Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL MOTIONS BY THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

I move:—

That to remove doubts it is hereby declared and resolved that so much of Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), as enacts that for the purposes of the assessment and levying of certain rates the valuation of certain buildings under the Valuation Acts shall be deemed to have been reduced by two-thirds does not and shall not apply to or operate to reduce the annual value with reference to which the tax in respect of such buildings under Schedules A and B of the Income Tax Act, 1918, is to be ascertained, and it is hereby further declared and resolved that, notwithstanding the said Section 69 but without prejudice to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the annual value of such buildings for the purposes of the of the said tax be taken the full amount of the valuation thereof for the time being in force under the Valuation Acts.

The necessity for this motion arises out of Section 69 of the Local Government Act which was recently passed. That section provides that for the purpose of local rates the valuation of certain buildings during a period of years should be taken to be one-third of the actual valuation. However, in the drafting of that provision sufficient advertence was not given to the wording of the Income Tax Acts, and, in consequence, doubt has been raised whether it actually does not mean that the reduction is also for the purpose of income tax as well as for local rates, as was specifically intended. The position is that that would cause a loss of income tax which had not been anticipated or budgeted for if the courts were to hold that view. It would mean also that the Exchequer was losing revenue without any corresponding gain, whereas if the local authorities lost two-thirds of the rates they would have got something on new buildings, whereas, from the income tax point of view, if money which was paying full income tax was removed from investment and was put into buildings, it would pay income tax at only one-third of the Schedule A rate. In order to remove the possibility of the courts interpreting this particular section of the Local Government Act in a way that was not intended, it has been felt advisable to have a declaratory resolution moved here and to put a corresponding section into the Finance Bill.

I do not think that there will be any objection to this motion, but I trust that the rate-paying public will take notice of the fact that the Government is prepared to make concessions to builders and owners of these new houses when that concession has to be made out of the ratepayers' pockets, but when it comes to be made out of national revenue, which the Government is collecting, care is taken that such concession is not made.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

(ii) (1) That on all articles other than sugar confectionery, cocoa preparations, beer, table waters, herb beer, cider, perry, wine, and tobacco, imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 15th day of June, 1925, and made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter there shall be charged, levied, and paid the following Customs duty, that is to say:—

(a) if the articles are prescribed in the official import lists to be entered on importation by weight, a duty at the rate of one penny on the pound,

(b) if the articles are prescribed in the official import lists to be entered on importation by measure, a duty at the rate of tenpence on the gallon.

(2) That the duty mentioned in this resolution shall be in addition to any duty chargeable in respect of any spirits or saccharin contained in or used in the manufacture or preparation of the article but in lieu of any duty which might otherwise be chargeable on any other ingredient contained in or used in the manufacture or preparation of the article.

(3) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall not apply to the duty mentioned in this resolution.

I dealt with this particular matter to some extent on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. There are a large number of articles which are subject to Customs duties because of the sugar they contain. They include all sorts of miscellaneous articles, from pills coated with sugar to blacking containing a certain amount of sugar for the purpose of producing the shine on shoes. In the past we actually had the formula examined and an analysis made, and we charged on the actual sugar content. For the purpose of convenience a particular thing was taken, say, such-and-such a firm's blacking, or such-and-such a firm's pills, and we fixed a rate for them, and when these goods came in they were charged with these conventional fixed rates. Occasionally samples were taken of the sugar contents of the particular articles to get a rate fixed, and the manufacturers had to supply the formula to us, and guarantee not to alter it, but if they did alter it they had to give notice to that effect. That system was very costly, and gave a great deal of trouble. The average pre-Budget charge on these commodities was 11s. 2d. per cwt. It is proposed now by this resolution and the corresponding section in the Finance Bill to have a flat charge of 9s. 4d. The preparations will only get a slight benefit of something like 1s. 10d. per cwt. from the sugar reduction. On the other hand, the importers will escape a great deal of the trouble they experienced in the past. There will be no question of samples or supplying the formula and abiding by it. The goods will be admitted on a charge of one penny per lb., and in many cases that will ease the importers as much as if they got the full concession that the reduction of sugar duties would give them. It will also relieve the Customs people of a great deal of trouble and expense. If we charge on the sugar content at the rate of one penny a lb., it is estimated that the money collected will be £6,000 a year, and the cost of administration would nearly eat up that £6,000. The estimated duties on this proposed change would be £14,000 a year, and there will be a very substantial saving in the cost of administration. Less staff will be employed and less time will be taken up in calculating this 1s. 2d. duty, and also the staff in the State Chemist's office will be relieved of a good deal of work. I think this is a change that will meet with a fair amount of satisfaction on the part of importers as well as from an official aspect.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

