The Sun. — London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

_---'' marylebo an Dur"ll f ined by 150 Eve D enci en G o vero 7. ed str aw ir eral d e llo i der the Pit,it• rain, for P avir - P ~n j of cu hir i" but fro to, s trawl' • N. Sr to the 4 urse ° t o . $ ll . equ irlo . v ire ol he pOri . „rtifi es bo 474 cap - t o the lieb le e .d e rs coo.° de e' this C O : e - rr rl for tv !or i ut of e 19 9 50 thirt es° W l d Ao cti on- ly sn c filed the : i j e dtv doo:u c . coe' t 111 . Jae n '„adi t ! CV o b Heir AOC ue StiO li re " 0 5 the S i ec ts o wen t n 0 e 00 4rs ro bat e d i : co °. ing , eot opi v iog fro° tioo o'coal q u. upi ;0_ ti o cante'" —..— .eirtners, as appeared by the newspapers, and to hope that t u , retnelis• would be prepared by r, hi It to protec,, tlllllltsielatfiUrnmerosf' th an e d s t t l- t l i c) l. ' l ' (C rn r;e li s w o l f 1') " 1.1 1 ' % .1 r, 1 r i . 1".. 3 tikuvve%aster:tre that _.(ttete. oljections would be made to still considering 'how many Member s of the ~ se were landed proprietor-, :Intl having, as he fully wunitted. a strew , . and sincere sympathy with those who eteultivated the land, he th, tight no objection would he en wrtaieed the that part of the subject. and that they i t °lll . ( i l be willing to examine thoroughly into of . de would give the House some particular cases ninedamage done to the farmer by game " Ti '" e few weeks ago he was in Ilarnp,hire, and was e tb; v '',.." i ing with a farmer, from whom he received had '''' k wint.; facts :—This person stated that he i that, seventy-eight acres of I Ind in crops, and according to a fair valuation, the damage R ° o lls h w as not less thmi 2041 in the venr.—(Cri.s of to 1, -. ;' °h •") The. ‘ particulars were in the paper lie held _s hand, and thep s n from whom he had it was a hj a t of a Member of one one r. Of the Houses of Parliament ; and . thettated that he was ready to come up and give evidence if Respetimmittee were granted. Another case from the litt,4 neighbourhood was that of a farmer who held 600 tile a : l , l ,and. He would he willing to give the names .of tos4-4"es privately to any Member if he had permission isi, s . 10 ; but, of course, he could not do so unless he had per- Whi e l ;: 11 to that e ff ect. This farmer had one field of 70 acres, hated rian alon gs id e the demesne of the landowner, and he SOL . 410 t he annual damage in that one field of 70 acres was Nee' :1, 1 1 1 ,he said that he would as soon keep fifty sheep as the h ss e ,•ulets were destroying his crops. He began . to trap t e Rainekeeaving the consent of the landlord for doing so ; butthe t ‘'llo i t e Per , who was lying in cover over the fence, found d ou t Pay s w as that took the game from the trap,. and he a o te,lt t ; fi lle, and 10s, costs, not having had a licence. He then O rat4,: ice n d ee, and for six months after that period he trapped . Up the 28 hares per month. He bought his traps i t l,ll . half., gross at . once.—( Laughter ) He bought ii,ntig h ot '_le traps in the town near him, and, llthaga fore all the tras tha were_ there, he sent to traitsss _.ta others.— ( Laughter.) He had twenty-font t tele t h; it °nee, but the gamekeepers came epon the land and tti Nills tran........ 5 ,,1',7 (Laughter. ) He said that he had land in th e Ine l • •••co Were turned up by night for the sheep to ea in the 'ntng • b , . . rahhi ts , ut miring ti the night the were half eaten by a n d then th e ; . l le said the hares eat the young corn in winter - ite t wl the tt u r k ing the young shoots did notrile h n e w n i n th ri tehe grains,rest de 4 t e pl h at di s s ' ' u ng machine did not fetch out. t two -- orate s t co me out was poor, mere chickens' meat, 'which P s ut thre e general produce of the land . to the amount of • -at `ls or rug s -e lags per quarter. He said the hares made 't the field s o f Tine W h ich ' Th nt inches' - 'in width, through the whole length i nfi ,.. prey ent.. , e _ hares bit . out the hearts of the young clover, h rtu v ye,e34:u it from coming to maturity in summer. .Wel . l. ty notssith w age to the amount of 3001. bad been done in this :s o ere standing the game destroyed ; and besides, those ° C .nt el, s alft d great ill-feeng between farmers and land- It ede e r I ''' between farmers and gamekeepers, and in a seul th,teek ke eper the farmers felt themselves obliged to bribe . the t•••L''stileqe. This farmer went into many other cases, which at c e a r t thrs; t 7 t wo ‘ uld not enter into. He was anxious to show 4 res t , ' m things was not confined to one county. A ee eetable farmer end a tenant to a Member o . f th ,, a_t r ecta' v ote to h• ( M Bright) from Stirling. He said, I VtittQllt eighty I fi rn .‘ r* t h acres, and in this small farm 50/. of 4,,e'la destr oyed ve b Se g o a e me. Last year, in a field of turnips t T e lli s i ea;res, nearly y three acres were totally destroyed. ftwehe 1041 year it was worse; he had upwards o men 1, 1 11 14 t , raYed. He called three respectable . fit'lt„',lnd t h e t urnips in order to charge the landlord with the :,a te e - a l s 4 he was obliged to carry the remains of the field p ain th em " Place to prevent their being eaten up. He could , - ' 14 211p With stet gents of a similar nature from a great 74 e t ta nners in t e he same neighbourhood ; and these far tee thlerreleed their willingness to come before the House and it th e th e : evidence. The next case he would quote was one '' the - t ut ttY °f Chester. He would read a short paragraph witC'ekPort Advertiser, a paper which had no lt sym n: IN. e tithe objects in which he was interested. . *eil Wi l l' hre‘ i4r es and Rabbits." It stated that these animals C e m ster ttd e h Iva, t i ° .an extent in some parts of the county N ,Pub lie niurious to the farmers, whose crops ° destroyed, le,llefre:YmPathy had been excited towardsthes y e who were lis, a 1 th a , u 35 from these animals. The extract went on to tted," 4 fe w miles from this place 300 rabbits were weekly eftess w e a t'd a large amount of hares, and the Ce ware're obliged to quit their farms on account t ee: without receiving any compensation n for it. hp " t $ too., 'wile of the farms at present un Geupied, and 1, 4 t With gad not be found for them, because they were ore Ito i ka' re ialle ,;" This system was not confined to one county, 1 41 1 ,k tai rn - c. over several. The Hon. Member read a letter etit:: Ne e ne ar Clare, in Suffolk, who stated that the loss Thee Lattrih„,was greater than the amount of the rent, The Ze t : t q'Plo,,, "ted the turbulent spirit which prevailed between / ti0 4 ;7 11 and the employed, in a great measure to the NtL ik o„„ t e game-laws - In proof of this he referred to a th at "4, l4 4. `"' in which it appeared that one half of the co t n e - W „: 1 4t, t oe late assiees in that county,. were under h Pitis'e 1 8.- ' (l ear, bear.) In one parish the majority S t il t ed, taheniers were insolvent, and when they com h - NI, s th4 e Y were told that if they disturbed t . e t es t 'lict ley 'tight give up their holdings ; and 1 keth ee lt rietV" e a n t i , in those parishes in_ which the game laws were , i t ,. f kr ?reed, there were the most incendiary fires. till th e — ger in that county stated that upon 100 acres his (tre b o tt g a tne Was 501.—( Hear )—and he had been obliged Z l 4: 4 ig t h a tl g L araF licence to destroy the game.—( Hear.) He :Rs aefia,'„ilast another case, that of a farmer named . Hay ,,,,`' ib Stt -- :"Irs Farm Sussex, which he (Mr. Bright) took -:eit el'i" it hle le wsilaper , . That farmer had had some differ kii„' h ilt ale landlord into which he (Mr. Bright) would not l ete t eti. i ,s led to the correspondence which Mr. Haywar th elsi t illtst" r ; liaywarel, in his statement, divided his land l 'hes' e e i .' t °o most damaged and the least damaged. In trlees ;Portion of 18 1 4 acres yielded 327 bushels of corn, i •Wes4l ) , 1 4,..... i4 ,0,.,..had side, - l 4 acres, - . 3 roods, yielded only IN I , by ltlear, hear)—and his da mage had been „se 11,W r ead entnpetent surveyors at . 129/. Ils.—( Hear.) N 4 ,1 111 th 4 .4 extract of a speech delivered at a meeting of i Oh ' s : 4 -ssoci t . n by Mr. lleazley, a farmer, who had . L 'at c4 sa 'at —.4 t anch a p m • ' ed - b ' y the Duke of Rutland for his 'wtlL i'4ll4k-huNementraisHe said that in one field he saw 82 11 1 4 1 2 : l h t the oos . t of feeding them was equal to the cost of from the n ti'th is eh N iliee" eh " Ps--, (Loud sries of " Oh, oh,. ( les e all •'''-) Mr. Beazley further said . that he would h t ' h t N jeti o :sr ) hose hares for . any landlord in the world._ yl ;has„- He ( Mr. Bright) was not an owner of land v tt ott 4 i , theter-as necessary to give him a county qualification. 'th dnot:.) Neither was he a farmer; and, therefore, 41 'entur e to discuss abstruse questions 011 t ee %b ae. _ . of "Hear, hear," and connected ie tlie, 1, / t ut c-- e Iv ( Lo l u d d cries e e le t a hem authority for his facts. 5 t % .. 4 . 11 6 0 1 1 , 4 , 14r ,ant Vim the Committee he should be able to Vs'et . .' the s's e a no man could dispute, and which would Cls i / tlea,`;,mornitte e and the House that facts more extra lkk4.lllll' -to were indisputably true. Another case . he ets i ir ,;' t anitdiut was e s Hou l se was from the county of Bucking- Sktetejaethere Was rea .h lydeplorable that in many parts of waste of the produce by the game. l i 4' 4 *,,ves • ii ,,, t 'was fir s i uc a speech before the magistrates at 1 , 4 5 . `l e ss;".v'elheld firma Buckingham or Aylesbury, delivered s Iti grn ktid said He was not a man to use exaggerated ll it h e stis ab he Raid that those who held lands where game k ah.. tea , ole, danee, and the temptation to poaching could di rt "re • eds h d ecial reason to comp am s, eh •Ilori o f a special %At L iu ~ the game-laws. There were some iss pi , kiy 'V.llell o ne-fourth of the crops were de -44%,114.,N1 g s at °e• Nor was this all of which the farmer h'e L li • 14 eoe'''' beside s the loss of his crops, he had to pay Vt tr llj. * . tfe u k t .. Y 7t ra _ t es ? for the expense of maintaining the . Wit 4l l 4 9 eßty',",lamily while he as in gaol . . In am_e 9 m 3 o p r r ia i l W t ed the , h " ° wernment it was stated that out of a •tlt tlj: e off e , l ; 4t Y gaol, 169, or nearly one-third, were corn hN. °llly ease, connected with the game-laws. These t i li o e - V," which he proposed to submit to the House ' s illl t - th a Zie this branch of the subject ; but he assured Ot ' si •"e had a vast number of letters containing h hi d th e hanlar kind , which he was almost afraid to lay tt ls ~‘ L 'e kLltee, lest he should be disbelieved. He knew it h s V isli g , tl4. 7 ,: t t ed that the landowners had a right to keep Verty` ° int - ;,; a nd- He did not deny their right, nor did 14 4 t y t It s . ket ‘V oat N e r v e er in the smallest degree with the rights of injury was done in particular cases by t t s ti 1041,4 bet : a nte, he thought it probable that greater in lit'ts - alifei n s'°ne if the Legislature were directly and labsdo s„ it,,'l•es, g° the rights of property, either of the anh yeetiaiweld 1 1 , .? other class of the community. But he thong t Isite,il,rel,,,e admitted that there ought to be limits to he ktkeiis a t e th - o il t Yi and it was not proper that any . man should k 1 , 41 t 11 be e rights as to bring a grievous injury on his 0,14, °11 14 b e MI the conamunity. By the common law, nut- VS ' ,that f.t.tMt down• Besides, the landlords ought to re ll'lta t """Y did * not keep ' their game on their own tilislt4eake,nantfarmer, who had spoken at Aylesbury, at OP b s t hSt h i s ° w hich he (Mr. Bright) had been invited, 414110 at t!ould be glad if the landowners would keep ic t , h e ilrio g. e e , but the fact was, the game was kept bthe Itil hi,,, k4 ail.e.ttPiers. The Hampshire farmer,. to whose d 4, 11 3,,15er,,..dy alluded, had told him that his lap nr tibZVOßlTlssion to kill rabbits that he had no objection teriNiiirqvhis:,an.)but that a gentleman in the next estate It' less t ode ee u that game it was that destroyed his (the I t ee l4 , sl.°Y this ' He had to pay 41. for a licence before he 'li t s l itt.. 4 ar t game and then it took up his time and at stil,itoetiert et e l r , all . he could not prevent this game from t tilkte debit , hint serious injury. It , was no 4 et thutteabi° introduce into this discussion any qiet, bt e 4 e matter, but it should be remembered d tles Pt °vi n e d is eri ners had taken upon themselves the e tisZe,h Ito', t "A food for the people of this country.. t.h t 's k 4l, 4 t is Was ° lnguire whether that system was right or Ws„ t fi l !I the n ehelti by the House. They had constituted ef.Ntiltss„ 41:11.rveyors-general of her Majesty's subjects of I , iit t :' , s le , i t ' ts tt th at tl_lreland, and if a large portion of the people tyl4ti.. f r , ' th e ,73' were ill-fed, in consequence of the failure vtl 'al the y h a d a right to complain when they were pre :hlet a lealPriet or g s t°, tither sources 'for ' their food, that the Veil -- s t aerss h su ould keep large quantities of game for s',,`eei„,,"ss r ,' 'I which a considerable portion of the pro tts-41vith':, It -I s : d i ', and the * evils of scarcity considerably lis, Itt e nle l a got be said that the farmer had made a con tjttiPis i etO s 4 t hat t r ° ,,rd, and that he must stand by his bargain. , 1 0 es audit b ''' lartner did make a contract, but every landed 'lli NiPtl . 