the clause was very powerfully opposed. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) seemed to object to the Executive Government having power to administer the details of a measure, and the Committee evidently was insufficiently advanced to accept that doctrine. He would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause negatived.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Definitions).

The

MR. WHITLEY said, there was a reference made here to the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, and he wished to know why only persons hawking petroleum should be allowed to use carriages in their trade? He believed he was correct in saying that in the town of Brighton there were no hawkers at all. hawking nuisance had risen to such a pitch that the Town Council took means to put a stop to all hawking in the streets. The rich shopkeepers-in spite of what an hon. Member had saidcared nothing at all about it. It was now proposed by a side-wind to give

petroleum hawkers a power which no other class of hawkers possessed. If it was desirable to let hawkers generally use carriages, well and good; but it seemed to him highly objectionable that petroleum hawkers alone should be allowed to have this power. He had occasion, very often indeed, as a magisstrate, to hear cases against hawkers, and he knew fines to have been over and over again levied upon them for carrying on their trade contrary to the Acts of Parliament. It seemed to him that it would be unwise to allow the clause to pass.

period of the year when they were not allowed to be taken or killed. According to the existing law, a collector of birds, private amateur, or a representative of a museum, could not take birds as specimens without incurring serious penalties. What he proposed was that the Court, before whom a person was brought up and charged with destroying birds out of season, should have a discretionary power in a matter of conviction. If it could be shown that the birds had been taken for preservation in an ornithological collection or museum, the Court should be able to excuse them. MR. C. H. JAMES said, the Bill In other countries where wild birds were seemed to him to be a most reasonable protected the Minister of the Interior one in every respect, except Clause 3, himself had power to exempt from the which they had just struck out. If operation of the law persons taking Clause 6 were struck out half the utility birds for scientific purposes; but after of the measure would be done away what had just taken place in regard to with. He had seen petroleum hawked the Petroleum (Hawking) Bill, he would about the streets, and he could assure not propose that method of dealing with the Committee it was not carried about the subject in this country. in great carts, but in cans fixed upon wheels, just as milk was carried from door to door. If they didsnot allow it to be taken about in that way it would be necessary for parents to send out children, perhaps 10 or 12 years of age, or even younger, with bottles or small tin cans for this dangerous material; and certainly that would be much more objectionable than the course proposed by this clause.

Clause agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT (1880)
AMENDMENT BILL-[Lords.]
(Mr. Courtney.)

[BILL 226.] CONSIDERATION. Bill, as amended, considered.

SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN said, he had a new clause to propose for the protection of bond fide naturalists and collectors of birds. He thought it only proper that some distinction should be drawn between these persons and the people who destroyed birds illegally out of season when they were helpless and easily destroyed. That part of the year in which birds were most worth preserving was the spring, and that was the

New Clause to follow Clause 1(Reservation in case of birds killed for scientific purposes.)

"A person shall not be liable to be convicted under The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880,' if he satisfies the Court before whom he is charged that any wild birds which he has killed and offered for sale are intended bonâ fide for preservation in an ornithological collection or museum."-(Sir David Wedderburn.)

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. COURTNEY said, that he had had every desire to meet the hon. Member for Haddington (Sir David Wedderburn), but he found it quite impossible to do so. If the clause were accepted, the whole Bill would be shattered, because it would be impossible to prove what the intention of a person was when he took birds when brought up before the magistrates. Nor was the clause necessary. A bona fide ornithologist, when taken before the magistrates, would be able to say that he was in pursuit of scientific knowledge, and, under the power of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the magistrates would be able to dismiss the case if they believed him.

Amendment would not be accepted.
MR. THOMASSON trusted that the
Question put, and negatived.

MR. ROUND said, he rose to move | stood than by severe penalties. For the omission of Clause 2 from the Bill, that reason he hoped the alterations made and what he had to say on the matter in "another place" would be omitted. he should say as shortly as possible. MR. BROADHURST said, he hoped The clause proposed the insertion of the the lark would not be omitted, for he lark in the Schedule of the “Wild Birds | had an affection for that bird, and he Act, 1880," and he submitted that it would not bow to the opinion of the was quite unnecessary to include that hon. Member who made the Motion. bird in the special protection provided With regard to larks' nests, in his opiby the Schedule. He was as much a nion the lark's nest was very easy to friend of the lark as any Member of find, and he had never failed to discover that House; but he thought it quite a lark's nest whenever he wanted one. unnecessary to provide this special pro- It was only necessary to watch where tection for it-a penalty of 58. being, in the lark rose and to see where he settled, his opinion, sufficient for the purpose. for the lark always settled within 20 Everyone knew that it was difficult to yards of its nest. The lark was one of find larks' nests in the spring of the year, the most beautiful wild birds, and was the nature of the ground at that time becoming scarcer every year, and he providing ample cover; and if there hoped that the House would protect it. was any diminution in the number of larks, he thought it was owing to the severe winters they had had during the last three years. They ought to endeavour to carry public opinion with them in this sort of legislation; and as it was a fact that at certain seasons of the year larks pulled up sprouting corn, if this bird were included in the Schedule, it would make the Bill more unpopular than it was now in the eyes of those people it would mostly concern. This was not the time to introduce new matter into the Schedule. As had been pointed out, the Act of last year gave protection to nearly all wild birds, including the lark, and the present was merely a Declaratory Bill, explaining the construction of a particular clause in the Act of last year which appeared to be of doubtful character; but this new matter, he submitted, ought not to be brought before the House. For those reasons he moved the omission of the clause.

