The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-24 00:00:00

Tl 3 E rl N, I o_!,:f D)0 FRIDAY

of the House, except that which might be due for having
so long delayed bringing this subject forward. It was in
1845 that he obtained a Select ammeittee to inquire into
the operation of these laws. That Committee was of a
character as impartial as could possibly be obtained,
and the majority was constituted of those who dis-
agreed with his (Mr. Bright's) views. The Committee
examined about sixty witnesses, twenty-one of whom
were tenant-farmers. It was proved before that Com-
mittee that game were most destructive to agricultural
produce. Mr. Bates, of Luton Park Farm, said that in
thirty acres of wheat he had had damage awarded
amounting to 1181. Mr. Hodding, a tenant of Lord
Folkestone, showed that in forty-five acres he had
damage done amounting to 1721. In four years previous
to 1845 he lost 4601. on wheat and barley land alone, or
115/. per annum, without reckoning turnips and green
crops. Other witnesses proved similar facts.
" Mr. J. Bell, Salisbury, damage to his growing crops
in 1844, on 223 acres, 4161.85.—Mr. Chambers, Norfolk,
farms. 6,000 acres poor land, 1844, loss near 1,000/.—
Mr. W. Sewell, near Swaffham, rent 1,0241., dainace for
one year, estimated on 700 acres, was 7001.—Mr. A.
Gordon, Wenlock Farmers' Club, 1841, loss on his own
farm, 239/., on 34 acres ; 1842, loss on his own farm,
651. on ten acres ; 1844 and winter of 1845, loss on his
own farm, 1141.—Mr. Woodward, Kempsey, Worcester-
shire, 500 acres of Lord Coventry, 200 acres of his own
land, 1844, lost 2001. by game on the laud he rented
from Lord Coventry.—. Mr. Landale, surveyor,
Fifeshire, 1841, six farms, property of Captain
Wemyss, 1,059 Scotch acres, valued loss 6551. ; 1844,
damage estimated near 1,0001., Capt. Wemyss paid the
sums awarded according to agreement in the leases of
the six farms.—M. J. W. Cooper, near Bury St. Ed-
munds, 1,000 acres of arable land, November, 1844, 30
acres of wheat so injured by partridges and winged
game that he ploughed it up; loss of preparing and
sowing this wheat crop, 1201.; annual taxation, 1111 ;
game loss, double that sum.—Mr. W. Marris, near
Louth, 740 acres, Duke of Newcastle; 1843, 23 acres of
wheat damaged, valued at 1501.; game injured him ss.
per acre on whole farm, or 1851., but all his taxes not
much over 100/.—Lincolnshire, near Kettleby, Thorpe,
1844, farm 500 acres; loss, 2401 ; seven acres of wheat
wore totally destroyed by game."
The only tenant-farmer who was brought up to give
evidence against the repeal of the game-laws was a Mr.
Taylor, who was agent to Sir John Shelley in Sussex;
but even ho admitted the great damage that particular
sorts of game effected. It had been said by Lord Salis-
bury before the Committee that 12 hares could not
consume as much as a sheep. He thought much
weight could not attach to evidence in which such
an opinion could be incorporated, for the expe-
riment had been tried. A Mr. Gayford had
kept in one place 12 hares, and in another place
2 sheep. In six weeks the 12 hares con-
sumed of oats, beans, &c., 33 bushels and 3 pecks,
weighing 68 stones, and costing 18s. 2id., whilst in the;
same time the two sheep consumed only 25 bushels, 3
pecks, and 2 pints, weighing 45 stones, and costing'
13:. fed. Thus the consumption of the twelve hares;
exceeded, in six weeks, the consumption of the two
sheep by eight bushels, or 23 stones of food, costing
4s 54d. Within a fraction, therefore, 44 hares con-
sumed as much as a sheep whilst in confinement, and of
course the calculation did not include all that would;
have been destroyed and injured had the hares been atl
large. Every farmer to whom the question was put, and
the question was put to every farmer called, declared
that game was prejudicial to agriculture. As to the cases
in which the game on land was let to a third party,
it was peculiarly impossible for the farmer to cultivate
his land to advantage. Any man renting the game
, over a farmer's land might, as a witness, Mr. Villebois,
bad described the matter, preserve as much game on
it as he chose-10,000 partridges, and 10,000 phea-
sants, and 10,000 hares, it he liked—and still as many
more if he liked, and have a whole regiment of keepers
to guard his game, every keeper having the right to go
over the land, in all directions, and at all hours of the
day or night. It was impossible that farmers could
prosper, or that labourers could obtain employment, as
they ought to do, unless this real burden upon land—a
burden which those who made such an outcry against
burdens upon land did not a'lvert to—was removed.
The manner iu which the game-laws were administered,
by the country magistrates afforded another strong
reason why the game-laws themselves should be done
away with. Mr. Phillips, in his evidence before the
Committee, had stated the fact, that it having been found
necessary, in consequence of complaints on the subjecti
to Government, to direct copies of all commitments
under the game-laws to be forwarded to the Home-
office, it was ascertained that in one year alone, the
year ending March, 1845, there had been no fewer than
1,849 commitments, under the game laws, of
which forty were absolutely contrary to law,
and the prisoners were accordingly discharged
by Government, while in principle other cases
were characterised by the most monstrous irregularities.