4 a ware that the competition for land was so lik l lt itio, ° Merciless, that the farmer was not I, ,i go , to .... Idsm th, tar,, i nake a fair bargain.—( Hear, hear. ) 4.1 st 1 erS ..1: , h.. 4 k b ' , ley b , "it , make a contract of this sort., and ) lli-NR . 0 nw —, otdd not kill game, why, how would the W s Z e ` kee; fl u ether he did or not ? For he could easily l ie i t 4 Nt it P the quantit of me that was on the farm t h 4' W itt ilt • °n this Y ga di N I L th at , is ground, then, he (Mr. Bright) •' l . 4 ln ei , - era „ t had strong grounds of appeal to several t ese e it e r ‘' es, tliat House He had heard complaints from N i l % ~ the .^ s inee th• • . 4,1 mk t , fan ne r is ses , ton had commenced,. of the e 1e e Nth that sub.• and he believed there was a notice of a ts di ro e , tat at befor e the House, and he applauded li'eltt 't Vi ' „ l :d . to .that had for its object the ameliorati .n of 111, 1 k t ti 'tits ti c , Ns of the people; but he would ask the (10NI it l e ktzttifi ee ' , se was it not possible for them to give a ' th a n , ort, cent relief to the farmers,by giving up a por ttllt,spi",theeal".l\e owenPeorroticoen of this bsnird . law, and7ma_k a e rm ea ._ ch hi Cful t J., B e h _ -very living thing on his t . i t 'ttr it ttlotltliaoe4lsiti? conversed with very intelligent far the' tl: k tV V l 'ho ~.1 ,t h0e , ,, re (ln this subject.—e• Hear, hear, th e 4 trt,4;ere nerteinteiid there were no farmers . from that et t ftt Pl ae.s C 31 ,3 , l gent—( Renewed cries of " Hear, 4 theNestav: had 4'l Sibtherp, and laughter)—and Cs• t le s t i tnt e ! woulda"red him that the abolition of ,f i v s ' i i ,' areset:h°l on - e o u r u n ut Pensate many farmers for the removal I ,,th s ~nisteh the , • He had heard the same from other ii' t t t ot, of th e enjo y " e ould say that the landlords ought to 4 k Ras et he ' Tro i l ment of the chase, for the advantage ts h ns t : a r ' in a e ' s je ct, 1 aseir call He would now pass to another th - se i t t s's 's wh, Ci attention to the position of that h t it hi tn. A pt h e fo_eld what hail been called allotments 4 ,l l4;ace s. l etrib ei , s it asured he,. should have the sympathy t N I P re, e _tile 4,, ,').r D orset and Hereford, if they were . in ;liee t : l ' s ati C rnarbinself counted sixty rabbit holes which 114 1 1 11 14 k, a , Fe w d0,....... ( ,_Yeeautng rabbits learning to excavate, f i l h ) uttt he die n 4 B r‘. laughter.) He had sown peas, lesi t tallbe . 0 bed s , 0 I green ones and bacon during the ON Il tar L . Thi, "LY had a gall n where he should have 4 N kt ret, t l) . !At a li 2 Ossowhaos,.all done by the game. He tried bits Ire f t e w of went t "se, and thought to grow turnips and . s k s a 1 , C oln .0 the rabbi ts. —(Laughter.) This land yq tett, 'its 'net tiv hat h a p iti %Mitt Yndham, of Petworth, and the game k .ititt) h i aknd the I . Mates of two other gentlemen. I lk l a „ _ta.en great pains to ascertain the truth, J it fair statement before the House. In THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, PEBRUARY .28, 1845. Midhurst, where there five allotments, likewise great again, the poachers on Lord Rendelsham's and the Mar d smage had been done, though not to a groat quis of Hertford's estates carried their calling so far that they extent ; but in must cases they were afraid to say had formed a society and subscribed a fund for their mutual much for fear of offending. Another case from Suffolk protection, feeing counsel, Hear, hear, and laughter.) he would mention, in which great damage had been done fo These were men who had led this Ife se long that they were allotments. From a respectable farmer in the neighbourhood now in fact almost shut out from the pale of society, and led a of Clare he had received a letter, which stated that a poor man, kind of savage life; and this he thought showed how little a of the name of Bruce, had twenty shillings' worth of da- breach of the game-laws was regarded as an offence against mage done to his barley by lesres and rabbits ; and this twenty moral law. In a country newspaper lately, the obituary con shillings was more than he could earn in two weeks, even tained an account of the death of a notorious poacher, but it hough he had been constantly employed. Another case—a said that in every other respect he was a highly-respectable indi poor man, who had a worse crop, in the same neighbourhood, vidual, and was so esteemed in his neighbourhood that he was was obliged to sow his crop three times over, having been actually entrusted with his own commitment, when convicted eaten up by the pheasants as soon as sown. And what re- of an offence.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It sometimes mained after the damage done by the hares and rabbits was happened that landlords employed poachers as game-keepers ; cut with a knife in the harvest time, there not being a suffi- but he would ask, would any man in business promote a clerk ciency of stem to employ a sickle. He asked, in all earnest- whom he might have found with his hand in his till ?—( Hear, ness, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would attend to these hear.) He had dwelt long upon this subject, but he did statements, as being very important. There were parties in think he might be excused as this was a subject of no ordin try this country who considered that the allottment system was a interest, and not one which usually occupied the debates of the, good one. He was of opinion that it would be a great en- House.—(Hear, hear.) In the past session of Parliament, couragement to the agricultural labourer to have a nice bit he moved for certain returns upon this subject, of ground attached to his house. There was no doubt that in a and by them it appeared that at one assizes there moral point of view it was worth half of the police of the dis- were 152 convictions in England and Wales for trict. Those very landowners should, if it were possible, give offences against the game-laws; and 4,377 at the quarter ses to every cottage as much land as would supply a little amuse- sions ; of those 35 had been sentenced to transportation at the merit and employment, and enable him to provide a few things assizes and 5 at the sessions, and 112 to imprisonment; others for his family. Now the case he was about to put would be had been sentenced to pay a fine of 21., and others again to at once understood by the House. A labourer got up two seven weeks' imprisonment. It would be very easy for Hon. hours before his usual time—at sunrise—he worked with glad- Member of that House to throw down a fine of 21. Many of ness and sprit on his little bit of land. He sowed his crop, them spent as much in a day. But when a poor labourer was hoping to get a profitable return from it. During the day it fined that sum for an infraction of the game-laws, he would might be that his wife and children were weeding and planting ask, was it not a monstrous punishment when compared with it here and there, as far as was consistent with their strength the offence, and was calculated to destroy all respect for the and knowledge; and then, when the sowing was beginning to law, and all confidence in the justice and impartiality of the appear above ground, the game from some landed proprietor— Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) He would now call attention to some man who, standing on the highest eminence in the another return of still deeper interest and importance than that country, could not see to the extent of his land—the game he had read. By that return it appeared that in the year 1842- from his estates came into the poor man's garden, and de- 43, no fewer than 40 gamekeepers had been killed ; and of those voured the produce of his labour. He (Mr. Bright) did not the verdicts of the coroner's juries were wilful murder in 25 envy the feelings of any man, who, conscious that cases. In the case of the murder of Lord Knowsley's game the game which ministered only to his sport, committed keeper, both he and the poachers fired; the latter escaped, the such damage as blasted the hopes and destroyed the former was shot, and, on his death-bed, he expressed how pro.pects of the honest labourer.—( Loud cries of " Hear, pleased he felt at not having shot the poacher.—( Hear. ) hear.") But there was another consideration respecting the No fewer than five persons were convicted for this offence; one labourer. All farmers were agreed, and landowners who of them was hanged, and the others had been sent to the penal spoke their honest sentiments were of opinion that the preser- colonies, leaving wives and helpless families destitute behind vation of game was most injurious to agricultural pursuits, and them, with a stain upon their names.—(Hear, hear.) This very much prevented the due cultivation of land. In Ruislip, was the class of grievances attending those game-laws that led in that county, a petition had been got up, and signed by every him, more than any other, to bring this subject before the farmer in the parish. A farmer there told him that in that House; and he could not help saying that he could not under .. parish, containing 7,000 acres of land, there were not more than 100 labourers employed ; the game was preserved to a great extent there, and he had suffered severely from it for several years back. From this and several other statements he (Mr. Bright) was led to this conclusion, that where the game was rigidly preserved, there could not be good farming; arid if there were not good farming, there could not be a rea sonable amount of employment. If he were a landed pro prietor he would feel proud to see the labourers growing up around his demesne. Nothing he would be so anxious to ad ance as to give them greater employment and greater remuneration—(Hear, hear)—or increasing their physical comforts, and laying that foundation without which, all attempts at moral or literary education would be useless.— (Hear, hear.) Let them recollect what had taken place in Suffolk last year—in Wales sometime ago—what a re fractory spirit periodically spread throughout all the counties of England. Justice to all owners of property, and common sense, induced him to tell the House that a remedy must be provided for such a state of things. He asked the attention of the House to the condition of the labourer, and to the mode in which he had been treated by the administration of the law. The Right Hon. Gentleman at the close of the last session of Parliament expressed his desire to mitigate the hardships in flicted upon many persons by the operation of the game Acts ; and had sent through the country expressions of his opinion that the magistrates should administer the law with a little more mercy, and in a more lenient spirit. Rle had a case or two which he would state to the House as samples of the oppression which had been practised, and he could as easily have brought a hundred such cases as one. One case took place at the Petty Sessions of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in the county of Leicester, before Mr. Abney and Mr. Chafnell Manning. The case oc curred on the 12 of March, 1844, before that court. The whole facts of the case had been represented to the Home Secretary, but no alteration had bean made in the punishment of the individuals. William Edwards, John Edwards, and James Finch, the former two being brothers, one of them only eleven years of age, all of Worthington, were charged by John Peters, one of the game-keepers to the Earl of Ferrers, with using a net for catching game without having a game certificate. The parties who absconded had not been arrested until the 17th. Each of them was fined Si. and costs, and, in default, to three months' imprisonment and hard labour. They were then charged with a Sunday offence (the offence took place on Sunday) and fined 51. and costs, &c., in default of payment to three months' imprisonment and hard labour. Wm. and John Edwards were charged with trespassing in search for game, and fined 40s. and costs, and, in default, to two months' imprisonment and hard labour. Wm. Edwards and John Finch were then charged with an assault on Peters, the gamekeeper, and fined 51. each, and in default of payment, two months' imprisonment. Here was a ease in which two men had been convicted of an overwhelm ing offence. One would imagine that the magistrate would look to the condition of life and the degree of intelligence of the parties, and proportion the punishment accordingly. But instead of doing so, the very worst penalties of the law, the most stringent of its enactments, were carried into effect, and eight and ten months' imprisonment and hard labour were inflicted on those unfortunate men for going out on a Sunday with a net, in search of game. Another case, one which must be fresh in the remembrance of most Hon. Members from its having been put so prominently forward in the neigh bourhood—it was the case of a man named Hibburn, which took place in Buckinghamshire, in September last. 