The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1880-06-26 00:00:00

THE HARES AND RABBITS BILL.

A conference of Scotch members of Parliament was
held in the Lord Advocate's room at the House of
Commons, on Tuesday, for the purpose of considering
the Government Ground Game Bill. Though no
definite resolution was arrived at, a general opinion
was expressed that the measure requires very con-
siderable amendment, and that it unnecessarily inter-
feres with the principle of freedom of contract. Lord
Advocate M'Laren, who presided over the conference,
was asked to lay the various opinions and suggestions
of the meeting before the Prime Minister and the
Home Secretary.

The Times has published (amongst others) the following
Letter on the Hares and Rabbits Bill :

Sir,—Notwithstanding the varied criticisms which
have been passed upon the Hares and Rabbits Bill,
there seems to be very little difference of opinion upon
what is, after all, the most important point to the
farmer: I mean the desirability of securing him from
loss through the increase of ground game.

probably also the majority of persons will go so far
as to agree with the Home Secretary that the system
of compensation has been tried and has failed, and
that the most efficacious mode of protecting the
farmer is to give him the right to protect himself.
If a Bill had been introduced giving the farmers
the right to destroy ground game during three or four
months of the year, as a minimum right which they
should possess in all cases where no more extensive
right was given to them by agreement, I believe that
such a Bill would have been supported by the public
opinion of every class, and would not have excited the
opposition of the champions of freedom of contract.
In regard to the latter, at any rate, it is deserving
of notice that no less than four Bills for amending the
Agricultural Holdings Act have been introduced this
Session in the House of Commons, all of which proceed
upon the principle of compelling the landlord to com-
pensate an outgoing tenant according to a scale laid
down by law, if reasonable compensation is not bond
fide provided for by agreement between the parties.
I have never heard it suggested that a compulsory
provision such as I have named would be insufficient
in practice for the protection of the farmer; on the
other hand, it embodies what is now the custom on
many well managed estates, and it is not inconsistent
with the reasonable enjoyment of sport on estates of
almost every conceivable variety.
The Bill makes for every landlord and tenant in the
kingdom a bargain such as no landlord and tenant
ever made for themselves; it confers upon tenants
powers which in a vast number of cases would, if
exercised, be destructive of sporting rights of high
value; it forbids tenants to agree to forbear the
exercise of any part of their right; and yet the Prime
Minister is so sanguine as to say (so, at least, he is
reported) that the Bill "is founded upon a confidence
in the intelligence and rightmindednesE, both of the
owners and occupiers, that where the law has put
them in a position respectively fair to one another,
they themselves will adjust the matter for them-
selves."
I wish I cola believe that this is a just description of
the Bill. As I read it, no adjustment is possible save
by an evasion of the law, while the existence of rights
antagonistic to each other cannot fail in many cases to
produce intense irritation.

It is because I am deeply convinced of the import-
ance of treating this subject in a conciliatory spirit
and of findin a solution which will work smoothly
and without irritation that I earnestly hope the Go-
vernment will not adopt an uncompromising attitude
towards amendments which may be moved in com-
mittee having for the* object the limitation of inter-
ference with freedom of contract in the direction indi-
cated above.—l have, &c., JoHN C. DuNDAs.
louse of Commons, Juno 17
The nary News has rnablished the following letter
on the Hares and Rabbits Bill:--
Sir,—Amongst the many reasons which have been urged
against the above Bill, one very important one seems to me
int to have been sufficiently noticed, which is this :—lt is
well-known that rabbits form at present a very favourite and
very important part of the present supply of the
labouring classes, but if their number be largely
diminished (which appears to be the object of the above
Bill) their prices to the consumer must be of necessity
increased. The increased quantity of corn which might
be grown in this country by the destruction of the
rabbits would not diminish its price, because that
depends more certainly on our foreign supply, so that the
result of the passing of the Bill would be to increase the cost
of the food supply of the people. In these days, when land-
lords are begging for tenants, it is almost absurd to say that
the latter require any special legislation to protect them
against their landlords and servants, and since there is at
present a Commission sitting to inquire into the state of the
agricultural interests in this country, it would be wise and
fair to include the question of ground-game in their inquiry
before legislating on it, especially by a Bill which introduces
so vicious a principle as that of interference with the right of
free contract between a landlord and his tenants.—l am, Sir,
your obedient servant, A LANDLORD.