As to the moral effect of the game-laws upon the rural
population, that effect was most pernicious. The penal-
ties inflicted were in no instance regarded by the suffer-
ers as the just retribution of the law for a punishable
offence, but as the tyrannous act of partial magistrates
either the actual preservers themselves, or influenced by
their friendship for the prosecuting landlord. As a proof
• of the want of confidence in the magistracy on the part
of Government, it was sufficient to state that the Home
Secretary had jest recommended that cases of night
poaching should be transferred from the sessions to the
assizes. So long ago as 1796 Mr. Fox denounced the,
game-laws as fraught with the most demoralising effects
upon the rural population; and repeated Committees of
the House of Commons corroborated this opinion, by
evidence from all parts of the country. In his evidence
before one of the Committees, the Right Hon. Member
for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had declared as follows:
" I am myself a preserver of game, and, being so, I
am bound to confess that the most fruitful source of
crime in my immediate neighbourhood is connected with
game, and with the preservation of it. . . . I think
the lower orders, in common with the highest, have a
love, a natural love, of the sport, even stimulated, per-
haps, by the risks attendant on its gratification ; in
many cases, also, poverty is a great inducement to com-
mit the crime, but I should say that,: in my own imme-
diate neighbourhood, the love of the sport predominates
over almost every other consideration
have latterly preserved the game more strictly than it
was heretofore, especially pheasants, which were almost
unknown in that neighbourhood ; and since I have so,
preserved poaching has increased, notwithstanding all;
my efforts to prevent it, or rather, perhaps, in conse-1
gurney of my efforts to increase the quantity of game.
The tameness of these birds, seen constantly in the field
close to the road, is, I think, a great temptation to the
lower orders to take them On the whole, I
should think poaching the cause, rather than the conse-
quence, of criminal habits."
As t ) the extent of offences under these laws, the Duke:
of Richmond had stated that,
" The system was also attended with this baneful con-
sequence,—it increased and heightened the feuds be-
tween the higher, the middle, and the lower classes.
Would their Lordships believe that in three years, from
1827 to 1830, 8,502 persons were convicted of offences
against the game-laws in England and Wales alone?"
Sir J. Graham, speaking of the change in the law of
1631, said—
" I have not before me the returns of the number of
crimes against the game-laws at that period, but I have
a distinct recollection that the attention of Lord Grey's
Government was forced to this subject on account of the
great :increase of crime under the unchanged law at that
time apparent, and which circumstance is now attracting,
in a painful degree, the attention of the country."
The lion. Member then proceeded to read the following
statistical returns respecting the operation of the game-
laws, and in support of his arguments:—
" England and Wales—Convictions under the game-
laws in 1843, 4,529.
" 1833 to 1843-42 gamekeepers killed and inquests
held; in 25 of those cases a verdict of wilful murder was
returned.
" 1844-7 gamekeepers killed and inquests held, of
which 3 were returned wilful murder, and 1 was returned
manslaughter.
" 1844, 1845, to May, 1846 (2 years and 4 months)—
Total convictions, 11,392; being an average of 4,884
convictions per annum, and an increase of 355 over the
year 1843."
He would further exemplify the cfreadful evils arising
out of the maintenance of the game-laws, in so far as the
criminal jurisprudence of the country was concerned.
The cases to which he should call the attention of the
House were all of recent occurrence, and they would
prove beyond a doubt that much of the bloodshed and
maiming that had attracted public attention took their
rise solely out of the system of preserving game. The
lion. Member then read the following cases, which •he
ha I extracted out of the provincial and other papers:—
"FROM A CLERGYMAN IN lIERTIORDSHIRE.--in the
county prison aro now (i. e. at the Epiphany Sessi m)
confined 106 prisoners. Of these 47 are for poaching.
Nearly half, you ace, of those in the county gaol ;
more than half of those in the liberty gaol. Add
these together, and we have 153 prisoners, of whom
69 were poachers. Think of this, gentlemen of Hert-
fordshire, when next you discuss the cause of demo-
ralisation among us, or take in hand some remedy for
the perils of the nation. Just one short of 70 are in
your gaols for aggression on the sports of the higher
classes. Dare you multiply this by 40, and find that
2,760 are in gaol in the whole of the English counties?
or can you feel satisfied that our county should furnish
an unhappy disproportion of such cases? I cannot
pledge myself for the accuracy of a unit; but there is no
intentional exaggeration, and the proportions can hardly
be altered.
" Harris and Meadham tried for cutting and wound-
ing Grant, a keeper of the Marquis of Aylesbury.
These keepers heard shots on Bedwin-common. Saw
four men coming down Bath and London-road. Keepers
were armed with swingels, resembling a flail. Keepers
stood in the middle of the road, and King, one of them,
said, Hallos, lads, what's up ?' Fight began : tre-
mendous fighting took place. The blood streamed down
Grant's head, nearly blinding him. The heads of the
keepers dreadfully cut, and the worst consequences were
apprehended from them. Thomas Meadhana's arm was
broken, and Maurice Meadham died from concussion of
the brain the same day. The affair caused much pain
to the Marquis, who sent messages every hour for in-
telligence as to the state of the dccoased. Thomas
Meadham transported for seven years."—Deviees

aispehdent. -
" December 25, Christmas-day.—Thompson and Wel-
see, poaching in a wood belonging to Mr. Beaumont, of
Bynell, Northumberland. Desperate fight with keopers.
