The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

property who had been defeated in poaching. What was the
result? Through this nobleman's not employing keepers by
night, the whole parish was full of poachers from one end to
the other, and they frequently extended their ravages to the
surrounding neighbourhood. When they were asked
why they did not keep in their own place, as there was
game enough there? they said, " Oh, the pheasant
over all this property are so badly fed that they won't sell—
( Laughter)—and therefore we steal yours, which we can find
a market for !"—(Laughter.) And these very men, whom this
nobleman tried to keep pure and moral, were some of the most
determined sheep-stealers in the whole country round..
' Now,
(Hear, hear.) that was the difference between a coun-
try well preserved and one that was not, or only half preserved.
There was no doubt that the game-laws, like every other Act
of Parliament, might sometimes require alteration and revi-
sion, but he trusted they would not go in their legisl tion to the
extent of destroying the game in this country ; it gave an in-
ducement to young men of family arid fortune to live on their
own estates; if they contracted the habit of living on the Con-
tinent, they generally came back insignificant and worthless
members of society.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) In dealing
with the game-laws, there:bre, he hoped that they would pre-
serve entire alike rights of property,
Mr. H UME said, when the Hon. Member for Bristol took
the laws of America, and compared them with those of England,
he ought to take them as a whole; there might be some of the
laws of America which he (Mr. Hume) should condemn as
much as the Hon. Member, and some that he might be disposed
to adopt. The Hon. Member had not done justice to his
Hon. Friend the Member for Durham ; his Hon. Friend did
not wish to affect the prosperity of any individual, but he
wished to alter the administration of the laws which, at the
present moment, were producing great evil, and which no man
could look on without being appalled. Neither of the Hon.
Members who had spoken had directed their attention
to that point ; he could not think why the Hon. Member
for Bristol was not as anxious to have the Committee ap-
pointed as the Honourable Member for Durham, because
the Honourable Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) loved
sport, and wished for its continuance.—( Hear.) If so,
he ought to try and have the law so altered that it might
he exercised without causing public feeling to be opposed to it.
Public feeling was at present so opposed to the system that
societies had sprung up in all parts of the country for the
purpose of denouncing it. Could anything denote more plainly
that a conviction of the evil of this system had taken a deep
root in society, and required consideration ? He did think that
the Hon. Member for Durham deserved great credit for the
manner in which he had brought this question forward, and he
was sure the country at large, after the speech his Hon. Friend
had delivered, and the result it had produced, would be grateful
to him for his exertions. Why, let them look at the calendars
of crime and see the condition of the population of the country.
Why, there were 4,540 persons convicted of offences
against the game-laws. It might be a matter
of some curiosity for the House to know that
in 1811 there were in all England and Wales only 127
convictions for offences against those laws; the whole number
of convictions in 1811 was, in England and Wales, 3,163; and
in 1843 there were 4,540 convictions for offences against. the
game laws alone. The Hon. Member for Durham had evi-
dently produced an impression by his speech that great evils
did ex.st, and these evils cried aloud for remedy. He hoped
the Committee would not proceed hastily, or that they should
attempt to legislate this year ; but that it would meet from day
to day, and submit a proper report to the House, on which the
Government would found a legislative measure. They saw
this progessive increase in crime, they were demoralising society
by this state of things, and something was evidently wrong ;
they were not then prepared to state precisely where the evil
was, but he believed the result of this inquiry would tend to
correct that evil. He was sure that not only those who cared
nothing for game, but even those Members of that House who
were earnest sportsmen, would thank his Hon. Friend for the
result of his labours. . _ .

