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

TRA SUN, LONDON, MONDAY MORNING, ATYGU 1,, UM,

sate the cultivators of a game farm a diminution of rent,
varyinz from 20 to 30 per cent. should be allowd.
13. That it t 1 's not appear to be the practice of the
propri.'tors of 1 ind to make compvpsation for thy, deAruc-
td,,n of crop, causiid by game, although some 11.nourable
instan..*.a to the contrary have Wen brought before y•air
Commit•ee. - _

14. That the system of game press rving ig proved to
be a sou ce of great irritation to the tenantry, and of
frequent dispute* between them and their landlor4s, as
well from the injury sustained by the tenants from the
destruction of their crrps, as from the interference and
watchings practised upon them by the gamekeepers.
15. That it is proved that the prosperity of aerieul.
Lure, 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 el.mlnisheii; that less capital is ex-
p•-e d-d ant less labour employed; end that thug, by
the same process, the profits of the tenantry and the
wages of the labourers are reduced.

16. 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 e ere c.mvicted of offences against the
game-laws, and suffered fine or imprisonment ; that.
trim 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 wdtul 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
serous 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 1 gislaiori on the suhject of game it
should be a primary object to discourage the practice of
game, preserving, as incompatible with the successful
pursuit of agriculture, hurtful to the morality of the
I,.bouring 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:—
" Y-ur Committee have insrituted a very laborious
inquiry into the operation of the game-laws, and for that
purpose have examiner seventy-two witnesses, all of
whom have either been practically accpainted with the
oration of the game laws, the effect of pine and game
preserves, or the administration or execution of the cri-
minal law in preserved district'. Such witnesses have
consisted of landowners (including several peers and
members of the House of Commons), land agents, tenant-
farmers, attorneys praf•tising at petty sessions, game
salesmen. chief constables, and superintendents- of police
in rural di:tricts, the governors of county gaols. inspec-
tors of pt i:ons, gamekeep-rs, farm labourers, and several
persons who have be, n themselv. s offond,rs azainst the
vatne-law:. Your committee have also examined S. M.
Phillips, Esq. Under-Secr,tary of State for the Home
I >epat Lemont. Mr. Grantley Berkeley, a member of 3.,,ur
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 .a.riange and classify- the results of the
voluminous evidence %OWL has been given before your
Committee, they propose to divide their observations
Into seven branches:—

" 1. As to the nature or game, the actual state of
existing laws for its protection aid preservation, and the
2.eneral sentiments entertained with reference to game
and the ewe., laws, by cliff •rent classes of the commu-
nity. 2. The operation of the game laws, arid the effects
io game preserving upon the interests and feeling, 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.. Th administration of the game laws,
and its inflte-nce 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-
don, v‘hich are proved to exist as the consequences of
game p.e.4erving."
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, 40C/, 500/, 7001., and even 1.000!. have
been caused on a sigle farm by these destructive vermin.
One extract as an example:—" Mr. Wm. Marris, of
Backhands, near Louth, 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. lii 1843, his loss upon
a field of twenty. three acres of wheat was estimated by
a competent and respectable valuer, at eight bushel,
to the acre, amounting in value to at least 1501.
He riceived much injury from game on other parts
of the tarn, Lut selected that field as the worst, with the
expectation of obtaining from his landlord some com-
pensation: compensation was, however, re4used. He es-
timated th 4 game damage over his able farm at ss. per
acre, or 1851. a year, whilst his total direct taxation, in-
cluding the tithe, did not much exceed 100/. a-year."
The report jusly lays great stress upn the evidence of
Mr. Pusey, the eminent agriculturist:—" Mr. Pusey's
evidence is not less conclusive than Lord Hatherton's.
as to the 11.:tn:ige 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 art-ficial means. Mr. Pusey expressed
a dec tied opinion that the preserves of game should
made liable in an action for damages for inj;.ry, done
to th. is. neigh 'ins' trig, by their game, and that there
would be no great difficulty in preying, to the satisfrc
tion of a jury, from what pt esut yes the game complained
o' haf' come."