Thompson fired twice, or thrice. Once at a large dog
with the keepers. Wallace wounded in the thigh.
Both taken. Sent to Morpeth gaol, where Wallace died
of a lock-jaw on or about the sth January. Manslaughter.
Fifteen years' transportation on Thompson. Keeper said
in evidence, " My dog is between a Newfoundland and a
bloodhound ; he is very large, but I do not know how
savage ho is. I keep the dog to go with me at night.
He has been trained to scent a man ; ho can trace the

footsteps by the scent, and take me to any part of the
woos: where anybody is."
"Three men, Davies, Hill, and Bryant, were charged
at Cardiff a ith shooting David Davies, an assi.stant
keeper to W. W. Lewis, Esq. The keepers ht and fire
arms in the preserves. Their dogs scented out the three
prisoners and another man not in custody. 'The keepers
followed them and demanded their names. A keeper
seized Bryant by the leg to prevent his getting
over a fence. Bryant resisted, the keeper struck
him on the arm till he dropped his gun. Davies
shouldered his gun, saying, ' If you don't let that man
go I'll blow your brains out.' The three other keepers
rushed forward and laid hold of it by the stock. The
prisoner resisted, the gun went off, and the deceased re-
ceived the contents in the groin. He staggered, fell
down, and cried out, lam shot,l em a dead man.' He
was carried into a cottage covered with blood, but life
was extiect.
" AFFRAY AT CROSBY-HALL, LANCASHIRB.—Futir
keepers and four poachers—desperate fight for twenty
minutes, the poachers getting the worst of it. During
the struggle a gun was fired, but without any effect.
The poachers used their gun stocks and bludgeons, and
the keepers were armed with strong, heavy cudgels.
The wounded man, Tudor, who was lying on the
ground in a state of insensibility, was then conveyed to
the hall, as well as his companion, Brown. Tudor had
a severe wound on the head, which had been inflicted by
one of the keeper's clubs, beside other injuries, and his
recovery is considered very doubtful. Brown hue
several cuts and bruises, but not of a serious character,
" LORD NOHbIANBY'S PRESERVES.— About Ist Fe-
bruary, five keepers were watching in the Mulgrave
woods. Heard firearms. Keepers armed with sticks.
the Marquis forbidding firearms. They met a gang of
poachers. armed with guns. Summoned them to slue
render. One of the gang presented his gun and firel
at
a keeper named Brown, the contents lodging in his right
arm. A struggle followed. The keepers were beaten
eff, the poachers firing at them. The wounded man
was carried to the nearest house. One of the gang was
shot in the thigh by one of his comrades. He crawled
away, concealing himself in a thicket, but was discovered.
The wounded poacher died the following Thursday.
" Murder of Charles Payne, Assistant Gamekeeper
on the Estate of Mr. A. R. Drummond, of Cudlands
Park, Hants— The watchers were only armed with
sticks. The poachers had two guns, and they used the
butt-ends to keep off the watchers. Deceased's skull
was fractured by the butt-ends of the guns, and one gun
went off by accident, and part of its contents lodged in
the breast of Morris, but not to any serious extent.
Payne survived but a short time. The coroner's jury
returned a verdict of wilful murder against Morris as
principal, and against Smith, Bracker, Carrell, and
Knapp as accessories. Morris, the principal in the
murder, is the son of Stephen Morris, the head game-
keeper. Thus the father is chief gamekeeper and the
son is poacher, and now charged with murder."—Hants
Imdependent, March It.
"MARCH 10.—TRIALS.—DURHAM ASSlZES.—Thomp-
son and Dawson, for the murder of Shirley, Duke of
Cleveland's Whipper-in, acting as keeper at Raby Castle.
Affray on the 2d Feb. IS4B. Both found guilty and
sentenced to be hanged. Shirley died twelve days after
he was shot in the arm."
fle did not say a word in vindication of these men, but
he would assert his conviction that Parliament should
interfere and put a stop to a system which engendered
such crimes as these for which these men were con-
demned. As to the successive palliations of those laws,
attempted by legislation, they had all failed in the alleged
purpose. The Hon. Member for Derbyshire had intro-
duced a Bill for making hares into rabbits. The Bill was
a mockery of legislation, and if the House was contented
with such measures, the country would think, and justly,
that there was an indisposition to meddle with the privi-
leges of the rich, and that, rather than deprive them of
the game-laws, the Legislature would prefer running the
risk of disturbing public tranquillity. What was the
number of persons interested in the game-laws ? The
tax returns showed that in the years 1841, 1842, the
number of certificates granted was only 35,000, and for
gamekeepers 2,600. The amount of revenue derived
from this source was 157,0001, but that amount of reve-
nue would not induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to oppose the abolition of the game-laws on the score of
public exigencies. The discontent which was felt by
the peasantry was very great. It was a discontent which—
" Smouldering as it grew
In silence feeds."