(iii) (1) That there shall be charged, levied, and paid at the times hereinafter mentioned on and by every person to whom a firearm certificate is granted at any time after the 31st day of July, 1925, under any Act passed or to be passed during the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1925, an excise duty at the rate specified in the schedule to this resolution in respect of every firearm certificate so granted to him.

(2) That the duty mentioned in this resolution in respect of any firearm certificate shall be charged, levied, and paid on the grant of such certificate.

Schedule.

Rates of Firearm Certificate Duty.

1. For a firearm certificate for a rifle or a pistol or revolver, with or without ammunition therefor, 5s.

2. For a firearm certificate for a shot-gun, with or without ammunition therefor, limited to use for killing animals or birds other than game on land occupied by the person to whom the certificate is granted, 5s.

3. For any other firearm certificate—For one such certificate, £2.

Where two or more such certificates are granted to the same person (not necessarily at the same time) and expire on the same date, for the first such certificate, £2.

For the second and every subsequent such certificate, 5s.

A new scale of licence charges is set up in connection with firearms. Heretofore a person who had firearms for the purpose of use on his own lands was not liable to pay any duties. There was then a 10/- licence duty, and there was, in addition to that, £3 for a game licence duty for the full year, and £2 for certain parts of the year. The duty was £3 if the licence was taken out after the 31st July and to expire before the 1st November of the following year. Then there was a fixed licence of £1 for a continuous period of 14 days. There was a scale which exempted altogether guns used in one's own house or curtailage, which imposed 10/- on guns used outside that, but not for the purpose of killing game; and £3 per annum if used for the purpose of destroying game. Now we are substituting the new scale which is set down in the resolution. There will be for a firearms certificate for a rifle, pistol or revolver, with or without ammunition, a fee of 5/-. The idea of that is that there should be a register of all the firearms in the country, and that people should not have a right to have firearms without being registered and having a certificate. I think that is a provision that will appeal to all the Deputies in view of the experience we have had in recent times, and since the trouble ceased. It is fairly obvious that it is desirable that the police should have as complete a knowledge as possible of the firearms in the country. It is proposed for a shot gun, with or without ammunition therefor, limited to use for killing animals or birds other than game on land occupied by the person to whom the certificate is granted, that the duty shall be 5/-. The same remarks apply to that: it is desirable that these guns should have certificates issued in respect of them, and that full particulars should be known to the police.

Can anybody get that certificate?

Yes, if they apply to the police.

There are provisions, I think, in the Firearms Act that will cover that. This particular Resolution is really supplementary, or complementary, to the Firearms Act. These licences will be issued by the Civic Guard, and the fees will be collected by and accounted for by them to the authorities. For firearms other than a rifle, pistol, or revolver, or other than a shot gun used on the farmer's own land for the purpose of killing vermin, there will be a certificate charge of £2. That really corresponds to the game licence, and represents a reduction of £1. It is felt that people who desire to kill game might be reasonably expected to pay a fee of that amount, and that the reduction which has been given is as substantial as is warranted by the circumstances. It is not desirable that people should be able to get licences for a merely nominal sum to kill game. The matter of taking reasonable precautions for the preservation of game is difficult enough, and if there were not some substantial fee required for licences the difficulties would be very much increased. Then where a person has a second firearm, say a second shot gun, there is simply a fee of 5s. A man may have, say, two guns for the purpose of killing game, and the charge for these would be £2 5s.

I move:—

To delete in the schedule the rates of "£2" and substitute in each case "£1."