'f he gamekeeper of the Rev. G. Chetwoode saw him at the snare; the man was seized, but it did not appear that there was any proof that the snare had been found at all. The gamekeeper said he believed it was the man's first offence; the man cried bitterly ; he had a family of four children, one an infant; nine of them had died—having had fourteen in all. He further stated that he had only had ten days' work within the last month— that he was in great distress, and that his children had not a bit of bread to eat. Mr. tone, the magistrate, a most ap propriate name, for it required a heart of stone to take the course which that gentleman took in this case ; he said the prisoner was liable to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, but as this was the first offence—what extraordinary views some men take of misery !—he would sentence him only to six weeks' imprisonment and hard labour, and to find sureties, himself in ten pounds, and two others in 5L each, and in default thereof to be further imprisoned, with hard labour, for six months. He presumed this gentle man was still a magistrate, but he asked the House to observe, that here was a man who said that he had got only ten days' work for the last month, his children had not a bit of bread to eat, and yet a man sitting on the bench to distribute justice, under the constitution of this country, sentences him, not only to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, but orders him to find sureties likewise—a man who had not constant work, and when he had, did not earn more than 7s. or Bs. a-week, ordered to find sureties !—( Hear, hear.) What must be the opinion of the public on this case? Why, every newspaper, of whatever politics, took it up and denounced it as one of the most flagrant instances of cruelty that had ever been inflicted by a court ofjustice. But there were a multitude of such cases. The sympathy of the country was so much enlisted in this case that money was sent from all parts of the country. A five-pound note was sent in a letter, the fine was paid, and the man was liberated. He ( Mr. Bright) hoped that some of this poor man's friends took care to remove him from a district in which he had suffered this punishment, and conducted him to some honest district where justice for an offence against the game laws was not dispensed by a bench which had invariably shown the interest which it felt in the preservation of game.—( Hear, hear.) If either of these cases of Hibburn or of Ashby-de la-Zouch came before a jury, what would be the consequence? One of the principles of the Constitution was, net only that a man was to be tried by a jury, but he was to be tried by his Peers. Agricultural or manufacturing labourers were not often on juries, nor did they often have a jury of Peers, but in this case they had not even a jury of disinterested persons. But it came before a bench who entertained strong feelings in favour of the preservation of game. When the Right Honourable Baronet brought forward his Bill last session for the regulation of fuctories, he took care to intro duce a clause to prevent the owners of factories from sitting on the bench when factory cases were to be disposed of.--( Hear, hear.) And why should a different principle be applied to the owners of mills and to the owners of land? Why should they consent to a different system from that which was practised in reference to millowners in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or any other county ? Those poor men when brought before the bench had neither counsel nor attorney. It might be said the law empowered them to obtain such aid? But where was the money to come from? Virtually they were excluded from such assistance. So here was a poor labourer dragged before a bench of magistrates, who were enthusiastic in the preserva tion of game, without any assistance whatever, and fined and imprisoned as these magistrates thought fit. Yet this was called law and justice in this country. He did not blame the magistrates so much as the law itself. He supposed if there were magistrates at all, they must execute the law. But he thought those who acted in the manner described, if they were not men of very little feeling, would join with him in his en deavour to abolish, or at least modify, these cruel laws, so that the feelings of the community might not be outraged by the re currence of such cases.--( Hear, hear.) In considering the amount of criminality which attached to a labourer's infringe ment of the game-laws, some consideration ought to be made with respect to the amount of temptation which was pre sented to him. —( Hear, hear.) They had an authority altogether indisputable that temptation in some districts was more than flesh and blood could stand. It had been stated be stand how any man could set up his o vfn personal enjoyment in comparison with a system that led to such great and grievous evils.—( Hear, hear.) The year 1844 had also its catalogue of victims.—( Hear.) In one of those desperate en counters between gamekeepers and poachers, two of the latter were killed, and two men were hanged for their murder, under circumstances by no means satisfactory, both of them having protested on the scaffold, with a solemnity of manner that it would be impossible to imagine could be feigned at such an awful moment, that they had no hand, act, or part, in those murders. Then, again, he would say, there were incidents which made it worth the while of the Legislature to consider, whether the mere amusement of a very small portion of the community should be kept up at such an awful expense.— ( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that there should be no game, nor laws affecting game ; but he made these state ments in order to show the lamentable consequences attending the present state of those laws, and to show that he had a strong claim upon that House for the Committee he asked for.—( Hear, hear,) There was another case which he had well nigh for gotten to state; it was that of a man who had been sentenced to be transported for stealing rabbits in Staffordshire ; and that man's mind became so affected at the awful penalty he was about to suffer for this act, that he put an end to his existence in the prison. ( Hear, hear. ) There was another case of a young person of sixteen years of age, who went shooting sparrows, hut a pheasant coming in his way, he shot it also. Was there any one of those who heard him who would deny that he would not h ave d one t h e same at the age of sixteen ?—( Hear, hear.) But fo r thi s h e was threatened with the law, and having all its conseq uences before him, he hanged himself to escape the troubles he saw before him in' this world.—( Hear, hear.) What a system must that be which produced these results ! It was said that gentlemen kept gamekeepers to be spies over those very farmers who paid dearly for their land.—( Hear. ) It was a system of li terrorism injurious in its effect upon the labouring classes, and detrimental to the agricultural interest. He did not be lieve that any Gentleman in that House would oppose his motion for an inquiry into such a system, except, perhaps, the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire ( Mr. G. Berkeley)— ( Laughter)—who had written a pamphlet in defence of it. They had heard of a Berkeleian theory before, which denied the existence of matter.—( Laughter.) That was the doctrine of immateriality, but in this new theory there was nothing of that kind, for " punches in the head, and blows before words"—(Laughter)—had:semething very material and sub stantial about them.—( Laughter.) But he would not attempt to answer the arguments in that pamphlet, for it was its own bane and antidote. But one singular discovery which it con tained was, that the British Constitution lauded as it was— (and it was net without some merit)—and liberty of conscience were, in some way or other, interested in the preservation of great heads of game. —( Laughter.) He had often said harsh things of the proprietors of land, but he had never said anything so harsh of them as those persons who defended the preservation of game and the battue system , and who maintained that it was the enthusiasm of the chase which kept gentlemen upon their paternal estates. His opinion was, that there were other pursuits besides those connected with the preservation of game, which it would better become them to follow, and which would be better for the country. Why, there was not a finer position in the world, than that of a gentleman of property who attended to his own estate—he had an opportunity of doing untold good.—( Hear, hear.) He might look after his tenants—watch over the physical comforts of his labourers, attend to their cottages, and see that they were neat and commodious—build schools, and provide for the education of the poor.— ( tlear, hear.) Those were pleasures as great as those of the chase, and far better, because the plea sure of doing good never tired—(Hear)—and those gentlemen who looked to those things far better deserved the character of English gentlemen, than those who merely dwelt amongst their tenants for the purpose of enjoying the pleasures of the cbase.—(Cheers. ) One mode of enjoying sport was called the battue system. He had never seen it himself, but he heard it described, and he believed it consisted in the sportsmen standing in a line on both sides of a wood, and firing upon the game, which were driven within the range of the muzzles of the guns which were driven out by persons employed for that purpose. It was pretty evident that none of the game could escape. He would say nothing ridiculous of this system, because it was not worth it.—( Hear, hear.) It was too absurd for ridicule.—( Hear, hear.) A person might as well go to Leadenhall-market and put the muzzle of his gun , upon the game in the baskets, and having killed them all, come home with a quantity of game and enjoy the reputation of a good sportsman.—( Hear, hear.) If there was anything more unsuited than another to the character of England it was this system.—( Hear, hear.) The maintenance of this system of game-laws would counteract all their efforts for the improve ment of the poor, and now more than at any former period they showed their sympathy for the poor. All their legislation lately was in some way or other connected with the poor.— ( Cries of " Hear, hear,") The Noble Lord the Member for Dorset ( Lord Ashley) to whom he gave every credit for the honesty of his motives, had half-a-dozen plans every session, and the Hon. Member for Hereford introduced a Bill connected with the allotment system, and not only in , that House, but in the country, amongst the higher and middle classes, there was a sincere and anxious desire to promote the happiness and comforts of the poorest classes.—( Cheers.) He had (Lawn no exaggerated picture of the operation of the game laws, and he thought he had stated sufficient to induce the House to grant the Committee which he asked for.—(Hear, hear.) But he did not want a sham Committee.—( Hear, hear.) He did not want a Committee composed of persons who took extreme views on either side.—( Hear, hear.) All he wanted was a fair, honest, and impartial Committee—( Hear, hear) — which would go through the question, beginning, middle, and end. —( Hear, hear.) He did not object to the fair sports of the rich, but the interests and rights of the poor were not to he sacrificed to them.—( Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to state his case without uttering a harsh expression against any class or person. He could state with the utmost sincerity that he did not harbour in his breast an unkind feeling towards any individual in connexion with this subject.—( Hear, hear. ) But he had seen the sufferings of thousands of the poor and the defenceless, to whom the law should be a protection, and for whose especial good parliaments and constitutions were in stituted.-_( Hear, hear.) He had seen some sacrificed under this system—he had seen others led out to receive the dreadful sentence of the law, while the public sympathy was in their favour; and seeing and knowing those things, he called on the Government and the Legislature not to assent to a principle, or to give the aid o f th e i r influence or encouragement to a system prouctive of such grave evils, not to one, but to every class— not to one district, but to the entire kingdom. The Hon. Gentleman concluded (amidst loud cheering) by moving for a Committee to inquire into the operation of the game-laws. Dr. BO WRING seconded the motion. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that though the Hon. Gen tleman had occupied a considerable time in the delivery of his speech, he had no fault to find with its tone or temper—( Hear, hear )—more particularly as regarded his closing remarks, in which he (Sir J. Graham) cordially concurred. The Hon. Gentleman, on this question, had done justice to the gentle men of England, and he thought the Hon. Gentleman esti mated rightly the feelings of the House when he said he hoped there would be a general disposition, in the present cir cumstances of the case, to sanotion a full, fair, and dispas sionate inquiry. He heard the Hon. Gentleman with satisfac tion when he said that there was no higher sphere of action `,han that of a country gentleman who inspected the state of fore a Committee, of which the Hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) was a Member, that agricultural poachers were more successful because they began early ; the boy of twelve years of age sets snares with his father. He had received a letter from Huntingdon on this subject, in which it was stated that the shepherd boys, when they left their work at twilight, seeing hares running about in all directions, were so much tempted that they could not resist the temptation ; and the writer further stated that poaching was more injurious to boy; than public-houses.