Wi h regard to the via en ce on the other side, the
report says:—" The w:trii-sst s examined in support or
the game-I.ms were land..wni rs and preservers of game,
magistrates, and chief police co stables, and superin-
tendents and gamekeepers. With few exceptions, none
of them had much practical acquaintance with hus-
blndry. The scope of this class of evidence was to
show that poaching might, to a great degree, be pre-
vented by a sufficient f.,rce of eepers aid gunk).
at,hers ; hut that unl-ss game is very strictly watched,
and by a titnufer ot watchers proputtontri to the extent
of the preserve, the protection of gan.e was difficult,
and the eau,e of much local disorganisation. The tenor
.4' the evidence of these wivne-ses has convinced your
Cernmittee of the accuracy of Mr. Pusey's opinion, that
gam, has in the cultiv ited districts ceased to exist as
wild animals, and that where preserved at all, it is solely
maintained by artificial means."
itfrerthese and many more deters of' tt e injury sus-
tained by aari,!ulturil from the maintenance of large
quantities of game, the report says Your :!ommittee,
therefore, are unable to resist the conclusion, that having
regard to the influence of game upon agriculture and the
prosperity of faimers, game preserving, in the present
state anti cultivation of the country, is injurious, and
ought not, at all events, to receive any encouragement
ft om the legislature."

Under the s«-cond branch of the subject. the report
sa3s :—'• The evidence is uniform that game preserves
()erasion very extensive destruction of agricultural pro-
dw-e, operate as most serious impediments to good
fax ming."

his been clearly demonstrated by practical
farmers, Iron] so many diffcrents parts of the cotrany
,nnel wt o-e i•xp,rienee has been hoot upon all the v,rie-
ties of so.), that it is difficult to select from the mass Of
evict nee on this point that which most completely
proves the epe.. ation 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 Hatherten, Mr. Pusey. and other emi-
r'r nt agrculturists !—" They all agree that the da-
mage done to the grain crop is v, ry 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 tinder great disadvantages where game
abounds. indeed, the cultivation of winter tares, the
wain dependence of many farmers for manuring 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 lull measure of the injury the farmer
suffers from game, for the agricultural witness. s,
Without exception, sreak 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 nn kind of control."
After eiving extracts from Lord Ilathertot's evid,nce,
the report says:—" Lord Hathertoe's statement, that no
mere reduction of hares and rebhits will protect the
crops from damage in all t•easons, but that the destruc-
tion of these animals ought to be total, is either directly
or indirectly confirm d 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 exreriment by
which he ascertained that the consumption of four tame
rabb tts, estimated to 13.- equal to four hares. is within;
a fraction the ssme 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
half the quantity
sheep on
my fartn'to feed, fold, and pasture them where
I Please, and to provide food for them, than I would k
and to have tae of
sheep to runover he whole produce,ep
else. And, therevroerr
wheat,freeover
range of my farm, over my barley,
Over my
Swede turnips, and everything
have the range of the 1
say I would rather a with respect to hares, I should
one sheep than two hares to
hares would be suite as destructive
At least, I think that two
prevent the
tgoroawth of the crops."
rtretihvaerteos winoeuasld runone aboutsleep
upon that calculation, because
where they please, and
And he afterwards adds. in reply
as to t:;e influence of game preserving questiona rcu I( 8 6 8 2 )
an art or science, " I think, wherever hares or-rabbits
are are extensively preserved, it would be a bar to spirited

farminz, and to improvements which raitzht otherwise go
on. Speakirg for myself, if hares w,re strictly pre-
served upin my farm, I should not expend so much
money in firming as I do n..w, particularly in artificial
manure."

Under the first head, after a summary of the principal
pro,isiens of the exiting laws for the pre,ervation of
gime, the report goes on to say :—"lt wi l be si en that
one offence miy 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 thr, e months, and with or without bard
labour, at the discretion of the convicting justices. Then,
if the came was killed out of season, the off,nder may
be fined 20s. and costs ; and if the fine be not paid,
imprisonment fur two months. Killing game with
out a certificate subjects the offender to a penalty of
M. 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 ton-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
Cnristmas day, and out of season. When more than
five pe-sons 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 Si. and costs, or three
mon hs' imprisonment, is imposed upon the offender, and
on every person aiding and abetting him. Various
subsidiary powers, such as right to apprehend tres- as-
secs re using 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 infracti,,ns of the
game- laws are not regarded by any class, from the
landowner, who preserves the tame, to the poacher, in
the same light as breaches of other laws. A spirit of
adveeture and f ,ncliess 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 gayer
offences, none regard poaching as a moral offence or a
sin. Labourers and farmers deem the game-laws harsh'
and uvjusr, 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 very general im-
pression in the public mind that the game•laws are
harshly administered.