The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1865-02-14 00:00:00

to
higher..
of publio
rpnlation,

_
respeot
much

and

sum ef the material result. There is, as you know, this
differenoe between bares and rabbits, that, whereas the
former pick their meals here and them over a large
surface of land, the latter feed continuously on the tame
spot, and hibble down the springing shoots of the same
plants Nor does the mischief end with the destruction
of the growing crop. The common expression that
"they poison the laud" is not an inappropriate one;
experience shows that years of generous culture are
necessary to restore the condition of the land on which
they have habitually fed. Where is the chemist that
will explain this? Rabbits generate plenty of noxious
dwarf weeds, but annihilate all valuable vegetable pro-
ductions. From these instances of material iojury you
have only to reason to the aggregate MUM, from the
sample to the bulk, to arrive ate large amount of evil
smtained by the nation at large. Not only to every
producer of meat and bread, but to every 'mu-
mmer to whom be sells, and to every tradesman of
whom he buys, does the injury extend. Not only is ha
energy paralyzed,but the paralysis reaches to all around
him OA the circling eddies of a disturbed lake reach to
the margin. It the axiom be a sound one, that the
man who makes two blades of grass to grow where one
grew berme, is a benefactor of his kind, is he nut to be
trusts(' to feed his crop in the way best adapted to
complete his benefaction? I say, if the axiom be sound,
is the benefit to be neutralized by the intervention of
solemn trifling? Is the public weal to be interlaced
to the selfishness of an epicurean? If it be a sound
principle of legislation that private interests must give
way to the public good, surely here is a case io which
landed proprietors may see it their interest as well as
their duty to bring this love of game within the hounds
of innoeirouscess.

I shell now be asked to point out the remedy as
between Landlord and Tenant: The terms of our sub-
ject are "excessive preservation of game," and I have
said it is possible to have plenty without excess.
appeal to you, gentlemen, if the hares and rabbits were
kept down,whether theta would be any complaint beard
about the winged game. But there must be no compromise
with rabbits, and no parley with keepers. It must be
an out-and-out affair of traps, ferrets,andneta. In such
light and sandy land as is found in most parts of Dorset-
shire, there is no fear of their ever being exterminated.
As to hares you may tell them almost as well as you can
tell your sheep, and capture them almost as mainly.
One hare to ten acres of a farm is sufficient for all the
purposes of variety, and more than sufficient for ten
acres of swedieh turnips if they happen to get together.
First of all there should be • cleat understanding on
the part of the landlord as to the eitent of the damage
that may be done by game, and than a candid recogni-
tion of it. And this recognition, to be honest and
practical, should go thus far, that in all leases or yearly
agreements where the right of sporting is reserved the
tenant shall have the right to trap rabbits. I say this
becauee, let the landlord's intentions be ever do good,
keepers are not to be trusted, and a week's delay is
often the ruin of a crop. And I say this also because
landlords are not to he trusted ; for, however good
their intentions there are middle men between them
and their tenants. There are those who advocate the
repeal of the Game Laws, and strengthening of the law
of trespass as the antidote to the evil. Against this it
is urged that game being of the nature and belonging
to the class of /era begier, on my land to-day, and on
my neighbour's to-morrow, the animals can never be
identified as the property of any one in particular. To
which it is rejoined, let them be considered as the pro-
perty of the person on whose land they are taken, and
if found on the person without proof of where taken,
and without satisfactory evidence of honest possession,
let the person be liable. This proposition proceeds on
the calculation of time subduing the spirit of game both
in the game preserver end the poacher; that is to say,
that the preservation of game is the creature of the
Game Laws, who being made for s privileged class,
other classes are disposed to rebel against them. Now
as far as loan understand the question, if a just com-
mutation of the law were made, it does not appear that
the landlord would stand in a damaged position as to
nis rights and privileges, neither does it appear that
such a commutation would prevent either excessive pre-
servation, poaching, or farmers' grievances. The love
of sport, the spirit of game inherent in human nature,
would remain unquelled, the honour and glory of the
battn6 would remain untarnished, and both keepers and
poachers would go on mush the saran as they do now.
But I am required to touch on the moral aspect of
the question. I leave you to take your choice, gentlemen,
between the two estimable characters, whom the ex-
cessive preservation of game is sure to create—keepers
and poachers. I speak of the rule—there may be a
few exceptional honest characters amongst the former,
but it would be hard to say there was ever an honest
poacher. The night watchings, the deadly frays, the
i murderous designs and fatal deeds, the malice and
revenge, the swearing and drinking, which are pro-
duced by the system, form a dark category of iniquity
and crime which it is fearful to contemplate. At whose
door does it lay? Of course the game preserver wishes
no such thing, he only wishes to protect his property.
But he knows that these things, in greater or leas
amount, are the inevitable result; and it is • serious
question for him to consider how far he is indirectly
responsible for all the misery that occurs.
I can readily imagine that some gentlemen who may
be induced to notice our discussion would be inclined to
dispute the propriety of our treating of the morality of 1
the question. Confessing our authority so long as we
confined ourselves to the material interests involved,
they would deny our locus standi as soon as we touched
its connection with motive and moral principle ; and
taking high ground would inquire, " Heve we not a
right to du what we will with our own ?" To this we :
reply that all arguments of right and wrong are founded
on the acknowledged rules of morality; and whilst in
them are involved the beet interests of the community
at large, the moral bearings of this particular subject
affect us of the moral population more deeply and in a
more important sense than even its material. And as ,
to the claim preferred in that high sounding inquiry, we
admit their humanly legal claim, provided they trench ,
not on the claims of others. But this plea is not to be
disposed of without referring to the final court of appeal.
And upon this authority we say no man's property
stands in a higher position than that of a trust. And
that no-man who possesses it, be it great or small, or
consisting of whatsoever quality or commodity, stands
in any other Teosition than that of a steward, who has
written direction'.,stamped with the broad seal of Divine
authority, as to what use he has to make of it,
accompanied with a solemn warning that he will have
to render up an account. How stands this boasted right
then? , Have not the moral sufferers ground of oomplaint
if those uses are perverted?
But ask again, how does the rural population suffer
By the duplicity and dishonesty, by the slanders and
scandals, by the neglect of home and work, by the
secret conclaves and dissipated habits, by the
animosities and heart-burnings, by the covetousness and
envy, by the pride and insolence, by the murmurings
and revengeful designs, which the system occasions.
Nor is this aIL The evil has a negative as well ass
positive character. No man con pursue • course of evil
without at the same time preventing the advancement
of good. How !much more peace and good-will would
obtain between landlord and tenant, how much more
mutual esteem, how much more attention to metal
pursuits, how much progress of art and science, how
much domestic tranquillity, and along train of happy
comiequenoes, if the system of game preservation was
reduced within tolerable bounds. .