—( Hear.) They were brought up in a manner so as not to believe that any moral guilt attached to an infringement of the game-laws. He hoped Hon. Members had read the 9th Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, and they would there find the strong language which Mr. Williams used on this subject. The substance of what he stated was, that with most other offenders there was some hope of reformation by prison discipline, but that those confined for poach ing were very seldom reclaimed.—( Hear, hear.) He held in his hand also the testimony of chaplains who attended prisoners, and they stated that argument, admonition, entreaty, were all alike unavailing, in trying to induce those prisoners to admit that they felt they had committed any moral offence ; and they add that there was more sympathy for those people than any other class of offst,nders Their invariable answer was, that the law was oppressive,' and that they had as good a right as others to those hares. In the report of the year 1823 on this subject, Stafford, the Bow-street officer, stated, in answer to questions put to him, that it appeared to him that those who were taken for offences against the game-laws did not at all conceive that they had taken any portion of the property of another; and Mr. Hunt, afterwards a Member of that House, said that the large quantity of game in the country was too strong a temptation to the people to resist, and that they did not conceive they had taken anybody's property . .—(year, hear.) Mr. Benett, the Member for Wiltshire, in his an. swcr, stated that neither in the lower order, in the class a little higher, nor in the occupiers, was it deemed any disgrace to be punished for an offence against the game-laws. Hon. Members might say that all this arose from a confused idea as to the right of property; but he ( Mr. Bright) would contend that the right of parties to game was not at all so distinct as might be imagined ; if it were, it was very odd that that House should pass a law to prevent the sale of game ; and it was the only description of property against the sale of which any law had ever been passed. If game were property, it should not be forgotten that it could not be identified or impounded if found straying like a pig or other animal. But notwithstanding that, if a mail were caught with a hare or a rabbit in his hand, or even a piece of copper wire and a string, or taking a gun from a smith's shop across a field, he was sure to be imprisoned and otherwise punished. A man might meet a hare crossing the wood and kill it ; but this House had hedged round these animals with so many laws that the man was liable to be punished very severely, To so great an extent had poaching been encouraged by those laws, that in a place in Suffolk there was a poacher who was said to be carrying on a " very respectable" trade—(Laughter)—he employed thirty or forty Men, sant his hampers to market, and received his remittances and paid his men as regularly as any man in any other line of business. —( Hear, hear.) Then, his labourers and tenants, watched over the wants of the poor, ministered to their necessities, and afforded them the means of education ; and he must say that he felt a pride and honour (however imperfectly he performed those duties individually) in being one of that class. He was confident, if the fact had not been notorious before, that the result of the Committee would show that the gentry of England had fulfilled their duties.—( Hear, hear. ) And, as a sportsman, he would say that the enjoyment of field sports was not inconsistent with those duties.--( Hear, hear.) He thought the Hon. Member had laid sufficient grounds for inquiry, for in the course of the last two or three years most lamentable circumstances connected with the preservation of game had forced themselves upon the notice and attention of the public, and they had not escaped the consideration of the Go vernment.--( Hear, hear.) He would state the reasons why he thought an inquiry—a fair and impartial inquiry—such as the Hon. Memberdesired, would be politic. Since 182.3 there was no inquiry instituted by the House of Commons into the opera tion of the game-la•s. An inquiry took place before a Com mittee of the other House in 1828, and that Committee recom mended that game should be made property, and should be pro tected as property. In 1831, Lord Alt horp, as the representative of Earl Grey's Government in the House of Commons, pro posed alterations in the then existing game-laws. The feudal distinction of the possession of property as a necessary antece dent to the liberty of killing game was taken away, and a large class of persons was thereby enabled to kill game, who were previously prevented by law from doing so. The effect of that law was, that where a person was both owner and occupier the game that would be kept was kept at his own cost, and even when a person was only occupier there was nothing to prevent his killing all the game on his farm, if he took out a three guinea licence, unless there was a specific stipulation to the contrary. —( Hear, hear.) But he admitted that the law which made game property was an extensive change. The first effect of it was, as he before stated, to open the right of sporting to a large class of individuals before disentitled to do so.—( Hear, hear.) A consequence of this was, that the large cities were better supplied with those luxuries which were to be found at the tables of the rich. For a long time that law appeared to have operated favourably ; but, of late, there was unhappily an increase of crime connected with the game-law. That being the case, and fourteen years having elapsed since any inquiry was instituted into the matter, he thought the time was arrived when the operation of the law should be inquired into.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted that there were many grave errors committed in the way game was sometimes pre served—( Hear, hear)—and whatever might be the result of the Committee, ho was sure that the present debate would• have, at all events, a good moral effect.—( Hear, hear.) But the cases which the Hon. Gentleman adduced, he might men tion, were almost entirely confined to hares and rabbits. If that species of game multiplied very much, he believed the far mer had good ground for complaint. The Hon. Gentleman, much to his credit, had avoided to mix any feeling of hostility with the question, and he (Sir J. Graham) would follow the example. But he must say; that he could not help thinking that there was gross exaggeration in some of the statements— was of the most imbecile order. He could imagine nothing more monstrous and ridiculous. It was actually the prin ciple of Old Dogberry, the constable.—(Laughter.) If they took Dogberry's language, word for word, they would find the opinions of these who advocated the abolition of the game laws precisely similar to those of the weak old constable. If the House would allow him, he would point out the resem blance.—(Laughter.) Dogberry tells the watch -(continued the Hon. Gentleman), " that they shall visit all the ale houses, and bid them that are drunk get them to bed ; but if they will not, why, then, let them sleep till they be sober. If we know a man to be a thief, shall we not lay hands upon him ? The most peaceable way, if you know him to be a thief is, let him show himself what he is, and steal himself out of your company."—(Laughter.) Exactly the principle of the Hon. Member for Durham. Dogberry let the thief go ; and the Hon. Member would abolish the statute which detained him in custaly. The principle was the same ; it was the principle of abolishing all statutes against which offences were committed. Such a principle appeared to him, he repeated, to be absolutely monstrous, and he trusted that the House would not assent to Hear, hear.) Now, as this Committee was to be appointed, he did trust that it would be a fair one. He should like very much to hear to what point their labours were to be directed ; for upon that subject he confessed that he was at present entirely in the dark. If they were to follow the course of the agitation, he must pro nounce the inquiry to be absolutely absurd. The Hon. Mem ber confessed that he was perfectly ignorant of farming, that he knew nothing of sporting.---( Hear, hear.) He had shown a great want of knowledge of ornithology and natural history. Honourable Members who came to that Howe impressed with an idea of the destructiveness of game, were utterly ignorant of the subject; and persons should know more about it before they took part in the discussion. He would appeal more especially to those Hon. Members who were agriculturists, and who were not ashamed, also, to be called sportsmen, for really, if he might judge from the accounts which he had read of this agitation, to be either an agriculturist or a sportsman was to be one of a den'unced class.---( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would ask whether it would not appear from those accounts as though the pheasants, the partridges, and game in general, had not a moment to themselves from year to year, but were constantly employed in devouring grain 2—( Laughter.) Now, did the Hon. Member for Durham know that, for six months in the year, pheasants and partridges could hardly be called granivorous ?—( Hear, hear.) From the time that the heat of the sun brought the insect egg into life, from that moment the quantity of grain destroyed by pheasants and partridges was actually as nothing. He could tell the Hon. Gentleman thathe had seen pheasants on their nests tempted with grain, and actually turning away from it.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to any Hon. Gentleman whether he ever saw a pheasant go near a stack of wheat after the month of April? The fact was, that they fed on insects and gr u b s ; an d th ey were particularly destruc tive to that injurious insect the wire-worm. It could not be pretended that they eat the corn in the month of May. The injury which they committed must take place when the grain was ripe. But who ever heard of a pheasant seizing ears of corn before the corn had been cut ? The pheasant, as many Hon. Members whom he addressed well knew, if he might use the expression, was a gleaner and not a reaper. To judge, however, from the writings and speeches of those who agitated this question, and especially from those of the Anti-Corn• law League, it would appear as if the pheasants were continually eating wheat and barley.—( Hear, hear.) The most extraordinary statements were made, and the most extraordinary abuse was lavished on the proprietors. Henry Baring was depicted as a kind of Robinson Crusoe, going about destroying game with four guns on his shoulder. —(Laughter.) With respect to the petition from Ruislip, presented that evening, he had no hesitation in saying, that the meeting at which that petition was agreed to was a most disreputab e meeting. He would tell the Hon. Gentleman that his friend Mr. Jenkins—(Laughter) —the gentleman who was found speaking at that meeting, went'to the beer houses on Saturday night to get signatures to the petition.-- (Laughter.) That he would prove ; and he would prove like wise, that the petition was got up merely on account of a feud between two farmers, and in point of fact there was not game enough in the neighbourhood to injure any farmers whatever. But now, he would ask, what were the Committee to do with reference to this matter ? Was the House to legislate so that game should be entirely extirpated in this country ? Should they favour the intrusion of lan ar me d i nvas i on on l an d e d estates ? Should they deny to a man the right to possess the beast and the bird which he bred and fed ?—( Hear, hear.) Something had been said about the impossibility or impropriety of making birds and beasts private property, because they had locomotive powers. Why, if they were to carry out that that principle, they would sanction the Duke of Richmond's being deprived of his salmon, asserting that every man had a right to hook it.— ( Laughter.) Dovecote pigeons were often seen to follow men as they sowed grain, and there was a penalty of half-a-guinea for shooting one. He dare say the Hon. Member for Durham would be exceedingly angry it any one were to shoot one of his pi geons .—( Hear, hear: - ) If those who agitated this question took care not to go to a Re publican meeting for golden maxims, how came it that they had not heard a word as to the practice of any country ex cept England ?