He wished the House to proceed on a different principle
to the past in respect to game. The principle which he
sought to establish was that acknowledged by the com-
mon law, namely, to give every one that property which
belonged to him ; whereas the game-laws prevented a
man from shooting or destroying the wild animals that
were produced on his land. The people had no sympa-
thy with the game-laws. They were habitually disre
garded, and thereby the poacher was often led to disre-
gard other laws, and not to shrink from sheeis or horse
stealing. The Bill he intended to propose was very
simple. It consisted of two clauses only. The first
abolishing all laws, and portions of laws which related
to game, or to certificates, or to any other restriction on
the killing of wild animals. The second clause was for
the purpose of giving occupiers:of land a right to sue for
damages in those cases where game preserved on adjacent
lands destroyed his crops. This was the sum total of his
Bill, and it was not so complex as some of the existing
game-laws were. He did not intend to propose to in-
' troduce any clause respecting trespasses, as those could
be easily provided against in case of need. He heped be
had sufficiently proved he had no wish to interfere be-
tween landlord and tenant, us he had almost been accused
of wishing to do. Having thus stated his views he
begged to thank the House for the attention with which
Hon. Members had listened to his speech. He asked for
nothing less than a complete change in the whole policy
of the game-laws, anti the House could not refuse his
Bill or some similar measure, without running counter
to the spirit of the age, and also perpetrating the evils
which he had shown to exist. It had been truly stated
by Mr. Alison that there was little difference between
an English sportsman and a Red Indian; both of them
found the only true excitement in slaying wild animals
and curbing impetuous steeds. It was for the sole
amusement of such that the game-laws were main-
tained; and he ventured to say, not only would public
opinion not be satisfied with their continuance, but also
that nineteen-twentieths of the peasantry were in favour
of his Bill.
Mr. COWAN, in seconding the motion, disclaimed
any unkindly feeling towards the proprietors of the soil,
to many of whom he was indebted for facilities in fol-
lowing the sportsman's trade.—(A laugh.) But it was
for their sakes he was anxious to see an end put to a
system which was a cause of continual heartburning be-
tween landlord and tenant, at least in his part of the
country. He agreel with the Hon. Member for Man-
chester in thinking that the game-laws caused a
monstrous waste of human food, and were a remnant of
the feudal system and a disgrace to the present age.—
(Hear.) The farmers of Scotland were decidedly hos-
tile to the system, so much so, that those of Fife and
Lothian had formed themselves into associations to pro-
cure its alteration.—(Hear.) A case of great hardship
had occurred in his part of the country, in which a
farmer having banished the game which were destroying
his crops, by the most harmless means, namely, by firing
blank cartridge and hunting them with muzzled
dogs, was sued at law, and informed that he had acted
illegally, and that his only proper remedy was an action
for damages. The Hon. Member for Manchester pre-
served the right to damages in his Bill. He (Mr. Cowan)
regretted ;that the Hon. Member had done so, seeing
that there was nothing so difficult to trace as the authors
of such damage, and nothing so likely to produce ill-
feeling between landlord and tenant as the attempt.—
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Cowan) thought that a much
better plan would ho to give the tenant a right to shoot
the game upon his farm. The Hon. Member having
read an extract from a letter, the purport of which was,
that the game-laws were considered to be an excessive
burden by the majority of the Scottish farmers, con-
cluded by entreating the House to give a favourable
consideration to the present Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP declared his decided opposition
to even the introduction of the Bill. A Commit-
tee had been appointed on the motion of the Hon.
Member for Manchester, numberless witnesses had
been examined, Honourable Members had literally
sweated under the infliction, and all had ended
in less smoke than will issue from the smallest cigar.
—(Laughter.) A Committee of the House had resolved
that interference with the protection of game would be
a violation of the rights of property, and on that resolu-
tion he founded his opposition to the present Bill. lie
hoped that the House would not add to the public
expense by allowing the introduction of the Hon.
Gentleman's Bill, which was sure to end—as did his
Committees—in smoke.—(A laugh.) He contended
that the injury done by game, was nothing equal to what
was alleged by the Hon. 'Gentleman. The evidence
taken upon that subject was most varied and conflicting,
one witness having said that three hares and five rabbits
consumed as much as one sheep ; another that three
hares, another that one hare, another that 20, and
another that 40 hares could not destroy so much as one
sheep. He contended also—as indeed was stated in the
evidence—that the very residence of landed proprietors,
which the preservation of game caused, was attended.
with the most beneficial results in their respective neigh-
bourhoods. Another reason fur reserving the game-
laws was the declaration of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, that he received no less than 220,140/. for game
certificates. He must therefore give his decided opposi-
tion to the introduction of the Bill.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said there was no doubt a
strong feeling abroad that there was something in the
game.laws which was not just; and he thought it was
the duty of the Legislature to endeavour to remove that
impression. But the Hon. Member for Manchester
completely failed in his remedy—(hear, hear)—and pro-
posed alterations which would lead to a state of confu-
sion in all the relations of landlord and tenant.—(Hear,
hear.) Ho was for making much more stringent laws
of trespass, and by doing so would leave all the evils of
the present system as well as create now ones. He had
ably pointed out those evils and the demoralisation
which they caused, and on that account he considered
that the House was indebted to him for having brought
forward the question; but in the remedy he proposed he
(Sir G. Strickland) could not concur.