And now, gentlemen, whatever imperfections may
attach to what has been addressed to you (and I am
quite aware that there are many) I think you will be
prepared to allow that I have not treated landlords
sparingly, or wilfully evaded any part of the question
which truth and justice demanded that I should notice.
And before I eonolude there are a few observations
which fair dealing requires that I should address to
tenants. Indeed, the confidence you have placed in mein
entrusting the subject to my hands, has laid me under
obligations which I cannot discharge without adverting
torn moment or two to certain reprehensible conduot
which some tenants under game restrictions manifest.
The occupation of a farm, giving as it does dominion
over man and beast, and the changeful condition of
large track of land,has • tendency to folder imperceptibly
a feeling of possession and ownership which does not, in
fact, belong to the position. If the question were asked
by a stranger " Does the land belong to you ?" the
tenant would doubtless reply, "Oh, no, I wish it did."
And yet I fancy I have known some tenants of whom
the question might well be asked reprovingly,so absolute
appears their government both of acres and of men. Talk
of quitting their farms I you introduce a forgotten
and effaced element of their holding. The idea of their
removal is the idea of spoliation and robbery. They
cannot regard but with impatience the perambulations
of the keeper; the pheasants crow to their ears is a note
of defiance • the hare washes her face nearer to them
than anybody else, and the makes of envy untwist as
they hear the springing covey. Did they not take their
farms subject to game at a moderate rental? Are
not the footed game kept down within the limits
of the argument? Then whatever the miseries, moral
and material, of the system of game preservation, they
have surely no just cause of complaint. What if a few
turnips show their flesh before the arrival of the flock,
they have bargained that they should do so, and the
'rumblings of discontent arise from something else than
a lawful sense of injustice. Again, there are a few
tenants—men who have enjoyed rather more of the
genial rays of fortune and flattery than their fellows—
who entertain vain conceits and assume consequential
airs that ill befit their position. The appellations of
Landlord and Tenant have been reversed, and I never
heard severer satire, 'This is Lord Brown and Mr.
Cholmondeley," instead of "Lord Cholmondeley and Mr.
Brown." But here lam travelling out of my subject.
Such a man would never occupy land, on which was re-
served the right of sporting. But the more common
case is that of a tenant taking a farm with a reserved right
of sporting, and an honourable undertaking that the game
shall do him no harm and if it should he shall be
allowed the value of the damage. A very unsatisfactory
arrangement, be it observed, but the best that a willies'
candidate often can get—the indefiniteness of it ill con-
ceals its disingenuousness. For what occurs—the
rabbits have spoilt a few acres of wheat, and the damage
is assumed at £4O or £5O. The landlord demurs, and
the tenant insists, and whether a compromise be made,
or the whole sum allowed, neither the landlord nor the
tenant regard each other with the same feeling as they
did before. But suppose £lO worth of damage is done.
True, the amount is of more consequence to the tenant
than to the landlord; but on the whole the landlord
melte considerately and liberally—what are we to nay? Is
he to press his demand Would he not by so doing
receive more injury to his position than he would gain
advantage by the reimbursement of his pocket? Better
be quiet about trifles--better pocket the offence than
the money. I conclude, gentlemen, by expressing the
feeling sense I entertain that those who have the
sporting over the lands they occupy, often suffer as
muck from the depredations of game as those from
whom it is expected. I could mention two caws which
have oocurred this year—a year of all others that we
have ever known, where on account of the scantiness of
winter provender, farmers would feel the evils of game—
in which eleven hundred couples of rabbits in the one
cese,and seven hundred couples in the other, have been
killed. I would say to landlords—curb the selfishness
and chain the tyrant within you ; I would say to
• tenants, repress the • - ma of envy and discontent ;
hate and avoid all - and servility, and by
serous, anc, behavions command
,
415 respect good
Mr.BP be 1,-