--( Hear, hear .) Where was the p a tt ern , Re publican America? Where was the El Dorado—the Utopia— which would, on other questions, have been referred to ? The fact was that America had game-laws infinitely more stringent than those of Great Britain. He had there an abstract of the laws of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, inclusive of Duchess' County, Queen's County, King's County, and Suffolk County, and he had selected States in which the negro and the white man were upon equal terms. Now, there a law existed protecting the birds and beasts during the breeding season ; and though they might be considered as firm natura, he would show that they were treated strictly as private property. The penalty for shooting a deer out of sea son was 25 dollars; and the law went on from a deer, through a number of other animals, down to the miserable musk -rat, for shooting which the penalty was one dollar. What would the House think if an Hon. Member were to get up and propose a penalty of five shillings for killing a hedgehog? The magistrates of America, under this law, could act on an information only, and if it was merely suspected that a red deer's akin was concealed in a man's house, they could be com pelled to issue a search warrant, to enter that house and make a search, and if a red deer's skin was found, the person was liable to a penalty of twenty-five dollars.— ( Hear, hear.) For birds, also, the same kind of penalties existed ; for killing grouse, er as they were called in some of the Acts heath-hens, for pheasants, for partridges, and quail ' • when he said phea sants he ought t explain that though this was the word he found in the Acts, the bird itself, he believed, was really a kind of partridge. The penalties were extended even to the migratory woodcock.--( Hear, hear.) Now let them turn to the laws of the State of New Jersey. That State more resembled England than almost any other State of the Union ; it was very populous, and it was aljacent to the States of New York and Philadelphia. The first game-law of this State to which he should call their attention, although there were others passed before it, was of the date of 1771, when New Jersey was a British colony. That law prohibited any person from carrying a gun over another man's property without leave, under a penalty of forty shillings and costs.—( Hear, hear.) There was the same penalty for setting snares for deer, for carrying spears, or pointed sticks, or for hunting with dogs. If any stranger in the colony should shoot over another man's land, without leave, he was liable to a penalty of 51. and the forfeiture of the gun.—( Hear.) Now, it might be said, that this law was passed in 1771. But when these republicans shook off the yoke of Great Britain, did they shake off the game-laws ? By no means. At that time they were not in a humour to find much to admire in British institutions; yet they found no fault with the game-laws. In 1820 they increased their stringency ; in 1837, they enacted a supplement to these laws, and in 1838, a second supplement. But there was one more law he ought to mention, which prohibited hunting even over the waste lands of the State. It enacted that all persons age, for each of 20s . except f free hol s d h e o r ni s d o b r e theproshoinbsi prohibited df fromfreeholders,oanbohvoewealegthetaene and years o unimproved lands of the State, under a penalty offence. Now, at some future time, the lion. Member for Durham would no doubt visit the city of Philadelphia, in which he would find many respectable men of his own peculiar class. He could say that for no class had he (Mr. H. Berkeley) more respect. He numbered many friends among the Society of Friends, and he could say that that class be made very we l come i n the city of Philadelphia. In that no o as d a oo m bt o, t t respectable, hatthotionokuirnadb,leanmdemhobsepritafbolre oDnuer. ham ile wo h u a ld d State he would find pheasants, and quails, and partridges, and birds of all descriptions, with which the Hon. Gentleman might amuse himself.—(Laughter.) But let the Hon. Gen tleman beware hew he carried that natural instinct, which he said all men possessed, to kill game wherever they saw it ; let him beware how he indulged his propensity for poaching— (Laughter) —in the adjoining State of New Jersey, because he would find it rather more expensive than in England.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) And let him give the Hon. Member a word of advice ; if he carried out with him one of Manton's or Purday's guns, he might find the penalty by the forfeiture of the gun, amounting to 601. or 76/.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He had to thank the House for the patience with which they had heard him. He could only say, in conclusion, that he trusted that this Committee, be it what it might, would prove successful. He would not oppose it ; but what on earth its attention was to be directed to he could not conceive. ( Hear, hear)—and he believed that the inquiry would have a salutary effect in showing that exaggeration. If even it effected nothing else, he should like to see the statements in vestigated.—( Hear, hear.) He should like t o see the witness whose 78 acres of land suffered damage to the amount of 104/. in one year from the ravages of hares and rabbits. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He should like to see the farmer who had lost by the game 501. worth of his crop upon 100 acres in a year.—(Hear, and laughter.) He should like to see the farmer who could prove that he had seen 83 hares at a time in one corn-field. and that these 83 hares consumed as much as 23 sheep.—(Laughter.) Above all, he should like to see that trustworthy, upright.Yorkshireman, who walked nine times to Wakefield gaol with his committal in his pocket. Mr. BRIGHT—I told you he was dead.—( Renewed laughter. ) Sir J. GRAHAM was sure that, so far, the investigation would be somewhat amusing. Another proposition put for ward by the Hon. Member for Durham was, that the preser vation of game was incompatible with the cultivation of the soil. But the Hon. Gentleman admitted that he was not a sportsman or a farmer, and he did not make the assertion upon his own experience.—(Hear.) Now, he (Sir J. Graham) saw an Hon. Friend of his near him who was a preserver of game, and with whom he had had the pleasure of shooting in Norfolk, and who he thought could bring abundant proof that the Hon. Member for Durham was mistaken, and that the preservation of game was not incompatible with the highest cultivation.-- ( Hear, hear.) As he (Sir J. Graham) did not intend to op pose one rmenf e ritetna cicommittal. observation, m eha byt which washthi c e h a H w as on pose the motion, he would no t d eta i n the House much longer case. Gt n o e e c wn e th s l e s i c a m r h y a h , n sn to( c sa o i nr cases j e -. got than n r n r e e t ego irregular a a t r h k Graham's) attention had been especially turned, and which led to a regulation hi his office, and he would state to the House what that was. He had thought it his duty to direct that, from day to day, copies of all commitments under the game-laws should be sent up and should be regularly examined. Frequently errors were found in the commitments, and these were communicated to the ma gistrates, who in every single case concurred with him, and the penalty was by his advice remitted; or in cases where the penalty had been inflicted, and it seemed to him to be too se vere, he had been met by the magistrates in the same spirit.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) was mis taken as to the law, and he had stated the practice somewhat to the disadvantage of the magistrates. He (Mr. Bright) said the game preservers were in the habit of deciding in game cases, whereas the owner of a mill would not be allowed to de cide in a case under the Factories Act. The Right Hon. Baronet read the Factories Act to show that millowners, being magistrates, were not precluded by that Act from sitting on the bench to hear cases under that Act, but that the owner of the mill in which the offence was alleged and his immediate relatives were prohibited from taking part in the de cisions. —( Hear, hear. ) If in a case under the game-laws persons standing in a similar relation to the case were to sit on the bench and adjudicate, he (Sir James Graham) would have no hesitation in recommending the Lord Chancellor to remove those persons from the commission of the peace.— (Cheers.) In making these answers to the Hon. Gentleman, he must also say that he had great satisfaction in support ing the motion—( Hear hear)--with a desire that there should be a full, impartial, and honest inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to post postpone the nomination of the Committee, upon the under standing that by a private examination out of the House they might agree upon an unobjectionable and competent Com mittee. He was sure that whether the inquiry resulted in a change of the law or not, it would have a great moral effect, and assured the House, on the part of the Government, that that would be, in their estimation, a most happy result, and they would, therefore, give every facility to the investigation. Mr. V. SMITH regretted the course which was pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet after what he himself (Sir J. Graham) had acknowledged. He thought the Government ought to have done as Earl Grey's Government had done upon this subject. Having seen the evils which were com plained of all over the country, they ought to have brought in a Bill upon their own responsibility. What was to be the result of the Committee? Neither the Hon. Member nor the Right Hon. Baronet had said to what the inquiry of the Com mittee was to be directed. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had stated the evils of the case with great ability, and the Right Hon. Baronet did not deny their existence; and yet they both allowed them to continue over another season. What was the object of the Committee ? Was it only to ex pose the alleged exaggerations of the Hon. Gentleman, on which the Right Hon. Gentleman had facetiously commented ? A Noble Friend of his had written a pamphlet, with a view to point out the means by which game might be assessed, but he had since given up the idea as impracticable.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) brought forward the question as one of grievance between the farmer and the lands lord, which would lead to an interminable inquiry. He thought the inquiry ought to be limited to this point :—What were the remedies to be applied to the acknow ledged evil ?—(Hear, hear) —for he believed there were not half-a-doaen Gentlemen in the House who denied the existence or the extent of the evils. In 1831 the Duke of Richmond made a speech in the House of Lords, in which he exposed and reprobated the game-laws as they then were, say ing that they widened the distance between the higher and the middle classes, and condemned to the prison of a feint the unfortunate labourer, who too often could not resist the tempta tion thrown in his way.—(Hear, hear.) In 1831, before the change took place in the law, the committals under the game laws, in England and Wales, were 2,150; in the last year, 1844, they were 4,500, the committals being more than doubled under the change of the law.--( Hear, hear.) He thought it would be impossible to compel men to give up pre serving, or to say that they should preserve only a certain amount.—(Hear, hear.) But he thought it right to take away from them any encouragement, more than was given to other species of property..—( Hear, hear.) He might be an swered that there was little difference between the penalties of trespass in pursuit of game, and other kinds of trespass. He contended there was too great a difference.—( Hear, hear.) In ether kinds of trespass you paid for the amount of damage ac tually done, but under the game-laws the fines were accumu lative ; and for a single act, even of inadvertence, a man might be fined 271., when it would be only a few shillings for any other trespass.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it was very improper to call game property ; although he admitted that it would be absurd to say that pheasants, which were fed as if in a coop, were fine natura, and no man's property. But other kinds of game, of which there was no identity and no reclaimer, were not rightly called property; and he agreed with the Hon. Member for Durham in asking were they to establish a penal code for their own amusements?—( Cheers.) He admitted that in some respects the change of the law, in 1831, had been an improvement, but it had in other respects been accompanied by a great aggravation of the former evils. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ought to have taken up this subject himself ; and, with the majority which he commanded, and the facility with which he managed it—(A laugh )—he would be able to remove some of the evil._( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. V. Smith) did not think the Committee would effect any good ; and he thought it would be as well to postpone legislation on the subject till next year, and that, in the meantime, they should endeavour to remedy the evils as best they could, each in his own district. Mr. DARBY was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gen tleman taunt the Government with not having introduced any measure on the subject; for, by his remarks in reference to it, he had involved it in inextricable difficulty and confusion.