The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-17 00:00:00

RESOLUTIONS.

1. That although the law recognises a qualified in-
terest
in game, as resting in the owner of the land, it ap-
pears to your Committee that, among all classes of the
community, a most important distinction is drawn be-
tween such interest in game and the right by which
other property is held.
2. That this distinction is an insuperable obstacle to
any general acknowlegment of the propriety
.of the
stringent legislation by which it has been, and is now,
sought to give protection to the qualified property
which exists in game.
3. That infringements of the game-laws are not in
general regarded by any class as violations of the moral
law, and such offences are not considered of themselves
to fix criminality upon the characters of those who com-
mit them.
4. That, except among the class whose sports the
game-laws are intended to protect, there appears to pre-
vail a strong sympathy towards individuals who come
under the penalties inflicted by those laws.
5 That the penalties thus inflicted appear wholly
ineffectual to prevent infractions of the game-laws, or
to reclaim those who offend against them, inasmuch as
it is proved that very frequently the same individuals
are convicted ten, fifteen, or even twenty times during
the course of a few years.
6. That the offenders against whom the game laws
are enforced do not admit the justice of their sentences,
but rather deny the impartiality of the tribunal by
which they are tried, and consider themselves as victims
of a harsh and unequal law.
7. That, although game offences are not by public sen-
timent deemed criminal, yet they lead the labouring
classes, in towns as well as in the rural districts, by a
course of irregular habits, to offences of a more serious
character.

8. That in a large proportion of cases, in almost every
county, the magistrates who administer the game-laws
are preservers of game, and very frequently passionately
fond of shooting ; and this circumstance gives rise to a
suspicion of bias ; while the magistrates themselves feel
that their administration of the law is regarded with ex-
treme jealousy.
9. That this suspicion of unfairness is increased by
the fact that almost invariably the only witness against
the poacher is a gamekeeper or his assistant, one of
whom generally lays the information, and is a receiver
of a portion of the penalty, whilst the other gives the
only testimony required to secure a conviction. It ap-
ears, further, that it is rare that an indifferent or disin-
erested party gives evidence in game cases, except in
aystsof the person charged with the offence.
10. That although by law the game upon a farm
held to be the property of the occupier, except when
specially reserved to the landlord, yet it is proved that
the practice of so rest rving it is all but universal; and
that, in reality, the control over the game is in very
rareinstances in the har.ds of the occupying tenants.
11. That by au overwhelming mass of evidence it
is proved that enormous danger is sustained by the
cultivators of the soil where game is preserved, greatly
exceeding, according to the evidence of many practical
and most respectable farmers, the whole amount of
the poor rate, county-rate, church rate, highway-rate,
and income•tax, payable upon the farm upon which
the game is preserved, or which may be in the imme-
diate neighbourhood of a preserve.
12. That it is proved upon the evidence of most trust-
worthy tenant-farmers and landowners, that to compen-

sate the cultivators of a game farm a diminution of rent,
varying from 20 to 30 per cent. should be allowed.
13. That it does not appear to be the practice of the
proprietors of land to make compensation for the destruc-
tion of crops caused by game, although some honourable
instances to the contrary have been brought before your
Committee.
14. That the system of game preserving is proved to
be a source of great irritation to the tenantry, and of
frequent disputes between them and their landlords, as
well from the injury sustained by the tenants from the
destruction of their crops, as from the interference and
watchings practised upon them by the gamekeepers.
15. That it is proved that the prosperity of agricul-
ture, throughout very many parts of England and Scot-
land, is greatly impaired by the preservation of game;
that a vast amount of produce is destroyed ; that the
fertility, of the soil is diminished; that less capital is ex-
pended and less labour employed; and that thus, by
the same process, the profits of the tenantry and the
wages of the labourers are reduced.
116. That, by a return presented to your House in the
year 1844, it is shown that, in the year 1843, not less
than 4,529 persons were convicted of offences against the
game-laws, and suffered fine or imprisonment ; that,
from the year 1833 to the year 1844, inquests were held
on the bodies of 41 gamekeepers, and that, in not less
than 26 cases verdicts of wilful murder were returned.
17. That the extended and careful investigation which
your Committee has made into the matters referred to
them has forced them to the conclusion, that the very

serious and widely-spread evils which are so fully
proved to exist, are inseparable from the practice of pre-
serving game. That it seems clear to your Committee
that this practice, now so general, and of late years so
much extended, is at variance with the interests of a
country where population is rapidly increasing, where
agriculture is improving, and where advancing civilisa-
tion is everywhere apparent.
18. That with respect to remedial measures, and to
changes in the law, your Committee would recommend
that in all future legislation on the subject of game it
should be a primary object to discourage the practice of
game preserving, as incompatible with the successful
pursult of agriculture, hurtful to the morality of the
labouring classes, destructive of that kindly feeling
which should exist between the different ranks of
society, and generally disadvantageous to the interests
of the country.

