The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-11-07 00:00:00

MR. CHARLES BUXTON, M.P., ON THE

GAME LAWS.

Mr. Charles Buxton, M.P., presided last week, at
the dinner of the Chobham Agricultural Association,
and, in proposing the toast of the evening, said there
was a subject ot very serious importance to farmers
upon which he should like to say a few words—he
referred to the game laws. Now, he was a game
preserver. He had just returned from six weeks'
shooting in Norfolk ; he was fond of the sport, and he
nether wished nor expected ever to see it extinguished.
On the other hand, it was his conviction that the law
of the land went a great deal further than was reason-
able in its support. He thought that the proprietor of
a piece of husi, whether great or small, had a right to
all its productions—to the live animals that grew upon
it, whether bullocks, partridges, cats, or weasels, or
whatever else they might be—just as he had a right to
its vegetable produce. He was quite sure they could
never alio v any stranger who happened to like a days
shooting to beat through another person's woods, or
tramp across his fields to kill the game upon them.
Whatever happened, the laws would have to protect
the proprietor of the land in his right to the game
that grew upon it; and if they did not have able, in
favour of the g ime, they must substitute that which t
did not now exist—a real law of trespass. Few puiple
seemed to he aware that at present any man might
walk over any other man's land so long OS he did no
damage; the threats of prosecution were bugbears.
But if the landlord had no protection for his game, he
must have that which he did not now possess - pro-
tection against simple intrusion. So far, he thought
the game law reasonable and advantageous. And he
thought, too, that it was perfectly riglit in this, that
if the landlord let his land the tenant became pro-
prietor of the game, unless it was reserved to the
landlord by special agreement. He would now say in
what respect he considered the game law went too far.
He thought it a shame that if a poor man was going
along the public toad, and saw a hare, and knocked
it on the head, he was liable to be taken up, tined, or
thrown into prison as a poacher, and liable, also, to
pay £2O to the excise for killing game without a
licence. He would mo-t certainly abolish that part
-it the law. He would give to every man perieet
liberty to kill ground game—either hares or rabbits
—in any way he pleased, so long as it wilB not upon
anoti•er man's property. (Applause.) He also con-
siilereil it a shame that if aci inlay policeman thought,
or pretended to think, that :my man or woman hod
game concealed about them, lie might stop that man or
s onian and search them to find it. That was a most
shameful piece of tyranny, and he never voted against
anything more heartily than he did against that clause
of Sir Baldwin Leighton's bill. Then, again, he
thought this a great wrung, that game was put on a
perfectly distinct footing from all other property in
this respect. If a man stole a cow or a chicken, his
prosecution was undertaken at the expense and trouble
of the prosecutor; but prosecutions against poachers
were no longer undertaken at the expense of the
wealthy preservers, but at the cost of the county, and
in wane counties this formed a heavy item of expendi-
ture. He also thought it a wrong that a landlord's
coverts should he exempt from rating. (Applause.)
There were other parts of the laws relating to game
that ought to be repealed, hut he was convinced that
what wasreally wanted was not so much a change in the
law DA a bolder purpose on the par.t of farmers, not to
permit themselves to he so ruinously over-ridden, as
great numbers of them were, by excessive and extra-
vagant preservation of game, especially of rabbits and
hares. (Hear, hear.) He believed that if they agitated
this question noire persistently, if they made their
voices heard, and especially at election times, game
preservers would be compelled to yield to the pressure
of public opinion, and he was sorry that more had
not been said on this topic during the past few weeks.

The ALLEGED CONSPIRACY to ASSAS- •
SINATE the DUKE of EDINBURGH. !

It was recently announced in a telegram that the
Colonial Secretary of New South Wales had stated
that a conspiracy hail been organised for the purpose of
assassinating the Duke of Edinburgh, and that one of
the coaspirators had been murdered by his confederates
as untrustworthy, and that particulars would shortly
he laid before the parliament. From the Sydney
Marning Herald of September 9, we learn that the
conspiracy referred to was not a new one, as might
have been sffirposed, but merely that which was re-
ported to exist at the time of the attempt upon the
Duke's life by O'FarrelL It appears that the govern-
ment of the colony has been the object of some
strictures on account of the excessive rigour of the
Treason Bill which it so hurriedly passed just after the
occurrence. It was in a speech replying to these
strictures that the Colonial Secretary made the state.
ment recently telegraphed. He declared he could
produce evidence, attested by affidavits, showing that
" not only was the murder planned, but that some per-
son who was in the secret, but whose fidelity was
suspected, was foully murdered before the attack was
made upon the Prince." The Sydney Morning Herald
says that this announcement has caused much excite-
ment in the colony, and that almost everybody is of
opinion that the evidence should at once be laid before
the parliament. People are asking, it adds, whether
the untrustworthy conspirator was murdered in the
colony or elsewhere, and if in the colony, what has
become of the body, and moreover what steps have
been taken by the police? Meanwhile they think the
secretary's statement should have been deferred until
it could have been supported by the evidence which
has yet to be produced.