— ( Hear.) With respect to the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham, he must confess that to the tone of that speech he thought no one could possibly object. He only hoped that on all future occasions he would adopt a similar tone; and he would then find gentlemen who were eonnected with the agri cultural districts ready to join with him in doing anything whieh could be effected for the good of the country.--( Hear, hear.) It appeared that the Hon. Member was not prepared to interfere with private rights. Undoubtedly that part of the subject which was connected with the morality and good con duct of the poor, was well worthy of the consideration of the Committee; but if the Hon. Gentleman supposed that by removing the game-laws they would take away all temptation to crime and make everybody virtuous, he was under a great mis take. 'I here would always be persona disinclined to work, and ready to engage in poaching, whatever might be their circum stances. Still he thought that the great point to which the at tention of the Committee should be directed was the moral ef fect of the game-laws.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. H. BERKELEY said he was very unwilling that the &bate should terminate without at least one Member of that House expressing his dissent from the positions which the Hon. 31ember for Durham had assumed. It was not his intention to oppose the appointment of the Committee which the Right Hon. Baronet was prepared to concede, but he could not for one moment allow that the reasons which the Hon. Member for Durham had stated for its appointment were valid and sufficient. Indeed, he thought the Hon. Member for Durham owed the concession of this Committee to the peculiar course which he had adopted that night, so very unlike the course which had been adopted throughout the country by those persons, whether orators or writers for the press, who had advocated so s t re nu iusly the abolition of the game-laws.—( Hear, hear.) He must say that the agitation which had been carried on in reference to that question, ever since the Hon. Member for Durham gave notice of his motion—an agitation with which that Hon. Gentleman was connected, and in which he had taken part—was one, the character of which was anything but creditable.—( Hear, hear.) It was an agitation which, in his own opinion, was very well calculated not to forward the cause, but to make people look upon the course the Hon. Member was pursuing with suspcion. He agreed on many points with the Honourable Member for Durham. There was no person in that House who desired an abolition of the corn-laws more than he (Mr. Berkeley) did. He was perfectly contented to be called any thine which Hon. Gentlemen pleased—a radical, a reformer, or, if the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite preferred the term, a Whig-radical—(Laughter)—but he never would assume per sonalities towards those Gentlemen who were opposed to him, and he trusted that he would always be found to give them cre dit. for proper motives when he happened to differ from them in opinion. Now, if he followed the agitation touching these game-laws throughout the country, what did he find? From east to west, and from north to south, he found the landocracy held up as a set of tyrants. He found the Ho.i. Gentleman setting 'himself forth as the farmer's friend, and in that character striving apparently to set the tenant-farmers and their landlords at variance. Now he did maintain that such a course of agitation ' was well calculated to prejudice the Hon. Member's course ; and he was very glad that on introducing the subject in that House he had adopted a different mode of proceeding. He had reaped the benefit of the course which he had now pursued by the Government conceding to him the Committee, for he verily believed that for that concession he was indebted to the moderation of the tone which he had assumed. —(Hear, hear.) But still he, for one, could not permit the op portunity to pass without expressing his dissent from the opinion that the game-laws were in fault as regarded the crimes and offences which had taken place under them. They might just as well contend that any other statute besides the game-laws was to blame for an excess of crime. Take, for instance, offences against the revenue laws. There was a great similarity in the character and pursuit of the smuggler and the poacher.—( Hear. hear.) There was something adventu rous in the life of both, which had, no doubt, great charms for the wild and the dissolute. But did the Hon. Member know that at one time more murders were committed under the revenue laws than were ever committed under the game ' laws ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member could not be igno rant of the fact that more violence was perpetrated, more murders were committed, tinder the former than under the latter. But did the Government, on discovering the extent of crime which prevailed under the revenue -laws, immediately assume what the Hon. Gentleman had assumed in the case of the game-laws that the laws should be abolished on account of the crime which had been committed? No; instead of abolishing the laws, the Government took the opposite course. They strengthened the executive power ; they put on a blockade force ; they adopted every means to check smuggling ; and the consequence was that they did put down the evil.— ( Hear ' hear.) But the Hon. Gentleman, an d th ose w h o agreed with him out of that House, contended that the instant crime took place under a statute that statute should be abolished. Why, it was not the game-laws alone which were disagreeable to a certain class of the community. There were other laws which were equally distasteful to one class of persons frequently referred to in the newspapers—the light fingered gentry.—(Laughter.) There were certain laws which were extremely disagreeable to that portion ofsociety.— (Laughte-.) Hut was he to be told that because an excess of crime arose under particular laws they were therefore to be abolished. Why, if they were to follow the Hon. Gentleman's principle of legislation, the result would be this : If any body of men found particular laws disagreeable they would only have to offend against them, and to commit murders in doing so, in order to secure their abolition.—(Cries of ss Hear, hear.") Such a principle of legislation Captain ROUS said he had been much pleased with the tone of the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham ; it was different from what had been expected from him, and he was sure that there was but one feeling on that side of the House, that it was an able and statesmanlike speech.—(Hear, hear. ) At the same time, he could not bring himself to believe many of the sta•ements made by the Hon. Member. They were too exaggerated ; and he had lived too long in a sporting coun try not to know that they were exaggerated. He held in his hand a pamphlet on the subject of the game-laws that had gone through three editions. That pamphlet referred to a noble relative of his, and stated that in a cover on his estate, in the course of last year, a keeper was killed by poachers. He could only say that, to the best of his belief, for the last hun dred years, no gamekeeper or poacher had been killed or hurt on that estate. Again, the pamphlet said that on his property two keepers had lately shot themselves, fearing that, on the arrival of his noble relative from Ireland, they would be found fault with for the want of game. This pam phlet had been in circulation for three months, and he was sure the House would excuse him if he said a few words in defence of his own brother. The first man who destroyed himself had been a keeper for thirty years, and was, at the time, head keeper. He had been in a very bad state of health, and had offered to give up his situation, but he had been urged to retain . . . it, and his son was taken to assist him. But his state of health ha I such an effect on his mind that he destroyed himself. It was a most extraordinary fact that on the following day another of the keepers, who had charge of the greyhounds, de stroyed himself also. His wife had gone to church, one of the children was in the garden, anti another was playing about the house, when he took down his gun, and whether by accident or design was not known, but he was found dead. Now, as to the question itself, it had been said that it was absolutely necessary, on some occasions, to deduct as much as 20 per cent, from the rent of estates, as the compensation for the damage done by game. But it should be understood that, in many cases, the land was let 20 per cent. less than the value on that account. That was the fact, to his certain knowledge. The Hon. Member for Durham complained that the very circumstance of pre serving game had a tendency to affect the morality of th • la bouring classes, and that gentlemen had no right to do it. Why the same argument applied to the case of a shop keeper exposing his goods in the street. There was a tendency in the poor labourer to steal game, and the starving Mlll in a town might be tempted to steal the goods before him. But what was the reason that the agricultural labourer was a poacher, and stole pheasants and hares in preference to citv.ks and fowls? For this reason, that they could be sworn to, and the others could not. But the same men would, in all probability, go on in crime till they stole sheep and cattle; but there was one thing that checked them, and that was, that they might he hanged or transported for the offence. He hail lived all his life in a country full of game, and well pre served, and in his part of Suffolk there were no better disposed people on the face of the earth, more hardworking, or indus trious. There had been no incendiary fire within ten miles of his house, and nothing could be better than the feeling that existed generally among the people.—( Hear, hear.) But he could show a case which had occurred in his own county, on the estate of a most amiable nobleman, who had written a pamphlet on the game laws. He also preserved his game, but in a peculiar mode, inasmuch as he did not allow any keepers to watch by night; but he allevved his neighbours to shoot over the estate on one proviso—that they should not employ any labourer on their property who had been defeated in poaching. What was the result? Through this nobleman's not employing keepers by night, the whole parish was full of poachers from one end to the other, and they frequently extended their ravages to the surrounding neighbourhood. When they were asked why they did not keep in their own place, as there was game enough there? they said, " Oh, the pheasant over all this property are so badly fed that they won't sell— ( Laughter)—and therefore we steal yours, which we can find a market for !"—(Laughter.) And these very men, whom this nobleman tried to keep pure and moral, were some of the most determined sheep-stealers in the whole country round.. ' Now, (Hear, hear.) that was the differ ence b e t ween a coun try well preserved and one that was not, or only half preserved. There was no doubt that the game-laws, like every other Act of Parliament, might sometimes require alteration and revi sion, but he trusted they would not go in their legisl tion to the extent of destroying the game in this country ; it gave an in ducement to young men of family arid fortune to live on their own estates; if they contracted the habit of living on the Con tinent, they generally came back insignificant and worthless members of society.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) In dealing with the game-laws, there:bre, he hoped that they would pre serve entire alike rights of property, Mr. H UME said, when the Hon. Member for Bristol took the laws of America, and compared them with those of England, he ought to take them as a whole; there might be some of the laws of America which he (Mr. Hume) should condemn as much as the Hon. Member, and some that he might be disposed to adopt. The Hon. Member had not done justice to his Hon. Friend the Member for Durham ; his Hon. Friend did not wish to affect the prosperity of any individual, but he wished to alter the administration of the laws which, at the present moment, were producing great evil, and which no man could look on without being appalled. Neither of the Hon. Members who had spoken had directed their attention to that point ; he could not think why the Hon. Member for Bristol was not as anxious to have the Committee ap pointed as the Honourable Member for Durham, because the Honourable Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) loved sport, and wished for its continuance.