The following is the substance of the report proposed
by Mr. Bright, and rejected by the committee:—
" Your Committee have instituted a very laborious
inquiry into the operation of the game-laws, and for that
purpose have examined seventy-two witnesses, all of
whom have either been practically acquainted with the
operation of the game-laws, the effect of game and game
preserves, or the administration or execution of. the cri-
minal law in preserved districts. Such witnesses have
consisted of landowners (including several peers and
members of the House of Commons), land agents, tenant-
farmers, attorneys practising at petty sessions, game
salesmen, chief constables, and superintendents of police
in rural districts, the governors of county gaols, inspec-
tors of prisons, gamekeepers, farm labourers, and several
persons who have been themselves offenders against the
game-laws. Your committee have also examined S. M.
Phillips, Esq. Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Dept tment. Mr. Grantley Berkeley, a member of your
Committee, was also, at his own request, examined. The
inquiry occupied the whole of last session, from the time
of the appointment of your Committee, and has been
continued throughout the session.
"In order to arrange and classify the results of the
voluminous evidence which has been given before your
Committee, they propose to divide their observations
into seven branches :
" 1. As to the nature of game, the actual state of
existing laws for its protection and preservation, and the
general sentiments .entertained with reference to game
and the game laws, by different classes of the commu-
nity. 2. The operation of the game laws, and the effects
of game preserving upon the interests and feelings of
farmers, and the condition of agriculture. 3. The
effect of game and the game laws upon the relations of
landlord and tenant. 4. The operation of game preserv-
ing and the tame laws upon the morality and material
condition of the labouring classes, especially those of
rural districts. 5. The administration of the game laws,
and its influence upon offenders. 6. The influence of
game preserving and the game laws upon the general
interests of the community. And lastly, the remedies
for evils of great magnitude, and widely extended opera-
tion, which are proved to exist as the consequences of
game preserving."
Such is in general the character of the evidence ad-
duced. From the statements made by several large
farmers, it appears that damages to crops, to the amount
of 2001., 3001, 4001, 5001., 7001., and even 1,0001. have
been caused on a sidle farm by these destructive vermin.
One extract as an example:—" Mr. Wm. Marris, of
Rucklands, near Loath, Lincolnshire, in 1839, occupied
a farm of 740 acres, near Briggs, under the Duke of
Newcastle, for which he gave the full value of the land,
without reference to game, and also had a verbal pro-
mise that the game should not injure him, soon found
himself so seriously damaged' that he embraced the first
opportunity of leaving the farm. In 1843, his loss upon
a field of twenty. three acres of wheat was estimated by
a competent and respectable valuer, at eight bushels
to the acre, amounting in value to at least 1501.
He received much injury from game on other parts
of the farm, but selected that field as the worst, with the
expectation of obtaining from his landlord some com-
pensation: compensation was, however, refused. He es-
timated the game damage over his whole farm at ss. per
acre, or 1851. a. year, whilst his total direct taxation, in-
cluding the tithe, did not much exceed 1001. a-year."
The report jusly lays great stress upon the evidence of
Mr. Pusey, the eminent agriculturist:—" Mr. Pusey's
evidence is not less conclusive than Lord Hatherton's.
as to the damage to farm produce caused by game ; and
he is of opinion that the modern system of farming is
not consistent with the preservation of wild animals,
except by highly artificial means. Mr. Pusey expressed
a decided opinion that the preserves of game should
be made liable in an action for damages for injury, done
to their neigbours' crops by their game, and that there
would be no great difficulty in proving, to the satisfac-
tion of a jury, from what preserves the game complained
of had come."