The Minister has spoken of the person who gets a licence for a firearm to kill game, and he thinks that the £2 is not excessive for that. He has also referred to the issue of a certificate for a shot gun, limited to use for killing animals or birds, other than game, on land occupied by the person who receives the certificate. He has not made any suggestion as to the fee that should be charged to a person who wants to kill animals or birds, other than game, on land not occupied by himself. The only provision that is made in such a case is for the £2, which will allow him to kill game. There are people who do not want to kill game, but who want to shoot rabbits or wild fowl, and who are prepared to pay a fee, but the fee of £2 is considered excessive. A case was brought to my notice last week of a man living in the country who had spent £5 on a gun, for which he had been granted a licence. "Now I am asked," he says, "to pay £2 per annum for the use of that gun. I have no land, but I am able to shoot here and there, and to get an odd rabbit or bird which I am allowed to shoot." The case, I think, the Minister has made leaves a lapse. There is too much of a gap between the 5s. for a man who is going to shoot on his own lands birds other than game, and the man who wants to shoot birds and animals other than game and has no land at all. My proposal is to reduce the fee from £2 to £1, leaving for later consideration the cost of a firearms certificate for the person who wants to shoot game as well. I understand that hitherto the charge has only been 10s., and, consequently, we are allowing, under this amendment, an increase of 100 per cent. in that particular direction, and that seems to be a reasonable increase.

I am afraid I will have to defend the rates for the licences contained in the resolution, inasmuch as I have helped to suggest them. In the past, the magistrate's licence was given free to the owner of the lands to destroy vermin on his own lands. If he wanted to take the gun outside his own lands he was supposed, at least, to take out an excise licence, which cost him 10/-. A good many of these excise licences were availed of, but the trouble was that the holders did not end with killing vermin. That 10/- licence became, in fact, a game licence, for which £3 was supposed to be paid. The result was that we had no game in the country. In fact, the game died an unnatural death——

They usually do.

Even with game licences, I suppose they would, but it was apparent to anybody who took any interest in the matter that if we were going to preserve the game in this country, and if the game in this country were to mean anything to the national revenue of the country, drastic steps should be taken to preserve it. The manner in which game is preserved strikes one when travelling outside this country, say, on the Continent. If you take the French Republic, or any of those democratic countries, you will be surprised to see the amount of game they have. Another country that is not a republic—I speak of England—surprises a traveller at the amount of game that is to be met with in the fields, and the small quantity of vermin. There is no doubt whatever of the great national asset game is to a country if it is well looked after, and there is no doubt about the amount of damage that vermin do to the country. In the past those people who took out this 10/- licence paid no attention to vermin. Their whole attention was directed towards game. The holders of the 10/- licences were really killers of game. It was thought that a £3 licence was too much to ask the ordinary individual in the country to pay for a game licence, and in order to meet him it was brought down to £2. In order to do away with the deplorable practice that was responsible for the destruction of game in the country, the Committee recommended that the 10/- licence be abolished. I hope that this scale, and some other recommendations that were put up to the Minister for Justice, will be carried into effect. These matters do not come under this motion, of course, but I would, all the same, like to mention that the Committee recommended that the sale of game be prohibited in this country, and that the exports of game from the country be also prohibited. Anybody who is really out for sport can then go out and shoot game without any reference to the market value of game, and with no aim except sport. We recommended that remedy for three years, and I hope it will be carried into effect. I stand for the Resolution, except for that part of item No. 3 which deals with the second and every subsequent certificate. I think it is rather too high for the licence for the second gun. I agree with Nos. 1 and 2, but where a man takes out a £2 licence, it is, I think, rather too much to expect that he should also pay a licence for the second gun. I think he has done very well if he paid the £2 licence for one gun. Very few people who care about shootting are confined to one gun. I will stand for the rest of the Resolution. I want to hear more from Deputy Johnson before I agree to what he proposes. We either want game in this country, or we do not. A cheap licence to carry a gun will mean the extermination of game in the country, because the people who take out such a licence will go out and kill game. We want to preserve the game in the country. Up to last year and the year before, there was a good stock of game in the country. But last year game was practically wiped out in most counties, though at the beginning of the year there was a good stock of game in many districts.

I think there is something to be said for Deputy Johnson's suggestion. I think Deputy Gorey is thinking of only one section of the country or possibly one section of the community.

No, not one section.