—( Hear.) If so, he ought to try and have the law so altered that it might he exercised without causing public feeling to be opposed to it. Public feeling was at present so opposed to the system that societies had sprung up in all parts of the country for the purpose of denouncing it. Could anything denote more plainly that a conviction of the evil of this system had taken a deep root in society, and required consideration ? He did think that the Hon. Member for Durham deserved great credit for the manner in which he had brought this question forward, and he was sure the country at large, after the speech his Hon. Friend had delivered, and the result it had produced, would be grateful to him for his exertions. Why, let them look at the calendars of crime and see the condition of the population of the country. Why, there were 4,540 persons convicted of offences against the game-laws. It might be a matter of some curiosity for the House to know that in 1811 there were in all England and Wales only 127 convictions for offences against those laws; the whole number of convictions in 1811 was, in England and Wales, 3,163; and in 1843 there were 4,540 convictions for offences against. the game laws alone. The Hon. Member for Durham had evi dently produced an impression by his speech that great evils did ex.st, and these evils cried aloud for remedy. He hoped the Committee would not proceed hastily, or that they should attempt to legislate this year ; but that it would meet from day to day, and submit a proper report to the House, on which the Government would found a legislative measure. They saw this progessive increase in crime, they were demoralising society by this state of things, and something was evidently wrong ; they were not then prepared to state precisely where the evil was, but he believed the result of this inquiry would tend to correct that evil. He was sure that not only those who cared nothing for game, but even those Members of that House who were earnest sportsmen, would thank his Hon. Friend for the result of his labours. . _ . Mr. LIDDELL said he had heard with a great deal of in terest the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham, and had listened with a great deal of pain to some of the facts he had brought under the notice of the House. He did not rise to offer any opposition to the appointment of the Committee, but he did think it would have been more satisfactory if some Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and enter taining the same views as the lion. Member, had indicated or shadowed forth the extent or nature of the alterations to which their attention was to be directed. His paternal property was situated in the midst of a populous neighbourhood, it covered a large area of ground, and for many years the game upon it had been carefully preserved. And he was bound to say that in that immense population he had seen nothing, speaking of their general character, but the most excellent disposition, and a desire to pay a due observance to the laws. But at the same time, among such a number, some evil dispositions would exist and it was with great pain he had seen upon his father's pro perty outrages of a most formidable and distressing nature.— ( Hear, hear.) There had been one case of murder, and, in the present year, four frightful outrages, in which, without the slightest provocation, two keepers were fired at, and wounded in a most serious manner, the charge lodging in the breast and shoulder of one of them, and had the shot been but the slightest space nearer the heart, the man must have been killed. After these outrages, the subject engaged the serious attention of his fattier and the whole family, but, after due attention, and after making up their minds to sacrifice entirely the game on their property, they came to the deliberate conclusion that they could not do anything of the kind; not for the sake of the game, but for the peace and security of the property and the neighbourhood, they were compelled to keep a watch to protect the property from the incursions of poachers. He was certainly glad to see this inquiry insti tuted before the House, and he would thankfully adopt any suggestion that could be made by those who had thought them selves called on by a sense of duty to make such a proposition. But he really thought some suggestion ought to have been thrown out, as to the amount and extent of the alteration re quired. For they must be careful in this matter ; while lamenting the number of convictions they saw under the law as it existed, they must take care they did not make matters worse instead of better. He was perfectly convinces that if the game-laws were done away with altogether, and killing game were made an invasion of property instead, depending en tirely on an extension of the Trespass Act, in populous neigh bourhoois every third person they met would be armed with a gun. On holidays, and Sundays, and every time of a temporary suspension of labour, they would meet marauding parties on the public roads ; all these dangers had to be avoided in any alterations they might sug6est. It was fair that they should consider who were the parties to blame in these outrages ; let him put a case to the House. In the immediate neighbour hood of that House there were some bt-autiful walks and plea sure-grounds laid out for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. In these grounds there was a curious collec tion of waterfowl, which might be seen every day, and fur nished a great deal of amusement to the public. What would be said if a man, bemuse his family were starving, armed himself with a gun, shot two or three of the ducks, and when interfered with by the park-keeper, should knock him down with the butt-end of it—who was to blame there ? The law that protects the property, or the individual that breaks the law? It was the same in the case of game; if a poacher went into a preserve and shot pheasants and hares, and is interfered with by the person to whom the law gives the right of protecting the property, was the law, therefore, to blame for the outrage? The question di vided itself into two distinct heads—the one the question of the damage done by the game to agricultural produce, and the other was the question of the outrages to which he had already re ferred. Now, the amount of grein destroyed by these creatures was, he believes, greatly exaggerated. In almost every question between landlord and tenant, where an excessive quantity of game was preserved, a compensation was always given to the term's', and if the Hon. Member for Durham, in pursuance of his vocation as a member of the Anti-corn-law League, and in support of his argument of the diminished supply of the food of the people, took this destruction of grain as an instance, he at tached no weight to the argument whatever. Though a certain amount of grain was destroyed, yet another article of food wes supplied in its place for consumption, more nourishing, more grateful to the palate, and equally adapted for the market. Mr. AGLIONBY was much gratified at the course that had been pursued on the present occasion, and he was only sur pri.ed that any Hon. Member cools object to the course the. Right lion. Baronet had taken. lie thought there would he great good effected by an inquiry before a fair Committee. He did not believe that the preservation of game was generally in. jurious to the land, and as a proof of that he might state that he knew an instance where the game was preserved as much by the tenants as the landlords. 'With regard to the poor he WAS glad that the subject would be inquired into, because if it was found that the game-laws increased the demoralisation of the poor, that calamity would be averted.—( Hear, hear.) It must not, however, be supposed that he thought the game-laws had any such effect.—( Hear, he sr.) He believed that the statements that had been made were greatly exaggerated, and he hoped that good results would come from the inquiry, that it would take place immediately, and that the report would soon be laid on the table. Colonel SIBTHORP would not oppose the motion, because he thought they oupht to have inquiry on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) The speech of the Hon. Member for Durham seemed to him to have been founded on the supposition that the greatest ill-will existed between the landlord and the tenant farmer. He cared nothing about game, but this he would tell the Hon. Member for Durham, that if he caught him on his preserves using any of his snares, he should not be long in ap prehending him.—( A laugh.) Mr. G. BERKELEY would not have addressed the House, had he not been particularly alluded to by the Hon. Member for Durham. He must confess, looking at the speech that had been made by the Honourable Member for Durham, that he could hardly bring himself to be lieve that it was him that made it.—( Hear, hear.) It had been said that it was net the labourer that poached, but the house less wanderer. Now, he did not believe that such was the case, because he was convinced that the labourer, who was in constant pay, was the criminal. He denied that the preserva tion of game caused crime ; and as a proof of that he referred to several returns, which showed that crime was greater in parts where game was net preserved, than where it was. The Hon. Member for Montrose had said that there was greater crime committed in consequence of the game-laws now, than there was in 1811. Why, what was the fact? Why, that the game•laws were ten times more stringent in that year than at present. He had not the slightest objection to inquiry, in fact he demanded it; but what he a-ked for was this, that the tenant-farmers should not be set against their landlords by false promises.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. ESCOTT wished to bear his testimony to the able manner in which the Hon. Member for Durham had brought this subject forward.--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said that before that statute was passed, the restrictions on poaching were much more severe and stringent than those now in ope ration. The protection of game seemed to proceed en the principle that it facilitated the sale of game. It confirmed a property in game, and it was neceasary, therefore, that they should put heavier penalties on poaching to increase that pro tection. Now that seemed to him the most vicious course of legislation that could be adopted. They had heard the Learned Judges say that one of the worst things of which a prosecutor could be guilty was the holding out a temptation that poverty t could hardly withstand, and that w.s also a reason for not granting ae _ granting the costs of the prosecution to o 5h who exposed their wares in the n e T °P he i" e P x e i r s s ting g and others m laws gave an incentive to the poache r, b y p rovidin g a and then, as soon as he market for his game, obtained this market, they increased the penalties for a trans gre,sion of the law. He belieied that there was another point that greatly the law in th e i n creased the evil, and that was the frequency o f hads o summary n convictions. It would not do to leavef those who had the greatest possible interest in carry irr it into effect. It was a difficult subject to legislate upon, and because of that very reason an inquiry was called for, and he trusted it would be entered upon without prejudice or ill feeling to those poachers or to those who gave rise to poaching by preserving game. He would not wish to put down field sports, but he believed with the Hon. Member who had last spoken, that there was nothing in this inquiry to interfere with the preservation of their sports. Mr. WA K LEY would make one or two observations, which were promptest by the remarks of the Hon:Member fir West Gioucestershire, who had devoted much time and attention to this subject, and what was his allegation? That poaching was not committed by houseless wanderers, not by strangers, not by vagrants, but by the agricultural labourers, and in what pro portion ? In 99 cases out of 100, he stated that the offence of poaching was com mitted by that class. If that were true, and it was not denied—he believed it approached the truth--but if it were proved, could the game-laws be continued? They must be admitted, in that case, to be the most injurious and demoralis ing laws in the country. What was the condition of the agri cultural labourer after being detected poaching? Would the farmers employ him ? No. He dared not employ him, or he might lose the occupation of his faun.--(Crier of " Oh, oh," " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") Isa the parish of Ruislip, which had been referred to by an Hon. Member, it was stated that the greater number of labourers employed t 1 ere came from distant parts of the country, for the farmers connected with the preservation of game would not employ men who had ever been detected poaching.—(Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") It was astonishing to him that gentlemen of England you'd sit down to enjoy themselves, when they knew that their pleasures cost so high a price to the poorer classes of their countrymen. It was deeply to be re4retted that this state of feeling; should exist ; but although that Committee were ap pointed, it would be useless unless it came to a more rational Conclusion than that referred to by the Right Hon. Baronet. He had been himself a preserver of game, and he knew that a system might be introduced which would effectually preserve the game without being an annoyance to those around them. His assurance to the preserves was this. If they wanted a day's sport fur themselves or friends, and gave him notice, the land would be kept quiet for some days before. Ile had caught a poacher once, and how did he act on that occasion. He would tell the House. lie said to him, " I presume you are in distress and cannot find employment to support yourself and your lamily. I ant sure you are in dis tress or you would not do this. Come to my house and I will give you a joint of meat, and when you want Mod for yourself and family come t o me an d you will have it. " I l e rep li e d. " You will give me meat, then depend on it I will never snare another hare. "—(Laughter.) Then why should not Honourable Members adopt this system ?