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

Mr. F. MAULE said he had endeavoured to intro

duce a measure, two years ago, giving the tenant corn
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 anti 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.) He 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.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the Hon. Member for Manchester would
find it a more difficult matter to deal with the game-
laws than he seemed to apprehend. Did the Hon.
gentleman mean to go so far as to prevent gentlemen
from preserving game? He did not suppose ho 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 killieg game, they would have the
country in a state of rural insurrection.—(Hear, hear.)
lie had no objection to the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man, but he should like to know what construction he
was to put on the
.word " occupier" having a right to
kill hares.
Mr. COLVILLE said that be 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. Ile
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 lion. Friend ; but he
entirely disapproved of the measure which the lion.
Member for Manchester signified his intention of intro-
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 Hon. Gentleman and take out a piece of
cotton. When the tenant took the land he took it sub-
ject to the 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 lion. 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 concurrence.
Mr. BRIGHT said he had no intention of introduc-
ing any measure which would interfere with the rights
of property.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
SMALL TENEMENTS.
Mr. SCROPE, in introducing a Bill to exempt small
tenements from local taxation, said that great hardship
.had been experienced from 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 who
ought to pay rates. What he wished to effect, there-
fore, was to draw a clear line of distinction between
those two chases of persons, and for this purpose he
proposed, that, in the rural districts, houses under the
value of Si. should be exempt ; that in towns, which had
a population of between 10,000 and 50,000 inhabitants,
the exemption should extend to houses of the value of_
81. ; and in large towns, like Liverpool, that it should
extend to houses of the value of 10/. 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 ho by no means undertook to support
the Bill on its introduction. His. objection to the prin-
ciple of the measure remained.umnpaired.
Leave was then given to bring la the Bill,