There are, as Deputy Gorey knows, large areas in this country where no game is to be found, but where extensive wild-fowl shooting is to be had, and districts along the sea-coast, for instance, and in marshy areas of the West especially, where a good deal of wild fowl shooting is to be had, and where there are people who indulge in that form of sport. In other areas, where there are rabbits, a man might travel for the greater part of a week and not see any trace of a game bird. There are undoubtedly such areas in the country, and I think that fact ought to be taken into account. Ten shillings was a fair amount for a man engaged in the shooting of vermin or wild fowl to pay. Now the proposal is to put this fee up to £2 before a man can use a gun outside his own land at all. I think Deputy Johnson's suggestion is a reasonable one in the circumstances. I think some intermediate figure should be taken to meet the cases of those who engage in wild-fowl shooting and the shooting of rabbits outside their own lands.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the cases of people who are precisely sportsmen. I refer to fishermen on the north-west coast. According to the schedule, as I read it, these men would have to take out a licence for £2 for using a rifle. If that is so, I think it is rather a hardship. I am not quite sure whether No. 1 or No. 3 deals with these people. No. 1 is, I think, a licence to hold a gun. No. 3 is a licence to carry a gun. Those men who fish along the north-west coast have to carry rifles for the destruction of seals, who are doing so much harm to the nets. In the north-west, seals have become such a nuisance that they not only destroy the nets of the fishermen but the lobster pots. To cope with that, the fishermen carried rifles. During the time of the Great War the rifles were taken from them. Since then the seals have multiplied and have become so daring that they are destroying the fishing. I would like to know how this resolution will affect them, or will they be obliged to pay this fee for carrying a rifle for the destruction of seals.

Deputy O'Doherty's statement reminds me that at Lough Corrib and in certain fishing districts, fishery associations give special rewards for the destruction of cormorants, which do a lot of destruction in our fisheries. It will be necessary in future for people engaged in the destruction of these cormorants to have a £2 licence. I think that is a matter that ought to be taken into consideration.

I would like to ask the Minister a question regarding item No. 2 in the schedule. The 5/- certificate will, I suppose, take the place of what is at present the 10/- licence?

No. It will take the place of what is at present the magistrate's licence to keep a gun.

I would like to know whether it would be possible, under these regulations, to give authority to a man in one's employment to keep a gun for the destruction of vermin, rabbits and that sort of thing. Will it be lawful only for the owner, to whom the certificate is granted, to do that, or can a certificate be procured for the employee to do it?

I think the certificate was always transferable under the old system.

I know that, but I would like to know whether it will be so under the new system. Personally, I think the changes introduced are all for the better. I think, however, the revenue would be greater if the fee had been made £1 10s., and it would have been fairer too.

I would ask the Minister to consider the case of a man who had land on both sides of the public road. If he is crossing from his farmhouse to the opposite side of the road with his gun and if an excise officer comes on the scene, the man is liable to prosecution for carrying a gun on the public road. Is not that so?

Under the old law, the magistrates took that into consideration. The same rule could apply now. Some instructions could be sent out to that effect. If some of the suggestions which have been made were carried out, there would be great difficulty in enforcing the law. If you made exceptions in certain localities, or if you made provision for exceptional cases, it might prevent the law being enforced altogether. Certain facilities might be given. But they should not be provided in the Act. They should be the subject of arrangement between those in authority and individuals.

Deputy O'Connell's speech brought to my mind the necessity for State aid, or encouragement in some form, to get the public to destroy vermin. In England, certain weeks have been set aside for dealing with certain classes of vermin. Clubs and members of the public generally go out during these weeks and shoot vermin. That, I think, is the only effective way of dealing with the matter. For instance, if everybody went out during the same period, pigeons could be kept on the wing and could be destroyed wholesale. That is the method adopted in England. You see very few magpies or hawks in England and you see very few rabbits except where they are kept specially for sale. The State could also deal in that way with cormorants. Anybody who wanted a bit of fun could go out with his gun during the period set apart for their destruction. The cormorants would be bound to land some place and could then be dealt with. A well-thought out scheme, following the example set by other countries, would effect what Deputies have in mind.