--(laughter.) Such would be better than invoking the vengeance of the law upon those poor creatures, who were probably driven by dis tress to this crime, i n or d er to o b tain a meal for their 'wives and children. The evil of preserving game had now increased to an enormous magnitude. The Hon. Member for Montrose had stated that between 4,000 and 5,000 persons had been convicted in 1643, and the term of their imprisonments, taking the average, amounted to six weeks for each person. Now, he would ask Hon. Members if the pleasure they derived frost their sport would compensate to themselves for the curse these laws inflicted on the country ? He did not believe that when the amount of demoralisation induced by these laws was con sidered, that they could possibly desire them to be continued. There was a very great difficulty with regard to a remedy on this subject. The Hon. Member for Durham, who had devoted so much time to the subject, had explained to the House that remedy, in a speech seldom equalled, and he (Mk. IViikley) was of opinion that the time would ultimately arrive when game, by an increasing population, would be driven out of the country, as the Red Indians in America were by the encroachments of a more civilised people.—(Cheers.) Mr. NEWDIGATE felt bound, by the reference which had several times that night bean made to the parish of Ruislip, to give some explanation upon a subject with which he was inti mately conversant. It had been stated that the inhabitants of Ruislip had been oppressed by the expense of maintain ing a police force which had been almost wholly em ployed in the suppression of poaching. lie (11r. New digate) denied that statement, and he called upon the Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary of State for the Hume Department to ascertain whether there was any reason for such an allegation. In many instances of trials at the sessions he did not remember of policemen giving evidence in eases of infringement of the game-laws. He was gl d to see that the landed proprietors were willing to submit their plea sures as well as their properties to the examihation of this Committee. Mr. COBDEN said that although there was a general con currence in the tone and temper of his Hon. Friend in bring lag the subject under the notice of the House, there was a great disposition to attribute exaggeration to his statements ; and when he mentioned the quantity of produce of farms which had been consumed by game, there were loud cr ies of "Oh ! oh!" The f ac t was, the county Membe rs k new l es s o f the grievances and circumstances of the farmers than the me tu bers of that much maligned body, the Anti-Corn-law League. If there were any one subject in which landholders, game keepers, and labourers were agreed upon, it was in a thorough detestation of the game-laws.—(oh, oh.) Hon. Members might cry " Oh, oh." That cry would go forth to the coun try, but it would rather strengthen than alter that universal agreement.—( Hear, hear.) He would venture to say that. he had conversed and shook hands with more tenant-farmers, ten to one, than any Member of that House.—( Laughter. ) With regard to the exaggeration of the statements, as they were called, of the cost of keeping game, he had been in Scotland himself last year, at Cupar, in Fife. A farmer wrote him a letter, which requested a public meeting in Cupar, in order that he might state the grievances which the game-laws entailed upon him. The farmer said that the Anti-Cren.law League should take up the question of the game-laws as well as the corn-laws.—(lronical cheers from the Tory benches.) This farmer gave his name, and he had no objection to state it. It was Andrew .ThFarlane, who lived near Cupar. "In order to convey to you some idea (this firmer writes) of the destruction by game , I b eg t o i n f orm y ou , that in 700 Scotch acres, held by me and four farmers, from Captain Wemyse, who had a seat in this House—(Laughter)—that in 1841 we had 7001. awarded to us by arbitration, for the destruction by game, and even that did not indemnify us for the damage done. This showed what a loss of human food these game laws entailed. He repeated that the most entire ignorance prevailed among the landlords of the condition of the tenant farmers. It was easy to talk of exaggeration, buf. he would paint his finger to the reports on the table of that House. Was it any exaggeration to say that the game-laws were a monstrous evil, when 4,500 persons were convicted under them in one year, and forty transported in ten years? Twenty-seven persons had been shot in game preserving. Sixty thon.and persons took out licences to shoot. In order that 60,009 persons should . have amusement, 4,500 were convicted and forty transported ; so that for every fifteen licensed sportsman, one man was con victed and punished. You think that exaggeration and com plain of it as an evil ; and the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down found fault with the Anti-Corn-law League, as did the Hon. Member for Bristol, for the part they took in this matter. Ho pleaded guilty to the accusation that the Anti-Corn-law League had been the means of bringing this question before the House. Nothing but the force of public opinion could have compelled the Government to grant the Committee.— (Cries of " Oh, oh.") He said again, it was public opinion that had effected it. He did not want to come there as tl • farmer's friend. The farmers had suffered too much from 1 ro fessing friends already—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—an d the very best services he could render to the tenant-farmer would be to advise them not to believe in professing friends, but to trust to themselves, and make up their minds to enter into an organisation from which they might expect much more than f:om the Legislature. Was it not most monstrous that when the farmer had taken his land his produce should be destroyed ? A let to 11 a farm, for which B paid him the rent of the day ; but then A let to C the right of shooting over this firm, the game which the farmer fed, but for which the landlord was paid. '[he farmer pays,the rent, the game destroys the corn, but the farmer must pay for the landlord's profit or amusement. It wou ld h e just as reasonalle to lot land to a farmer, and then to give permission to a butcher to turn his cattle over the land.—( Hear, hear.) It had been already stated, and he firmly believed it, that five hares destroyed as much as one sheep. Such was the condi tion of the tenant farmer. He did not believe that any good would come from the Legislature on this subject, but the in troduction and discussion of the question would give the far mers an opportunity of stating their grievances, and of unaing among themselves, so as to force Parliament finally to abolish those odious grievances.—(Cheers.) Mr. ADDERLEY said he was anxious for the appointment of the Committee. Mr. WODELIOUSE repudiated the insinuation, so often thrown out, that the landlords were selfish and cared for no other nterests but their own. Mr. FORBES wished to know if the Hon. Member for Durham had alluded to him in the course of his speech ? Mr. BRIGHT said he had already told the Hon. Gentle man, in private, that he did not allude to him.: Mr. CARLISLE bore testimony to the proper ma ner in which the magistrates of Ashby-de-la-Zouch hail always ad ministered justice. He confessed he was not favourable to the present game-laws. He thought the damage which had been committed on crops was rather attributable to those more in nocent hares and rabbits which the Hon. Member for Bristol had shown could do but little harm. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought, that with the evidence of increased crime before them, any resistance to an inquiry on the part of the Government would be impolitic. At the same time, he must confess that he did not think any beneficial alteration could be made in the law. They would find that the prrjudice against the game-laws aro-e more out of the excessive preservation of game than anything else, and the change must be a moral one instead of a legal one, He ap prehended the law, as it stood, was equally as just to the tenant as the landlord, but when leases were granted a clause was introduced, reserving or otherwise the right of the game to the landlord. If, therefore, a tenant thought the preserva tion of game upon the land adverse to his interests, let him object to it before he made the contract with his landlord. But, really, the evil lay in the excessive extent to which game was preserved by certain parties. It they wished to derive plea•ure from sporting, let them enjoy it in the way their forefathers did. The change, he thought, rested with the landlord rather than in any altera tion in the law. Indeed, he thought an alteration in the law would m.►terially affect the rights of property without re moving the evil, and it was now too late to go back to the time when the sale of game was illegal. Certainly they could not alter the law in that respect. He cordially concurred in the appointment of the Con.mittee, and hoped they would approach the conside ration of the subject in the same spirit and temper which had characterised that debate. As he stated before, he despaired of any alteration being made in the state of the law ; but he trusted that, if no alteration were made, the proprietors of land would see the necessity of regulating their conduct according to the prevailing feeling amongst the rural population of the country. They might create a better feeling amongst their tenants by joining with them in their sports ; and he trusted that in future his lion. Friends would adopt this course. He believed, in the first place, that the complaints against the excessive preservation of game were well founded, and if this evil were removed he thought that it would reduce the amount of crime. It was highly creditable to his Hon. Friends who had taken part in the discussion, that they had consented to a full and impartial inquiry. Nothing could be more honourable than their conduct, nothing could be more marked than their might have aside e e toth the havemere there considerationmatter properly f investigated.preserving o game, for y fe threw e paramount object of securing the the course they had pursued that evening, tie _t: i rm h ine . as they ciety. He repeated, nothing could pe b a . e ce m a o n r; g t ho o m;ur d a e h r le o than the men opposite to obtain v ii; i tiqutry .. . h w e e e r n e, t w hr i a th w o n ut ag a a n i y ns r t e t f h e e re m n , ce to WINDOW - TAX. X. Lord DUNCAN begged leave to withdraw h s motion, which was to the effect—That the taxes levied on windows in Great Britain are unjust, unequal in their operation; and most oppressive to those especially who are least able t hear them, and should be immediately repealed ; and to give notice that he would bring it on on the 13th of March. EMPLOYMENT IN WORKHOUSES. Captain PECHELL begged to move " That there be-forth with laid before this House a return from the Boston union, stating whether the pauper inmates thereof are, or have been, since the formation of the said union, employed in grinding or crushing hones by means of mills, machinery, or otherwise, to gether with the date of the erection of such mills or machinery. and the names•of the chairman and vice-chairmanvf tire Inrarit of guardians of the said union at the period; also, the cost i.f the sail bones, including the -expemes of carriage and other incidental expenses, and the amount which the same have pro dnced in their manufactured state, and whether the same hare been sold by tender, or at a fixed price or otherwise." Agreed to. COMPANY'S CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. This Bill was real a second time. PROPERTY-TAN. The Property-tax Bill was read a second-time. STAMPS DUTIES ASSIMILATION BILL. This Bill was read a second time. • GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY, The Committee on standing orders reported, that the order had been complied with in this Bill. LONDON AND BRISTOL JUNCTION RAILWAY. The standing orders were reported to have been complied with in this Bin. YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILW tY. The Committed reported that the standing orders had been complied with in this Bill. The House then adjourned at Eleven &Clock. • CIIRAP TRIP TO LONDON.—The Committe . e, of the Great National Anti7Corn - law Bazaar intend to make ar rangements with all the lines leading to London, fi)r cheap trips, during the mouth of May next.—Lecd4 ..ilercurp '~