Sir G. GREY likewise felt that the House was in-
debted to the Hon. Member for Manchester for bringing
this question before it—it being a question to which
he thought the attention of the House might be most
usefully directed.—(Hear, hear.) He likewise agreed
with his Honourable Friend who had just spoken that
the Honourable Member for Manchester had ably de-
picted the evils arising, not, however, so much from the
game-laws as from the great accumulation and strict
preservation of game—(Hear, hear)—but to the remedy
of the Hon. Gentleman he did not think the House
ought to assent, because it would trot remove those evils.
lie thought that the Hon. Gentleman would have sub-
mitted some plan which would have enabled bins (Sir G.
Grey) to consent to the introduction of his Bill with a
view to discussion at a future stage. But having clearly

and fully stated the nature of the measure 1 e etc eelecd
that the House was in a position to pronounce upon it at
once. The Hon. Gentleman had connected all the evils
which he had so well portrayed with the opet ation of
the game-laws, altogether overlooking the fact that
many of those evils arose from the accumulation of game.
He quite concurred in his denunciation of the practice of
publicly announcing as a matter of commendation the
enormous quantity of game which individuals had been
able to kill within a given time.—(Cries of " Hear,"
trorn all parts of the House.) lie was glad to find that
that practice was so generally discountenanced by that
House. The Hon. Gentleman asked for the total repeal
of the game-laws on account of the injury they did to
the tenants and the crops. There was he believed, no
doubt, that great injury was done to crops, especially
by hares; but he could not go the length of ad-
mitting that that injury alleged by the Hon. Gentleman
extended to the stock of food in the country. The real
evil and injury was that this game which was used as
food by one man should be maintained out of the pro-
perty' of another.—(rlear, hear.) But was not that the
consequence of agreements between landlord and tenant
rather than of the law ? And agreements between
landlord and tenant regarding the mode of cultivation
the rloughing up grass land, or the regulating 01. game,
Parliament had never yet touched, and any attempt to
do so would be absolutely futile.—(Bear, hear.) He
hoped the time was not far distant when the farmers
would make such agreements with their landlords as
would protect them on the best terms. But the most
important part of the question was that which affected
the morals of the people, arising from poaching and
crimes, said to originate in the existing gins-laps
The Honourable Member (Mr. Bright) has stated, that
in this respect, for years past, matters had been becom-
ing worse—that the number of convictions and conse-
quent demoralisation was on the yearly increase. His
(Sir George Grey's) information on the subject, how-
ever, did not lead him to the same conclusion. Though
the offences arising from the unlawful pursuit of game
were frequent, yet there had been a diminution in their
number, arising from the discussions which had taken
place on the subject in and out of the House, and which
had induced the public to look more into the subject.
But speaking of the number of convictions, the Hon.
Member for Manchester had not adverted to the dis-
tinction between the convictions under the Game-laws
and the violent cases of assault, manslaughter, and mur-
der, arising from poaching conflicts. Under the statute
1 and 2 Will. IV., c. 102, for offences strictly under the
Game-laws, no sentence of transportation could be
passed ; but the Act 9 Geo. IV., c. 69, commonly called
the Night Poaching Act, made any person under the
most serious class of convictions liable to transporta-
tion. Now, from the date of the report of the Select
Committee of 1546, there had not been a single person
sentenced to transportation under that statute until
1847, when three persons, who, while in the unlawful
pursuit of game, had committed acts of violence, had
been so sentenced, though in the preceding periods the
number had been much greater. With respect to sum-
mary convictions, the last return was that of 1845, which
showed that number for the year to have been 2,796,
which was between 1,500 and 1,600 less than that of
the year preceding; and in 1847 there had only been 48
convictions of any kind in England and Wales beyond
that of the three men sentenced to transportation, to
whom he had already alluded. While he (Sir G. Grey)
should cheerfully give his best attention to any attempt
to remedy and diminish existing evils, he must say he
thought the Bill now proposed would utterly fail to ac-
complish that object. The Bill proposed absolutely to
repeal the Night Poaching Act and the statutes 1 and
2 Will. W. It did not meddle with the law of trespass,
and, in effect, it would offer a direct premium to crime,
and would create still greater evils than any that had
arisen under the existing law. lie wished the lion.