Mr. LIDDELL said he had heard with a great deal of in-
terest the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham, and had
listened with a great deal of pain to some of the facts he had
brought under the notice of the House. He did not rise to
offer any opposition to the appointment of the Committee, but
he did think it would have been more satisfactory if some
Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and enter-
taining the same views as the lion. Member, had indicated or
shadowed forth the extent or nature of the alterations to which
their attention was to be directed. His paternal property was
situated in the midst of a populous neighbourhood, it covered
a large area of ground, and for many years the game upon it
had been carefully preserved. And he was bound to say that
in that immense population he had seen nothing, speaking of
their general character, but the most excellent disposition, and
a desire to pay a due observance to the laws. But at the same
time, among such a number, some evil dispositions would exist
and it was with great pain he had seen upon his father's pro-
perty outrages of a most formidable and distressing nature.—
( Hear, hear.) There had been one case of murder, and, in
the present year, four frightful outrages, in which, without the
slightest provocation, two keepers were fired at, and wounded
in a most serious manner, the charge lodging in the breast and
shoulder of one of them, and had the shot been but the slightest
space nearer the heart, the man must have been killed. After
these outrages, the subject engaged the serious attention of his
fattier and the whole family, but, after due attention, and after
making up their minds to sacrifice entirely the game on their
property, they came to the deliberate conclusion that they
could not do anything of the kind; not for the sake of the
game, but for the peace and security of the property
and the neighbourhood, they were compelled to keep a
watch to protect the property from the incursions
of poachers. He was certainly glad to see this inquiry insti-
tuted before the House, and he would thankfully adopt any
suggestion that could be made by those who had thought them-
selves called on by a sense of duty to make such a proposition.
But he really thought some suggestion ought to have been
thrown out, as to the amount and extent of the alteration re-
quired. For they must be careful in this matter ; while
lamenting the number of convictions they saw under the law
as it existed, they must take care they did not make matters
worse instead of better. He was perfectly convinces that if
the game-laws were done away with altogether, and killing
game were made an invasion of property instead, depending en-
tirely on an extension of the Trespass Act, in populous neigh-
bourhoois every third person they met would be armed with a
gun. On holidays, and Sundays, and every time of a temporary
suspension of labour, they would meet marauding parties on
the public roads ; all these dangers had to be avoided in any
alterations they might sug6est. It was fair that they should
consider who were the parties to blame in these outrages ; let
him put a case to the House. In the immediate neighbour-
hood of that House there were some bt-autiful walks and plea-
sure-grounds laid out for the recreation of the inhabitants of
the metropolis. In these grounds there was a curious collec-
tion of waterfowl, which might be seen every day, and fur-
nished a great deal of amusement to the public. What would
be said if a man, bemuse his family were starving, armed
himself with a gun, shot two or three of the
ducks, and when interfered with by the park-keeper,
should knock him down with the butt-end of it—who
was to blame there ? The law that protects the
property, or the individual that breaks the law? It was the
same in the case of game; if a poacher went into a preserve and
shot pheasants and hares, and is interfered with by the person
to whom the law gives the right of protecting the property, was
the law, therefore, to blame for the outrage? The question di-
vided itself into two distinct heads—the one the question of the
damage done by the game to agricultural produce, and the other
was the question of the outrages to which he had already re-
ferred. Now, the amount of grein destroyed by these creatures
was, he believes, greatly exaggerated. In almost every question
between landlord and tenant, where an excessive quantity of
game was preserved, a compensation was always given to the
term's', and if the Hon. Member for Durham, in pursuance of
his vocation as a member of the Anti-corn-law League, and in
support of his argument of the diminished supply of the food of
the people, took this destruction of grain as an instance, he at-
tached no weight to the argument whatever. Though a certain
amount of grain was destroyed, yet another article of food wes
supplied in its place for consumption, more nourishing, more
grateful to the palate, and equally adapted for the market.
Mr. AGLIONBY was much gratified at the course that
had been pursued on the present occasion, and he was only sur-
pri.ed that any Hon. Member cools object to the course the.
Right lion. Baronet had taken. lie thought there would he
great good effected by an inquiry before a fair Committee. He
did not believe that the preservation of game was generally in.
jurious to the land, and as a proof of that he might state that
he knew an instance where the game was preserved as much
by the tenants as the landlords. 'With regard to the poor he
WAS glad that the subject would be inquired into, because if it
was found that the game-laws increased the demoralisation of
the poor, that calamity would be averted.—( Hear, hear.) It
must not, however, be supposed that he thought
the game-laws had any such effect.—( Hear, he sr.)