I have not much to add to what Deputy Gorey has said in defence of the scale laid down here. The view of the Department of Justice is that the 10/- licence in the past was really disastrous and that it was the holders of this class of licence who did the damage to game. The holders of these licences shot game wherever they came across it and they took the best steps they possibly could to come across it. The 10/- licence was in operation when the value of money was greater than it is at the present time. I think the £1 licence at present would only be the equivalent of the 10/- licence in the old days, and the figure is hardly high enough. It is because of that, and with a view to restricting the number of people who carry guns, other than those who desire to kill vermin on their own land, that this scale was devised. It is felt that if you make it easy for people who are not really interested in game, people who have not in any degree the sporting outlook, you will have game destroyed whether it is in the close season or not. That, it is thought, was done to a large extent by the holders of the 10/- licences in the past. I believe myself — and it is certainly the view of the Department of Justice—that to reduce this £2 licence would destroy the results which are looked for from the operation of this new scale. The point raised by Deputy Crowley is, I think, met sufficiently by the wording of the resolution, which states: "For a firearm certificate for a shot gun... limited to use for killing animals or birds other than game, on land occupied by the person to whom the certificate is granted..." If he went on to the public road, I do not think it would be held by a court that he was using the gun improperly.

It must be the owner of the land who uses the gun.

A prosecution has taken place in the circumstances I referred to.

It has never been held by the magistrates.

That is a matter that we could look into between now and the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. I would have thought the wording of this resolution was satisfactory enough. I will have that point looked into. I do not think it was contemplated in the Firearms Bill that people holding firearm certificates should be entitled to pass firearms around to those in their employment, and, from the point of view of controlling and regulating the carrying and use of firearms, it would be undesirable that that should be done. If the employee of a farmer is to have a gun for any purpose it would be desirable that that person should hold a certificate, and that his name should be registered in the local police office.

But he will have to pay £2 for killing rabbits and vermin on his employer's garden.

I see the point now.

It is absolutely necessary to give effect to what Deputy Wolfe said, because it very often happens that the owner of the land could not handle a gun at all. It is generally his son or one of his employees who handles the gun. The Minister did not reply to my point regarding a man taking out a £2 licence being obliged to pay 5s. in respect of a second gun. I would ask him to look at that matter in a broad way.

Five shillings is not a serious impost, and it is desirable to get a complete register of firearms in each district. There is a certain amount of labour involved in connection with that. If a person has one gun and then comes along and buys a second gun, he has to get some sort of certificate for it, and it is felt that, merely from the point of view of recouping the cost of dealing with the matter, there should be a charge for each gun. Each gun will have to be registered. There will have to be a certificate in respect of the second gun as well, and some charge should be made for that. It would not, I think, be desirable to go below the charge of 5s. You might have the case of a man with a half a dozen or a dozen guns, and it would not be desirable that that man should hold all these guns for a single payment of £2. The only point that seems to me to arise is the one that was raised by Deputy Gorey as to whether 5s. was excessive. As regards that, I think some charge ought to be made.

I think it is excessive, especially when you remember that the individual concerned has taken out a £2 licence. I do not see the necessity for this charge of 5s., unless it be that the Government want to get a list of the guns in the country. That, of course, is a different matter, but for revenue-making purposes I do not think this is a fair charge at all. It would be a great hardship on a man who had taken out a £2 licence to compel him to pay a special fee of 5s. for every gun he kept. That is not fair at all. There are some men who go in a lot for game shooting, and, as we all know, they keep three or four guns. If they had to pay this extra duty it would, in my opinion, be most unjust. I hope the Minister will consider these points.

Deputy Gorey stated that the holders of the 10s. licence were the people who killed all the game in the country. I would like to know from the Deputy, or the Minister for Justice, how they propose to confine the man who now gets a 5s. licence to his own land, or from shooting game that he comes across outside of it. That seems to be the objection to giving the 10s. or £1 licence proposed by Deputy Johnson. If what Deputy Gorey says be true, we will have under this what we have now: no one will take out more than a 5s. licence, and will simply trust to luck to get all he can on his own land, and, when the opportunity offers, all that he can get outside of it. It seems to me that this scale of fees is not going to improve matters, so far as the preservation of game is concerned. I think this question of fees is one that ought to be reconsidered. I would not suggest, without further consideration, that the 5s. fee should be raised as a remedy. I leave Deputy Gorey to consider that. I really think that the £1 licence without the permission to shoot game, or with permission in the case of the man on his own land, would meet the situation better than this proposal. I do not think that the object which the Minister and, indeed, all of us have in mind, namely, the preservation of game, is sufficiently met by this arrangement.