With regard to the evidence on the other side, the
report says:—" The witnesses examined in support of
the game-laws were landowners and preservers of game,
magistrates, and chief police constables, and superin-
tendents and gamekeepers. With few exceptions, none
of them had much practical acquaintance with hus-
bandry. The scope of this class of evidence was to
show that poaching might, to a great degree, be pre-
vented by a sufficient force of gamekeepers and game-
watchers ; but that unless game is very strictly watched,
and by a number of watchers proportioned to the extent
of the preserve, the protection of game was difficult,
and the cause of much local disorganisation. The tenor
of the evidence of these witnesses has convinced your
Committee of the accuracy of Mr. Pusey's opinion, that
game has in the cultivated districts ceased to exist as
wild animals, and that where preserved at all, it is solely
maintained by artificial means."
After these and many more details of the injury sus-
tained by agriculture from the maintenance of large
quantities of game, the report says :—" Your Committee,
therefore, are unable to resist the conclusion, that having
regard to the influence of game upon agriculture and the
prosperity of farmers, game preserving, in the present
state and cultivation of the country, is injurious, and
ought not, at all events, to receive any encouragement
from the legislature."
Under the second branch of the subject, the report
says :—" The evidence is uniform that game preserves
occasion very extensive destruction of agricultural pro-
duce, and operate as most serious impediments to good
farming."
This has been clearly demonstrated by practical
farmers, from so many differents parts of the country'
and whose experience has been had upon all the varie-
ties of soil, that it is difficult to select from the mass of
evidence on this point that which most completely
proves the operation of game preserves upon the agri-
culture of the country.
Various striking extracts from the evidence are
given in support of these positions. Amongst the
witnesses were Mr. James Smith, a farmer, near St.
Alban's, Lord Hatherton, Mr. Pusey, and other emi-
nent agriculturists !—" They all agree that the da-
mage done to the grain crop is very great, and that
the full amount of injury is very difficult, if not im-
possible, to be estimated, while green and root crops,
the foundation of all improved husbandry, can only
be grown under great disadvantages where game
abounds. Indeed, the cultivation of winter tares, the
main dependence of many farmers for maturing the
strong land, and everywhere a most valuable crop, has
in numerous instances mentioned to your Committee,
been given up by farmers, whose farms have been much
overrun by game. Here, then, we find a large head of
game strikes at the very foundation of fertility ; for if
the root and green crops are injured, every subsequent
crop in the rotation is thereby diminished, indepen-
dently of the direct damage each of such subsequent
crops may receive from the game ; nor is the actual
damage the full measure of the injury the farmer
suffers from game, for the agricultural witnesses,
without exception, speak strongly as to the vexation
and irritation of a farmer, who, in spite of all his efforts
and all his outlays, sees his crops ravaged by wild ani-
mals over which he has no kind of control. ,
After giving extracts from Lord Hatherton 's evidence,
mt the reerpeodrat
estai
oyns :—"
of
hLaroersd
aHnadthrearbtobnit'ss stwaitlelmpernotietchtattnhoe
crops from damage in all seasons, but that the destruc-
tion_ of these animals ought to be total, is either directly
or indirectly confirmed by most of the other witnesses,
and perhaps by none more so than by some of the
witnesses called by those favourable to the game pre-
serving."
Mr. Gayford, an occupier of about 1,300 acres of land,
near Thetford, gave the details 'of an experiment by
which he ascertained that the consumption of four tame
rabbitts, estimated to be equal to four hares, is within
a fraction the same as that of one sheep. The following
is an extract from the evidence as to the damage caused
by game :—" Assuming that four hares consume as
much as one sheep, and also supposing that I was to
keep the hares all the year round, I would rather keep
one sheep than I would keep two hares ; for this
reason, I would rather keep 600 or any number of
sheep on my farm to feed, fold, and pasture them where
I please, and to provide food for them, than I would keep
halt' the quantity of sheep to run over the whole produce,
and to have the free range of my farm, over my barley,
over my wheat, over my Swede turnips, and everything
else. And, therefore, with respect to hares, I should
say I would rather keep one sheep than two hares to
have the range of the farm. At least, I think that two
hares would be quite as destructive to me as one sheep
upon that calculation, because the hares would run about
where they please, and prevent the growth of the crops."
And he afterwards adds, in reply to a question (8,682)
as to the influence of game preserving on agriculture as
an art or science, " I think, wherever hares or rabbits
are extensively preserved, it would be a bar to spirited

farming, and to improvements which might otherwise go
on. Speaking for myself, if hares were strictly pre-
served upun my farm, I should not expend so much
money in farming as I do now, particularly in artificial
manure."

