The Sun.
London, England, 1862-01-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JANUARY 6, 1862. k

the Ship's Surgeon in Mr. DICKENS'S last Christmas
Tale—" judge for yourselves." And they do so.
And they look. And there—sure enough is the
dread brand—the hole on the top of the ear—in
evidence of identity. If the accused be
not the NANA after all, the coincidences of
the double identification and of the accusing
mark are certainly very extraordinary.
Of course, nothing can be done to the
prisoner until further evidence shall have been
forthcoming. That additional evidence, however,
one way or the other, there can be no diffi-
culty in procuring. It is not the Poorbeeah
alone in all India who can swear to the identity
of the NANA SAHIB. That arch-miscreant is un-
happily a man but too well known, not only
among his brother Asiatics, but among crowds
of once friendly Englishmen. NANA SAHIB in
truth, up to the time of that hideous Revolt
in Bengal, was known to hundreds of
English officers and gentlemen moved in
the best society was recognized and
welcomed in many a ball room, and at many a
mess table, as an Oriental Patrician, with the
accomplishments of a prince, the abilities of a
scholar, and the manners of a gentleman. Until
—at the outbreak of the Sepoy insurrection—
all the gloss of civilisation dropped from him
as its glittering slough is cast from it
by the Deadly Serpent. Until—in literal
truth—nothing less than a monster in the human
form became suddenly visible. Supposing the
wretched man now in the hands of the authorities
at Kurrachee to be really and truly no other than
the NANA SAHIB, we do not for one instant call
for Vengeance upon his head. We simply ask that
Crimes and Penalties—in his regard—shall be
weighed in the even balance of Justice.

It is but fair to apprise our readers that we are
about to treat them to a little "jargon." Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON denounces as such, by anticipation,
what the press is likely to say in commenting on
the discussion and action of the Worcestershire
Justices of the Peace at the Epiphany Quarter
Sessions. Their subject was the existing state of
the game laws ; they chatted and made speeches
over a memorial they proposed to forward to the
Home Secretary, which our readers will find in
another column ; and the result of their discussions
was, that more stringent laws were needed for the
protection of game, or perhaps they would prefer
to say, to put down preaching.
Let us avoid " jargon" at the commencement, for
a statement of the case, as viewed by the noble,
reverend, and untitled members of the Bench, can.
not be so termed. The chairman—the Earl of
DUDLEY—stated the vast amount of poaching in
the county. Nearly a thousand men were known, by
name, to be engaged in it. The temptation also to
offend against the game laws was, he said, greater
than ever, and it had reached the point that either
the temptation must be diminished, or magistrates
must be armed with greater powers to
prevent men from yielding to the tempta-
tion. The towns furnished organised gangs who
went forth to violate the rights of property, and
men were so clever now, that they did their work
more effectually than of yore. Many gentlemen
were jealous of employing the police against
poachers, and if " the question was simply as be-
tween the landowner and the poacher, then he
would say either let the landowner employ more
efficient protection for his property or destroy his
game, but when in every town in the kingdom
there was an organised body of men who went out,
as soon as the sun was down, for the sake of plunder
of all kinds, when the system led not only to great
demoralisation but actual crime and the most ter-
rible assaults, often ending in the destruction of life,
then he thought it was time to call upon the proper
authorities to interfere."
A REVEREND MAGISTRATE, who followed, men-
tioned the confessed legality of preserving game
and the illegality of poaching. He had heard that
where game was little preserved thieving was most
sommon. He spoke, however, rather sensibly for
a clergyman on two points included in the memo-
rial. "He thought that a great difficulty, even
perhaps an insuperable obstacle, might arise in
making game private property. A pheasant whilst
on one side of a hedge might be one man's property,
whilst if it crossed that hedge it might be claimed
as the property of another person. At any rate he
did not see how it could be identified or made
private property. He thought also great difficulty
would arise in complying with the latter part
of the memorial, in which it was suggested that
the police and officers of that description should
have the power of apprehending persons with game
in their possession. That would be a complete alte-
ration of the law regarding property. It was true
that if a policeman met a man going home late at
night with fowls in his possession he not only took
away the fowls but he also apprehended the man,
because probably the fowls would be identified, and
thus a charge of felony established; but there were
so many difficulties connected with the identity of
a pheasant that the same rule would not apply. He
thought, however, that if policemen had power to
take the guns or nets of poachers it might have a
deterring effect."
Another JUSTICE OF THE PEACE was for much
stronger measures. It was all very well to seize
guns and nets ; but as many of these poachers
poached for a livelihood, something stronger was
needed—it must be made of no avail to them to get
the game. They must not be allowed publicly to
sell it, and dealers must be put under a supervision
as rigorous as that of the Excise. All persons also
out between sunset and sunrise with dangerous
weapons ought to be taken by the police wherever
found !

Sir JOHN PAKINGTON followed ; he " declared his
conviction that one very necessary change of the
law would be to enact that game found upon the
land of a landowner should be the property of that
landowner, as much as anything else he found upon
it. He always had entertained that opinion, and
he had never heard any objection to it consistent
with common sense. The argument had indeed
often been used, and Mr. PEARSON had reverted to
it, that there would be great difficulty in identify-
ing game. But he did not hold that objection to be
an answer to his opinion, for the same argument
might be extended to various breeds of poultry, to
hay, and many other things, where the same
difficulty of identity existed, and where, to establish

a conviction, it was necessary to bring home cvi-

deuce of other points against a prisoner. As might

be expected, however, from such an Educationist as

Sir JOHN, he took much ground. He hoped that

he (Sir Jour) and other members of the court
would look upon the subject not as landowners or

preservers of game, but as it affected the public
morality and order, and would form their opinion
believed it was the duty of the
terfere. Sir JOHN feels warmly on
accordinglegislature
the subject, for he could tell a tale from his own

preserves, and of last winter. " One of a gang of
men with nets to take rabbits and hares during the
night was arrested and taken into custody. Those
men came from Kidderminster, and his (Sir JoHN's)
keeper therefore next day went over to Kidder-

minster to make inquiries. He saw tke police, who
told him that if they knew tho man's name who