The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-25 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 25, 1848.

Government to offer any opposition to tho introduction
of this Bill. But, in consenting to its introduction, he
wished to be clearly understood that he by no means
assented to the provisions which might be embodied in
the measure. The subject was one of great importance,
and he had not been able to collect from the Hon.
Gentleman's statement what the provisions might be.
It was, therefore, desirable that the Bill should be laid
on the table of the House, and then they would be
better able to discuss it. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman
would not fix so early a day as he had named (Wednes-
day next) for the second reading. Much would depend
on the machinery by which he proposed to carry the
measure into effect ; he feared great difficulty would be
found in carrying out the plan proposed. It was of
great importance that the promptitude and certainty of
punishment which attached to the conviction of guilty
persons should be preserved. If the Hon. Gentleman
proposed to assimilate criminal trials to civil proceedings,
he would find that that plan would altogether fail ; for
the verdicts were given in a way entirely different, and
if a doubt existed in a criminal proceeding the prisoner
had the benefit of that doubt.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
EXCISE DUTIES ON PAPER, SOAP, &c.
Mr. EW ART said he should not persevere in his other
motion, which stood next in the paper:—" To move the
abolition of the excise duties on paper, soap, and bricks;
the reduction of the duties on tea, tobacco, and wine ;
and the repeal of the duties on butter and cheese ; any
loss of revenue which may occur to be replaced by direct
taxation on realised property." Ile would not press this
motion for these reasons ; the subject of taxation had
been under discussion all the evening, and it would be
re-argued more fully and generally next Monday.—
(Hear, hear.) He therefore thought it more desirable
to wait and see whether a general committee on taxation
was appointed, or what other measure was adopted.
LLmloNrGed OFfor IleeakvßeEtSo.
lie should postpone this motion until a future day.
Mr. COLVILLEKI bring in a Bill
" to enable all occupiers of land having a right to kill
hares on that laud to do so, by themselves or persons
authorised by them,without being required to take out a
game certificate." Under the existing laws, he observed,
farmers were subject to great inconveniences, particu-
larly those who occupied small holdings. He had spe-
cially guarded in the Bill against any abuses that might
arise from the permission proposed to be given ; and he
hoped the Government would not oppose the introduc-
tion of the Bill.
Sir G. GREY said he thought the proposal a very
reasonable one, and as he conceived it would not deduct
a shilling from the revenue he should raise no objection
to its introduction.
Mr. STAFFORD was sorry to observe that the Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), who had a notice
on the paper for a sill to repeal the game laws, was not
in his lace.
Sir Ca. GREY—He is not going to bring it on.
Mr. STAFFORD was sorry to hear that, as the
Honourable Member for Manchester was the person
who had obtained the appointment of the Committee on
the game-laws, and had taken up the question so as to
make it his own ; otherwise he (Mr. Stafford) might
have submitted a motion on the subject. However,
he would now call public attention to the fact that
the first movement on this subject did not come from
a free-trader, but from a Gentleman on the opposite
side of the House, and holding opinions in favour of
protection.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. TRELAWNY,
Colonel SIBTHORP alluded to the two bulky volumes
of evidence which had been taken before the Committees
on the game-laws, and said that the motion of the lion.
Member for Manchester, like many other of his motions,
appeared likely to end in smoke; there would be " much
cry and little wool."—(Laughter.) Two volumes of
evidence had been produced, and witnesses without end
had been examined, at an enormous expense to the coun-
try.—[Here Mr. Bright entered the House, amidst loud
cheering.] He was now glad to see that Hon. Gentle-
MLA on his perch.--(Laughter.) It seemed that lion.
Member had failed in eliciting any good result out of
the numerous allegations that had been made; and had
he (Colonel Sibtkorp) done so, ho should have ,consi-
dered himself called on to pay the expenses to which the
country had been put by the inquiry.—(Laughter.) He
hoped the House would" largely pause" before granting
any more Committees on the motion of the Hon. Gen-
tleman.—(Bear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he had no intention of being ab-
sent when the lion. Member for South Derbyshire in-
troduced his motion ; nor had ho any intention of
opposing that Bill. But he was sure the House would
not consider it sufficient to meet the evils now known
to exist in connexion with the preservation of game.
The lion. Member for South Derbyshire must know
extremely little of the working of the game-laws if he
supposed that the placing of hares in the same category
as rabbits would put a stop to the outrages which bad
taken place throughout the country, and the thousands
of convictions which every year occurred for offences
under the game-laws. He had announced his intention,
soon after the recess, of introducing a Bill to repeal
these laws; he had not yet been able to bring it on,
owing to other engagements, amongst which was the
Committee on the growth of cotton in India. When
that Committee had finished its labours, which he hoped
would be in about a month, then lie proposed to ask
leave to introduce a Bill for the entire and immediate
repeal of the game-laws, in order that the law might no
longer give any sanction to the practice of preserving
game in a country so populous as this. The measure now
proposed would not hinder him from bringing in tills Bill,
which would go much further. Though considerable
delay had taken place since the Committee on the game-
laws had reported, he did not think that the question
had suffered in consequence. It would now come before
the House with a much greater chance of a fair consi-
deration and of something real being done, for the
public attention had been called to the evidence during
the recess. lie had no intention of abandoning the
question; and he hoped that when it was brought for-
ward he should have the support of the Hon. Member
for North Northamptonshire.—(Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that if the game-laws were
repealed, large districts of the country would remain
unprotected, and it would be necessary to enact a law
of trespass, which would bo more burdensome and
onerous than the :present game-laws. He highly ap-
proved of the measure now proposed.
