The House resolved into committee on this Bill, and on Clause 1 an amendment moved by the Duke of Richmond, adding the duplicate names of six species of birds already included in the Bill, was agreed to.
On Clause 2, the Duke of Richmond proposed that "shoot or attempt to shoot" be substituted for "kill, wound, or attempt to kill or wound." The object of the Bill he presumed to be to check the practice of large numbers of persons going down by excursion trains and shooting these gulls during the shooting season for what they called sport, but which he could only regard as wanton destruction, for no benefit accrued to anybody from it. This would be sufficiently accomplished if the clause were limited to shooting, for if the inhabitants were allowed to continue to capture birds by snares and other ingenious, but difficult, contrivances, there would be no fear of their numbers being sensibly diminished.
In the islands off the coasts of Ireland and Scotland the inhabitants maintained themselves for a considerable portion of the year on the eggs and food of these birds, and at St. Kilda this had been the case for upwards of 200 years, without having had the effect of diminishing their numbers. The noble duke (Northumberland) proposed, indeed, to exclude that island from the operation of the Bill, but other islands were also entitled to the exemption, if any were allowed.
The Archbishop of York thought the Bill might as well have been rejected on the second reading if so serious an alteration were to be made in it. He understood that one of the reasons why these birds were destroyed was because their feathers adorned the hats of the fair sex. (A laugh.)
The Duke of Northumberland objected to the amendment, remarking that the adult bird was not an article of food, except at St. Kilda; and this, being far removed from the mainland, he was willing to exempt from the operation of the Bill.
The Duke of Richmond remarked that with regard to ladies' hats fashions sometimes changed, and the feathers of these birds would not always be in demand for that purpose. He would not press his amendment, as the feeling of the House appeared to be against it.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the clause having been amended, on the motion of the Duke of Northumberland, so as to extend the close season from the 1st of August to the 1st of September, and to bring Ireland within the operation of the measure, it was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 was agreed to. On Clause 4, the Duke of Richmond urged that much annoyance would be inflicted on poor people who took eggs for the purpose of food by being repeatedly brought before a magistrate to state that the eggs in their possession were taken for that purpose. In 99 cases out of every 100 the eggs were so taken, and in the hundredth case a man would naturally assert that he intended to eat the eggs. How was the magistrate to be satisfied of this intention unless the man ate them then and there in his presence? (A laugh.) Moreover, the clause would impose a penalty on a person who had received the eggs from a friend, while that friend, though the real offender, would escape. He felt bound to take the sense of the House on this clause.
The Bishop of Oxford pointed out that the clause might operate harshly on the owners of collections of eggs. An ornithologist might have had a valuable egg in his possession for 50 years. Now, it would be very hard to insist on his showing that it was intended for food by eating it. (Laughter).
Lord Houghton remarked that among scientific men were some rejoicing in the peculiar name of "oologists," to whom the collection and classification of eggs was a subject of great interest. The number of eggs taken for purposes other than those of food was so small that it was hardly worth while to legislate on this point.
The Duke of Northumberland defended the clause, which had stood the test of considerable discussion in the House of Commons.
Their lordships divided, when there appeared: Content 40, Not Content 54; Majority against the clause -14.
Clauses 5, 6, and 7 were agreed to. On Clause 8, exempting St. Kilda from the operation of the Bill, the Duke of Richmond urged that if any exemption at all were published, the propriety of which he doubted, it ought to be extended to other islands in similar circumstances. The Bill was not likely in any case to operate in that island, for he supposed a policeman was an unknown article there. (A laugh.)
The Duke of Argyll thought there was a reason for treating St. Kilda exceptionally. He doubted whether there was any other case where the people practically lived on sea birds.
The clause was agreed to, and the Bill passed through committee.