He believed that the statements that had been made
were greatly exaggerated, and he hoped that good
results would come from the inquiry, that it would take place
immediately, and that the report would soon be laid on the
table.

Colonel SIBTHORP would not oppose the motion, because
he thought they oupht to have inquiry on the subject.—( Hear,
hear.) The speech of the Hon. Member for Durham seemed
to him to have been founded on the supposition that the
greatest ill-will existed between the landlord and the tenant-
farmer. He cared nothing about game, but this he would tell
the Hon. Member for Durham, that if he caught him on his
preserves using any of his snares, he should not be long in ap-
prehending him.—( A laugh.)
Mr. G. BERKELEY would not have addressed the House,
had he not been particularly alluded to by the Hon.
Member for Durham. He must confess, looking at
the speech that had been made by the Honourable
Member for Durham, that he could hardly bring himself to be-
lieve that it was him that made it.—( Hear, hear.) It had been
said that it was net the labourer that poached, but the house-
less wanderer. Now, he did not believe that such was the
case, because he was convinced that the labourer, who was in
constant pay, was the criminal. He denied that the preserva-
tion of game caused crime ; and as a proof of that he referred
to several returns, which showed that crime was greater in
parts where game was net preserved, than where it was. The
Hon. Member for Montrose had said that there was greater
crime committed in consequence of the game-laws now, than
there was in 1811. Why, what was the fact? Why, that the
game•laws were ten times more stringent in that year than at
present. He had not the slightest objection to inquiry, in fact
he demanded it; but what he a-ked for was this, that the
tenant-farmers should not be set against their landlords by false
promises.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. ESCOTT wished to bear his testimony to the able
manner in which the Hon. Member for Durham had brought
this subject forward.--( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member said
that before that statute was passed, the restrictions on poaching
were much more severe and stringent than those now in ope-
ration. The protection of game seemed to proceed en the
principle that it facilitated the sale of game. It confirmed a
property in game, and it was neceasary, therefore, that they
should put heavier penalties on poaching to increase that pro-
tection. Now that seemed to him the most vicious course of
legislation that could be adopted. They had heard the Learned
Judges say that one of the worst things of which a prosecutor
could be guilty was the holding out a temptation that poverty
t
could hardly withstand, and that w.s also a reason for
not
granting
ae _
granting the costs of the prosecution to
o 5h
who exposed their wares in the
n eT°Phei"ePxeirssting g
and
others
m
laws gave an incentive to the poacher, by providing a
and then, as soon as he
market for his game,
obtained this market, they increased the penalties for a trans-
gre,sion of the law. He belieied that there was another point
that greatly
the law in the
increased the evil, and that was the frequency of
hads o
summaryn convictions. It would not do to leavef
those who had the greatest possible interest in carry-
irr it into effect. It was a difficult subject to legislate upon,
and because of that very reason an inquiry was called for, and
he trusted it would be entered upon without prejudice or ill-
feeling to those poachers or to those who gave rise to poaching
by preserving game. He would not wish to put down field
sports, but he believed with the Hon. Member who had last
spoken, that there was nothing in this inquiry to interfere with
the preservation of their sports.
Mr. WA K LEY would make one or two observations, which
were promptest by the remarks of the Hon:Member fir West
Gioucestershire, who had devoted much time and attention to
this subject, and what was his allegation? That poaching
was not committed by houseless wanderers, not by strangers, not
by vagrants, but by the agricultural labourers, and in what pro-
portion ? In 99 cases out of 100, he stated that the offence of
poaching was committed by that class. If that were true, and it was
not denied—he believed it approached the truth--but if it were
proved, could the game-laws be continued? They must be
admitted, in that case, to be the most injurious and demoralis-
ing laws in the country. What was the condition of the agri-
cultural labourer after being detected poaching? Would the
farmers employ him ? No. He dared not employ him, or he
might lose the occupation of his faun.--(Crier of " Oh, oh,"