Member had made a more moderate proposal; but he
(Sir Cr Grey) was now ready to give his best attention
to the subject, and to pledge himself that at no distant
day a Bill should be introduced (which, perhaps, ought
to have been done before), founded upon the report of
the Select Committee of 1846.—(11ear.) With respect to
the loss of life in conflicts with poachers, he must re-
mark that there prevailed a deep feeling among a large
portion of the population, who regarded poaching not as
a moral crime, but who also looked upon murder com-
mitted while poaching as not amounting to a crime. He
was sure the Hon. Member for Manchester was the last
man who would encourage that feeling, but would lend
his influence to show that persons who deliberately
committed murder while in the pursuit of game were
liable to the punishment awarded to that offence. In
some cases the juries had properly pronounced verdicts
of manslaughter, but at present there were two men
under sentence of death at Durham for a murder com-
mitted on the estate of the Duke of Cleveland. That
case had occupied his (Sir G. Grey's) most serious at-
tention in the most painful duty that could occur to a
person in his position. His anxious cure was to do
his duty, and not to shrink from it, and that while the law
remained as it was, not to proclaim to the world that
because a man took the life of another while poaching
he could not be subject to the punishment allotted to the
crime of murder.—(Hear, hear.) He assured the Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) that he opposed
the introduction of this Bill, not from any want of
respect for the Hon. Member's motives, but because he
thought the remedies he proposed would be utterly un-
availing, would introduce greater evils than any now
in existence, and would not be productive of the success-
ful results which the Hon. Member seemed to expect.
Mr. B. COCIIRANE said that allusion had been
made to a case in Hampshire affecting a gentleman with
whom he was connected. He could appeal to many
Hon. Members whether thut gentleman did not de-
servedly enjoy the highest reputation as an excellent
landlord. Ile (Mr. B. Cochrane) did not entirely agree
in all that had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet op-
posite (Sir G. Grey), but ho thought the present motion
a most injudicious one, and he viewed it as another blow
aimed most maliciously at one class of the community—
the landed proprietors.
Mr. W. P. WOOD denied that there was any feeling
on the part of the friends of this measure against any
class of the community. On the contrary, the course
they recommended would do more to raise the landed
interest in public estimation than any one act the house
could do in the whole course of the session.—(Hear,
hear.) The evil was not to be remedied by any pallia-
tives. The Home Secretary had given the House reason
to expect that he would propose a measure founded upon
the report of the Committee of 1846. Now he doubted
whether such a measure would be of the slightest avail
in checking so enormous an evil.
Sir G. GREY—I spoke of the resolutions of the Com
mittee.

Mr. WOOD—It was quite true that the
_poacher re,
yarded his offence not as 'flaunt in se, but as maltan pro
bibitum. Gowing, one of the witnesses before the Cote
mittee, stated that he was in the habit of selling to
Peers, Members of Parliament, and clergymen, poached
birds and eggs obtained illegally—(A laugh)—showing
that persons of station did not regard poaching as an
ordinary act of stealing.—(Hear.) Every attempt to
make animals wild by nature, and not tied to place,
property by law, had failed. The'desire of pursuing
them, it might be hoped, would one day be subdued.
Many could now enter into the feeling expressed by the
finest living poet—
" Mingle,not your joy with sorrow
Of the Meanest thing that breathes."
But the instinct was strong, and demoralization had
arisen in endeavouring to quell it. Non tuns hic sermo.
Blackstone said:—" The crime of destroying game is of
so questionable a nature, and the Acts of Parliament
constituting it an offence are so numerous and so con-
fused, that I shall not det:in the reader with many ob-
servations thereupon. . . . In one statute only, 5 Anne,
c. 14, there is false grammar in no fewer than six places,
besides other mistakes; the ocassion of which, or what
denomination of persons were probably the ',Lamers of
these statutes, I shall not at present inquire. . .
The forest laws were imported from the contiheet
whereby the slaughter of a beast was made almost as
penal as the death of a man. . . . From this root
has sprung a bastard slip, known by the name of game
law, both founded upon the same unreasonable notions
of permanent property in wild creatures."—(Bear, hear.)
Before the sale of game was legalised it was bought for
the tables of various classes; and now there was
not a civic feast on the 29th of September without
pheasants, though they ought not to be killed
till October.—(A laugh.) But not only was the
offence not regarded like other crimes—there was no
confidence in the administration of this branch of the
law by the rural magistrates.—(.‘ Oh, oh!") A very
high-minded and intelligent magistrate—(" Name")—
the late Mr. Canning, of Gloucestershire—used to say,
" I never will sit upon a game case, because I feel per
fectly satisfied I could not do justice in such a case."—
(" Oh, oh!") Others might not be conscious of their
bias—it was human nature not to be so—but it was of
the utmost importance that the magistracy should be
above suspicion.—(llear, hear.) For the sake of pre-
serving game, footpaths convenient for the poor were
stopped up by magistrates.—(Hear, hear.) A school
for crime was generated; at the sessions at Woodbridge,
in Suffolk, a boy sixteen years of age was brought up
for stealing; and it was stated by several farmers that
he had destroyed some pheasants' eggs, and they had
orders frcm their landlords not to employ him.—(" Oh,
eh !") Country gentlemen should have higher and
nobler objects to pursue; they would do well to cultivate
the science of agriculture; they might remember, too,
that the cost of a gamekeeper would keep a school-
master.—(" Oh, oh!") As to the law of trespass, it
would not be difficult to amend that. If a man tres-
passed he might be warned off, and if he refused to go,
the infliction of summary punishment could not be com-
plained of.
Mr. NEWDEGATE, who rose amsdst loud calls for
a division, enforced the argument that if the lion. Gen-
tleman's Bill became law, an infinitely more oppressive
trespass law would become necessary.