In regard to the protection of fisheries, I suggest that the schedule be altered to read in this way: "For every game licence £2, and for every rifle or gun for the protection of fisheries 5s."

There is only a charge of 5s. for a rifle.

Can the rifle be carried?

I am quite satisfied then.

Two or three points were raised which I will consider in conjunction with the Minister for Justice. This is primarily not a finance matter, but a matter for the Department of Justice, and I certainly would not like, without consulting the Minister for Justice, to agree to any substantial alteration in this scale which has been laid down. The difference between the 5/- licence holder proposed to be created under this, and the holder of the 10/- licence in the past, is that the holder of the 10/- licence was fully entitled to go outside his own land for the purpose of shooting. The 5/- licence holder will not be entitled to use his own gun outside his own land, and consequently there will be a much greater possibility of detecting him and of preventing him from destroying game. I do not think we need anticipate that the holder of the 5/- licence we are considering here, will do very serious damage in his own district, where at any rate a watch can be kept upon him by the Civic Guards. With regard to the 5/- fee for the person who keeps three or four guns, that is a matter that can be considered. I only suggest that some fee should be charged. The amount to be charged is of lesser importance.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

(1) That an excise duty of one pound shall be charged, levied and paid on the occasions hereinafter mentioned on and by every person who as on and from the 1st day of August, 1925, or on or at any time after that day becomes registered in any register of firearms dealers which may be established and kept in pursuance of any Act passed or to be passed during the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1925.

(2) That the excise duty mentioned in this Resolution shall be charged, levied, and paid upon registration in any such register as aforesaid and also upon every renewal of any such registration.

This Resolution provides for a fee of £1 to be paid annually by persons registered as firearms dealers. I think that the fee is not an excessive one, and that it is necessary and desirable to have a provision for registration and supervision in the case of dealers in firearms.

Could the Minister say why it is that dealers in firearms are allowed to stock double-barrel guns and are not allowed to stock single barrel ones?

I could not say. I have not the Firearms Act by me at the moment, but if the position is as the Deputy states, the matter should have been raised when the Firearms Bill was under discussion here.

Would the Minister think £1 insufficient?

There are various duties imposed on these dealers with regard to the keeping of a register and records, and the Department is satisfied that this fee is sufficient.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

(1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid on the occasion hereinafter mentioned on and by every person who, under an Act passed or to be passed during the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1925, takes out or renews a licence for the sale of salmon and trout an excise duty of one pound in respect of every licence so taken out or renewed.

(2) That the duty mentioned in this Resolution in respect of any such licence as aforesaid shall be charged, levied, and paid at the time of taking out such licence and also on every renewal of such licence.

This is a resolution that is brought forward at the instance of the Minister for Fisheries. It is felt that for the prevention of salmon poaching a licence for the sale of salmon or trout should be taken out annually. It is hoped that the charging of a certain fee will prevent the undue taking out of licences by people who might only deal in salmon or trout casually, or perhaps for the purpose of being able to deal in them improperly, and it is because of that view held by the Minister for Fisheries that this charge is suggested.

Is not there already in existence a provision whereby dealers in game must take out a licence?

Does this mean that people who might only deal in the sale of salmon or trout for a month or two in the year will have to take out a licence and that they could not sell either salmon or trout without being licensed?

I presume that is so. There is, I understand, a provision in the Fisheries Bill that they must be registered. It is at the suggestion of the Minister for Fisheries that this Resolution is brought forward, and it is for the purpose of preventing the undue taking out of licences by anyone except bona fide dealers.

It is in order to know who the people are that are dealing with this thing, and to make them keep a list of those who sell them salmon and trout. It is the same intention with regard to game. It is quite right that the onus should be put upon the people to prove who sold them the fish.

I am not to be taken as objecting. I wanted to get the point clear.

That is the idea, and I think it is quite just.

Motion 5 agreed to.
Resolutions ordered to be reported.
Top
Share