Under the first head, after a summary of the principal
provisions of the existing laws for the preservation of
game, the report goes on to say :—" It will be seen that
one offence may be visited with three, possibly, in some
cases, with four, cumulative punishments. For instance,
killing game on a Sunday or Christmas-day is punish-
able, on summary conviction before two justices, by a
fine not exceeding 51., and the costs of conviction ; and
in the event of non-payment, imprisonment for any term
not exceeding three months, and with or without hard
labour, at the discretion of the convicting justices. Then,
if the game was killed out of season, the offender may
be fined 20s. and costs ; and if the fine be not paid,
imprisonment for two months.—Killing game with-
out a certificate subjects the offender to a penalty of
51. and costs, or three months' imprisonment ; and,
whether convicted or not, to be surcharged by the
surveyor of taxes for double the certificate duty,
which, if charged, cannot be remitted ; and to a
penalty of 201., which may be mitigated to 101.
These latter penalties are recoverable before the
commissioners of assessed taxes. The certificate
duty is a crown debt • but in the event .of non-pay-
ment of the 201. penalty, the offender is imprisoned
for six months. Though in name a fiscal tax and
penalty, and enforced by the surveyor of taxes, the
surcharge and penalty are in practice only enforced at
the suggestion of preservers of game, and as a cumu-
lative penalty. All the above penalties might be
enforced against a person killing game on a Sunday or
Christmas day, and out of season. When more than
five persons trespass in pursuit of game, and any one of
them, being armed with a gun, shall offer violence or
threats towards the owner of the land, or his servants,
another and additional penalty of 51. and costs, or three
months' imprisonment, is imposed upon the offender, and
on every person aiding and abetting him. Various
subsidiary powers, such as right to apprehend trespas-
sers refusing to give their names and places of abode, a
right to seize the game in their possession, and so forth,
are given to the preservers of game, and their game-
keepers, to carry out the provisions of the law."
The light in which the game-laws are regarded :
" Your Committee find, from the concurrent testimony
of all the witnesses examined, whether favourable or
unfavourable to game-preserving, that infractions of the
game-laws are not regarded by any class, from the
landowner, who preserves the game, to the poacher, in
the same light as breaches of other laws. A spirit of
adventure and fondness for sporting seem to form the
inducement, with many of the labouring men, to become
poachers, while others are led into it by the occasionally
large, though precarious, gain of a successful poaching
adventure. And though all classes deplore the effect
of poaching upon the characters of the men addicted
to it, causing them eventually to commit graver
offences, none regard poaching as a moral offence or a
sin. Labourers and farmers deem the game-laws harsh
and unjust, and, although the magistrates in general
consider that they administer that law leniently, the
large proportion which game offences hear to other of-
fences in the rural districts, and the punishment of
poachers with extreme severity, occasionally insisted
on by game preservers, have created a wry general im-
Ipression in the public mind that the game•laws are
harshly administered.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, August 15.

IN ILE REAY AND REAY.

A question of a novel character was brought before the
Court in the matter of Reay and Reay, the wine merchants
of Mark-lane, in whose estate a dividend has recently been
declared of 2s. 6d. in the pound.

On the part of a creditor for 5,0001., an attorney applied
for the payment of a dividend on bills of exchange to 4,800/.,
notwithstanding that since the bankruptcy payment had
been made by bills to 2,670/. The original debt was 5,0001.
money advanced, and bills of exchange were deposited for
7,0001., being drawn and indorsed by the bankrupts. Since
the proof of the deb, which was for 5,000/., when the bills
were exhibited, 2,670/. of the securities had been paid, and it
was insisted that the party who had proved was entitled to
a dividend on 4,890/., being the amount of the bills he held,
notwithstanding that his actual debt was much under that
sum, he having been paid 2,6701. off his original claim of
5,0001.
On the part of the assignees, several cases were cited,
bearing on the point.
His HoNoua said it was a very nice question. He was
impressed with the opinion, that under the circumstances,
the creditor was entitled to a dividend on the securities he
held, but it was a matter for the official assignee, and he
would suggest that the point had better be brought before
another Learned Commissioner before the matter was taken
into the Court of Review. As at present advised, he was in
favour of the creditor.