The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-21 00:00:00

THE GAME-LAWS.

Lord CAMPBELL presented several petitions from Dun.
fermlirie, ('upar, and Kirkaldy, in the county of Fife, against
the game-laws. The petitioners stated certain grievances in
the operation of those laws of which they complained. The
Mist grievance set forth was the injury inflicted by
those laws on the tenant farmers. This, however,
he looked ute as a matter of contract between land-
lords and tenants, and if the latter did not take
care to protect themselves from the ravages of game by the
provisions of their leases, it was their own fault. A great deal
had been said against the landlords en this head. They had
been accused of great injustice, and likened to the nobles of
France before the revolution. In his opinion, there was not
the slightest pretence for such a charge. The tenants
had the power of protecting themselves if they
would. With regard to the second grievance, he must
say the petitioners had reason on their side. It was the state
of the law with regard to poaching and the killing of game.
The country suffered very much from the crime of poaching,
from the conflicts between poachers and keepers, and by the
murders which, in many instances, had resulted from those con-
flicts. In 1841 there were 3,000 game convictions. The present
year they amounted to nearly 5,000. During the years from
1838 to 1844 there had been 42 instances of homicide from
conflicts between poachers and gamekeepers, and 25 convictions
for murder during the same time. The evils arising from
these laws were not only the individual suffering inflicted upon
the violators of the law, but the ill-feeling that was created be-
tween rich and pnor, between the members of the aristocracy
and the community at large. He should not like to see any
alteration of the law that would interfere with the field sports
of the gentlemen of this country, but he hoped they would be
limited in such a manner as would do away with the existing
evils of the system. He hoped that if the Government did not
take up the question, that a Noble Lord present (Lord Dacre)
would take it up, and introduce a measure to do away with the
grievances of which the petitioners complained.
Lord DACRE said, that as he had been so pointedly alluded
to by the Noble Lord who had just sat down, he would say a few
wordtr on the subject to which their Lordships' attention had
been called.—( Hear, hear.) True it was that he
had moved for a Committee to inquire into
the nature and general character of the game laws, and that in
the year 1831 he had been.successful in effecting certain altera-
tions and modifications of them. It would not, however, be
proper in him to allude further to the subject at present. He
saw with regret the evils to which the Noble Lord (Campbell)
so eloquently referred, and he sympathised with every feeling
which the Noble Lord expressed in respect to them. It was
impossible, however, to put down poaching as long as they had
not the sympathies of the people along with them. He had a
Bill actually prepared in reference to the game laws, but as
there was a Committee at present sitting on the subject in an-
other House, he, as a matter of delicacy, deferred bringing
forward his measure till he knew what decision they would come
to on the subject, or what would be the result of their labours.
Under these circumstances, he would not at present say more
on the matter.

Lord HA THERTON never approved of the present system
of the game-laws. He thought that the alterations introduced
I by the Noble Lord who had just sat down were a very great
improvement. But, nevertheless, a great deal still remained
to be done. The injustice which still existed was so great as
to render it extremely desirable that a measure should be
brought forward to suppress it. With respect, fer instance, to the
preservation of hares he considered that something should be
done. It was, in his estimation, a monstrous and unjust act,
and he could never reconcile his mind to such a pernicious
portion of the game-laws. The whole evil consisted in the
excessive preservation of hares, and entertaining as he did this
decided opinion, he had thought it his duty at least to point
out the anomaly to their Lordships, trusting that others more
competent than himself would adopt and carry out his sugges-
tions.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord STRADBROKE, while agreeing with much that was
urged in opposition to the game-laws, considering that nothing
was more correct than some of the arguments advanced by the
petitioners, dissented from the observations which fell from the
Noble Lord who preceded him, in reference to the preservation
of hares. It was his firm belief that the stringency of the laws
in that particular arose chiefly from the difficulty in preserving
them ; and he could not conceive how an enactment whose
tenor was to protect the interests of one branch of the com-
munity, without the slightest injury to any other, should be
deemed either pernicious or unjust. He regretted the circum-
stance mentioned by his Noble Friend, that thirty-five murders,
within ten years, had been committed, arising out of collisions
between the destroyers and defenders of game. He could only
say that, while being himself a strict preserver of game, on no
one occasion had any serious affray occurred on his estate ; and
he could not admit that any alteration such as the Noble Lord
opposite ( Lord Hatherton) had suggested was either neces-
sary or advisable.