Sir H. VERNEY approved the Bill, which ho con.
sidered would be beneficial to the landed proprietors, for
there was no source more fertile of litigation, heart.
burnings, and crime in the agricultural districts than the
game-laws in their present shape. As a farmer he
thanked the Hon. Member for Manchester for bringing
forward such a measure.
Mr. G. THOMPSON then moved, and Mr. WAILLEY
seconded, the adjournment of the debate.—(Cries of
" Divide," and " Go on.")
Sir G. GREY hoped that the Hun. Member for
Manchester would consent to a division being taken at
once. Business of great importance was coming on,
and ho did not see when the discussion could be renewed.
Mr. BRIGHT had not the least wish to occupy the
time of the House longer than was necessary for a
proper discussion of the subject ; but many Members
wished to speak upon it, and the debate that evening had
not begun until half-past eight o'clock.
Mr. F. MACKENZIE said, if the motion for adjourn-
ment were carried, he :should move to add the words
" till this day six months."
Mr. lIUME said that after the speech of the Right
Hon. Baronet, who had admitted the evils whielt arose
from the present system, the House ought ;Lot to be in

such a Burry to dispose of the question without aecer.
tainino. whether a remedy could be applied.
Sir G. GREY,had no wish to put an end to the dis-
cussion, but he did not see an early day on which there
would be an opportunity of renewing it.
On the question-for the adjournment of the debate
being put,
Mr. F. MACKENZIE wished to move that the words
" until this day six months " be added, but
The SPEAKER decided that such a motion could not
be put.
The Hou9e then divided, and the numbers were—
For the adjournment B2
Against it B7
Majority against the adjournment

On our return to the gallery we found
Dr. BOWRING on his legs, observing, that as it was
a most unusual thing to refuse to adjourn a debate
when the motion to that effect was supported by eighty
Members, and as the majority in this instance, more-
over, was so small, he felt himself justified in moving
now that the House do adjourn.—(Loud cries of " Hear,
hear," from Mr. Thompson and Hon. Gentlemen in hi,
neighbourhcK
Mr. BAGGE, amid answering cheers from thP
Opposition benches, at once seconded the motion.
The SPEAKER volubly put the question, declared
that the ayes had it, and immediately left the chair.
Roars of laughter were heard from all sides of the
House; fur the consequence of this proceeding was to
render the motion " for leave to bring in a Bill " a
dropped order; and it would appear that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bolton had not anticipated such a
result, and was therefore palpably out-manoeuvred.
The House, amid much merriment, at once adjourned.

THE GAME LAWS.
The Judges at present on the circuits would
scarcely find occupation, if it were not for the number
of offences chronicled in the calendars, and which
originate in the accursed Game Laws. In all parts
of the country the most desperate conflicts have taken
place between gamekeepers, watchers, and poachers,
in many instances attended with loss of life. One
individual has been sentenced to die on the scaffold,
several others have been transported for terms vary-
ing from 10 to 15 years, and some have been banished
for life. These severe sentences, notwithstanding,
seem to produce little effecN upon the rural population.
Poachers meet as usual, and combats ensue, attended
with sanguinary vengeance on both sides. It used
to be contended that smuggling demoralised the
people —that it made them thieves, and converted
them into very demons. Now, we have ample proof
that poaching leads to violence and bloodshed, and
even murder. Various causes have operated to pro-
duce this dreadful state of things. The peasantry
require a few comforts ; they possess none whatever.
Gradually has their condition been getting worse ;
and now it is not to be borne. In counties where the
crime of poaching most prevails, the wages of agri-
cultural labourers are reduced to the lowest possible Ile-
gree of stingy parsimony, amounting to a robbery of
right. Men cannot live by their exertions, let them
be ever so industriously inclined. In some districts
we find wages as low as 7s. a week, upon which sum
it is impossible a man, obliged to toil in the open air,
can procure for himself and wife, and perhaps four or
five children, a sufficient quantity of the commonest
food to support nature ; to say nothing of articles of
domestic use, firing, lodging, and clothing. Under
such circumstances, it is not possible for him to do it ;
and, as a consequence, he is driven to all manner of
shifts, and either finds vent for his inward feeling in
desolating a homestead, or seeks to enlarge his means
of living by poaching. In Kent, where the labourer's
wages amount to from 12s. to 155., and even 16s. a-
week, poaching is almost unknown. It is rarely you
find a case in the calendar where several men have
banded themselves together for poaching purposes.
Now and then, but not often, a labourer is detected
in snaring a hare, and is punished by the "great
unpaid" to the full extent of the law. But we repeat,
that men seldom meet in gangs to rob a preserve.
We infer, from this absense of crime, that when
labour is properly paid for, and the men themselves are
treated with becoming humanity by their employers,
they have no inclination to outrage the laws. When
the belly pinches with hunger men become maddened
and desperate, and they violate the laws, careless and
reckless of the consequences that follow. At the
Nottingham Assizes the Judge took a merciful view
of an affray, and the jury, with great humanity, re-
turned a verdict of guilty of a common assault only.