Mr. H. BERKELEY wished to ask the Hon. Member
for Manchester whether, in proposing the repeal of the
game-laws, ho would substitute some adequate protec-
tion for the land?
Mr. F. MAULE said he had endeavoured to intro-
duce a measure, two years ago, giving the tenant com-
pensation from the proprietor for the damage done by
preserving game. A farmer had told him that 200
hares came in one day into a field of young grass.
This proved the necessity of some such measure as
that now proposed; he should therefore support it. But
if it were proposed to do away with the game-laws
altogether, the House would be bound to provide some
adequate protection for the occupiers of land, whose
fields would otherwise be run over and devastated
without remedy.
Mr. AGLIONBY, while admitting the evil of the
game-laws, felt the necessity of giving landlords and
farmers some protection, and, if possible, taking away
the temptation to kill game. Whatever they did the
rights of property must be maintained,
Sir R. PEEL believed that the most effectual remedy
for the evils attending the game-laws would be a strong
impression, on the part of landed proprietors, that hares
and rabbits in excessive quantities were very injurious
to the productiveness of the soil. They would then be
willing to consent to diminish that excessive quantity,
and, by voluntary arrangement, would consent to the
destruction of much of the game.—(Hear.) Ho could
not help feeling that hares contributed very little to the
enjoyment of real sportsmen. With regard to winged
game the damage done was very little.—(Bear, hear.)
He thought the Hon. Member for Manchester would
find it a more difficult matter to deal with the genie-
laws than he seemed to apprehend. Did the Hon.
gentleman mean to go so far as to prevent gentlemen
from preserving game? lie did not suppose he meant
to propose anything so arbitrary; if that were so, and if
persons were allowed to traverse a gentleman's property
for the purpose of killing game, they would have the
country in a state of rural insurrection.—(Heela hear.)
He had no objection to the motion of the lion. Gentle-
man, but he should like to know what constructionh to he
t
was to put on the Sword .‘ occupier" having a rig
kill hares.
Mr. COLVILLE said that he did not mean that the
word occupier • should extend to the case of a landlord
who preserved hares himself, but only that the tenant
to whom permission was given to kill hares by the land-
lord should be allowed to do so without a license. He
meant to deal with hares as rabbits were dealt with.
Mr. HUDSON was not aware that any objection
could be made to the Bill of his Hon. Friend ; but he
entirely disapproved of the measure which the Hon.
Member for Manchester signified his intention ofintro-
ducing. It would be a gross violation of the rights of
property to allow persons the right of coming
on a man's
land to kill game. He might as well enter the ware-
house of the lion. Gentleman and take out a piece of
cotton. When the tenant took the land he took it sub-
ject to tho preservation of the game; the matter was a
mere bargain between him and the landlord, and he had
no right to complain of the injury done by the game.
Mr. C. WOOD did not think the Hon. Member for
Manchester intended to introduce any Bill which would
interfere with the rights of property. With regard to
the Bill before the House, the Hon. Gentleman had
clearly explained what his object was, and it would have
his cone arrence.
Mr. BRIGHT said he had no intention of introdue-
ing any measure which would interfere with the rights
of property.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
SHALL TENEMENTS.

Mr. SCROPE, in introducing a Bill to exempt small
tenements from local taxation, said that great hardship
had been experienced front the operation of the law as
it stood at present. The law had not clearly defined
the line of exemption, and poor persons were obliged
to prove before two tribunals before they could establish
their right to be exempt. Mr. Rushton, the magistrate,
of Liverpool, declared that he found the utmost diffi-
culty in deciding who ought to be exempt, and ho
ought to pay rates. What be wished to effect, thwere
fore, was to draw a clear line of distinction :between
those two classes of persons, and for this purpose he
proposed, that, in the rural districts, houses under the
value of 51. should be exempt ; that in towns, which
a population of between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants,
the exemption should extend to houses of the value of
; and in large towns, like Liverpool, that it should
extend to houses of tho value of 101. lie considered
that his measure would be a most beneficial auxiliary
to the Sanitary Bill of the Noble Lord.
Sir G. GREY did not object to the introduction of
the measure, but be by no means undertook to support
the Bill on its introduction. Ills objection to the prin.
ciple of the measure remained unimpaired.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.