MR. COURTNEY confessed that he had no feeling one way or the other as to the lark, and whether it was included in the Schedule or omitted appeared to him a perfectly open question. But what he had heard privately or in the other House inclined him to adhere to the Act of last Session; and, although he would wish to be respectful to the other House, on the whole he thought it would be better to keep to the original form of this clause.

Question put.

The House divided :-Ayes 29; Noes 25: Majority 4.-(Div. List, No. 350.)

Bill read the third time, and passed.

SAVINGS BANKS AND POST OFFICE
SAVINGS BANKS, AND SECURITIES
IN CHANCERY DIVISION.-REPORT.
-NATIONAL DEBT BILL.

FIRST READING.

Resolutions [August 1] reported.

MR. ANDERSON observed, that on Frederick Cavendish) had said that the the previous night the noble Lord (Lord House was not taken by surprise in regard to this matter, because the Prime Minister had announced the measure in his Budget speech. That was perfectly accurate as regarded the matter of the Prime Minister's speech, but not as regarded the spirit of that speech. The Prime Minister, no doubt, did sketch his scheme in his Budget speech; but he promised not to place it before the House for its practical judgment until after the Budget; and on the 29th of

ments for that purpose have been made. The Convention will probably be signed within a few days, and it will be laid upon the Table as soon as the Government are in possession of it in a complete form. It will have to be ratified, in order to make it binding, by the Volksraad or Court of Assembly on the part of the people, which will at once be elected, and every security will be

That Resolution was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), and it will be in the recollection of the right

hon. Gentleman that I asked him if he

would be good enough to explain what he meant by "the House." The right hon. Gentleman said

"I, therefore, by my Motion, propose that Mr. Bradlaugh shall be excluded from the House -that is, that he shall not come within the door that is kept by the doorkeepers, until or unless he shall undertake to the Speaker that he will not disturb the proceedings of the House."-[3 Hansard, cclxi. 182.] Of course, that excludes Mr. Bradlaugh from coming within these doors; but I apprehend that it does not exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from coming within the Lobby at the other side of the door, and that, in order to prevent him from doing so, it would be necessary that a Resolution should be passed by the House. Of course, Sir, you will perceive that it is my duty to do all that I possibly can for my constituents in this matter, and I do not wish to do anything that would be out of Order.

taken to make the Convention completely binding on the great mass of the people. The compensation referred to in the hon. Member's Question will be assessed by a sub-Commission, consisting of the British Resident and two Judges of the Transvaal Supreme Court; or, failing the Judges, by two other persons, who will be appointed by Her Majesty's High Commissioner. With respect to the last branch of the Question, I have to say that the British Resident will reside at Pretoria, or, from time to time, at any other convenient place, and his functions will be defined by the High Commissioner. That being so, it is better that I should not attempt to give an account of them verbally, more especially as I hope the Papers will soon be in the hands of hon. Members. With regard to the security of the British Resident, the Government have no more doubt upon that point than they have as to the security of any British Consul or Ambassador to any foreign country, and no special arrangements for his protec-will conclude with a Motion; but I want tion are contemplated.

Μ ΟΤΙ Ο Ν.

1990

PARLIAMENT PRIVILEGE

(MR. BRADLAUGH).

RESOLUTION.

MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise, Sir, on a question of Privilege. I was standing in the Lobby just now, when I saw Mr. Bradlaugh, a duly elected Member of this House, come into the Lobby. He attempted to go into the House. He said he considered he had a right to do so, derived from his being an elected Member of this House. He was then hurried out of the Lobby by the officials of the House; and I am given to understand that he is not to be allowed to reenter the Lobby. On the 10th of May the following Resolution was passed by this House:

Mr. Gladstone

MR. SPEAKER: I presume the hon. Member will conclude with a Motion; otherwise he will not be in Order.

MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes, Sir, I

to keep to the Rules of the House, and I wish to know if I can conclude with the following Motion? If not, I will substitute another :

66

That, in the opinion of this House, the Resolution of the House passed 10th May last, 'that the Sergeant at Arms do remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House,' meant that Mr. Bradlaugh should not come within the outer door of this Chamber, and did not give any power to the Sergeant at Arms to hinder him from entering and remaining in all or any other portions of this edifice; and that, therefore, the Serjeant at Arms and the officers of the House acting under him, in excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from such other portions of the edifice, acted without the authority of this House, and in so doing interfered with the privileges inherent in Membership of this House, and from which no Member can be deprived without a Resolution of this House to that effect."

I ask whether, under the circumstances, that is a matter of Privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will proceed.