The Judge expressed his concurrence, and sentenced
the prisoners to 14 days' imprisonment, commencing
from the opening of the Assiae, which reduced the
confinement to 10 days. A few such verdicts would
induce the Legislature to alter the game-laws— per-
haps abandon them altogether—or so shape them as to
give the farmer an interest in the game which he finds
himself obliged to support. As the law stands, no
person holding land is authorised to kill game, in any
case where, by deed or written, or parole contract, a
right of entry is reserved to the landlord or other
person. We need not state that the landlord always
takes care to preserve his right. The aristocracy have
passed laws solely for themselves ; and under those laws
the fariper has become impoverished, the little agricul-
turist has been ruined, and the labourer has been brought
to the workhouse. With regard to the degrees of
crime, the Act of Parliament says—" Owners and
occupiers of land, their servants and assistants, may
apprehend offenders either on the spot or other place
to which they may be pursued ; and the offenders
assaulting or offering violence with gun, club, stick,
or otherwise, shall be deemed guilty of misdemeanour,
and liable to transportation for seven years, and
imprisonment to hard labour for two years. Persons
to the number of three or more entering by night any
land for the purpose of taking or destroying game or
rabbits, and being armed with a gun, bludgeon, or
other offensive weapon, are subject to transportation
for not exceeding fourteen years, or to imprisonment
for hard labour for not exceeding three years." This
is the law as it now stands, and many an innocent
man has been punished under it. Not many weeks
ago there appeared in the Dispatch an account of a
poor fellow who had picked up a dead hare, and it
was distinctly proved that not only had the hare been
placed in the situation in which it was found
by a gamekeeper, but that the fellow, in order
to give a colouring to the charge, and
to satiate his hatred of the party, had actually depo-
sited a gin or snare close to the spot. This fact was
elicited by a solicitor, who was engaged to defend the
individual charged with the offence; and, of course,
he was discharged ; the gamekeeper, at the same
time, was allowed to go about his business by the
magistrates who heard the case. It is beyond a
doubt that many gamekeepers get up cases of this
kind in order to show their extreme vigilance, and
many poor men become the inmates of gaols who are
perfectly innocent of crime. The law is altogether
bad, and requires a thorough revision. It gives pro-
tection to the landlord, and puts the tenant- farmer
to serious and inconvenient losses; and, moreover, it
exposes_ individuals who are driven to crime by poverty
to merciless punishment. Housebreakers are not more
severely treated under the law than poachers, who
catch and kill " vermin," while the difference in the
offence is as wide as the poles. Mr. Bright, in his
address to the farmers, published in a work entitled
"The Influences of the Game-laws," thus writes :
" You take a farm on a yearly tenancy, or on a
lease, with an understanding, or a specific agreement
that the game shall be reserved to the owner, that is,
you grant to the landlord the right to stock the farm,
for which you are to pay him rent for permission to
cultivate, and for the full possession of its produce,
with pheasants, partridges, hares, and rabbits, to any
extent that may suit his Caprice. You plough, and sow,
and watch the growing crops with anxiety and hope;
you rise early and eat the bread of carefulness ; rent-
day comes twice a• year, with its inexorable demand,
and yet you are doomed.tocifrequently to sea the fer-
tility which Providence bestows, and your industry
would secure, blighted and destroyed by creatures
which would be deemed vermin, but for the sanction
which the law and your customs give to their preser-
vation, and which exist for no advantage to you, and
no good to the public, but solely to afford a few days'
amusement in a year to the proprietors of the soil. But
the injury to your crops is not all the mischief. Inferior
agriculture, which is greatly caused by the presence
of game, involves not only diminished profits to the
farmer, but a lessened demand for the services of
your labourers ; and this again brings about irregular
employment for them, and insufficient wages ;_ and
from these causes come povery, discontent,tand that
insecurity for farming property which has been so
lamentably prevalent of late years in many parts of
England. It is your wish, as it is manifestly your
interest, that the labourers around you should have
steady employment and good wages, for these are the
elements upon which alone can be built up a moral
and contented population. Insufficient demand for
labour, low wages, temptations to poaching, and from
that to more serious infractions of the laws —these
are the natural and inevitable results of the system
which is supported by legal enactment, and not less
by the usages to which you are assenting parties, for
the sole object of providing an amusement for the
proprietors of the soil."—Weekly Dispatch.

It is satisfactory to mention that Messrs. Job
Wright and Co., Russia merchants, whose suspension
took place during the pressure in December last, are
now paying their creditors in full, with interest. The
St. Petersburgh house has throughout continued its
usual business.
[ADVERTISEMENTI —A WONDERFUL CURE OF
AN ERUPTION IN TUE FACE BY HOLLOWLY'S OINT-
MENT. The editor of the Guernsey Sun,
publishes in his paper, of the 20th of February,
a inoq extraordinary cure which ho wit-
nes?..d by the use of Holloway's Ointment, in the ease
of a child whose face was entirely covered with scabs.
By his recommendation, the parents of the child tried
this invaluable rcruedy, and in the space of one week,
to the astonishment of every one, the face was perfectly
healed. This ointment is peculiarly adapted for the
cure of burns, scalds, scurvy, and every variety of skin
disease. Also for old wounds and scrofula, cancers,
bad breasts, and sore legs. Sold by all druggists, and
at Professor Holloway's Establishment, No. 9«y Strand,
_ London.