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

deer's skin was concealed in a man's house, they could be corn.•
pelled to issue a search warrant, to enter that house and make
a search, and if a red deer's skin ;vas found, the person was
liable to a penalty of twenty-five dollars.— ( Hear, hear.) For
birds, also, the same kind of penalties existed; for killing
grouse, or as they were called in some of the Acts heath-hens,
for pheasants, for partridges, and quail ; when he said phea-
sants he ought t ► exp'ain that though this was the word he
found in the Ads, the bird itself, he believed, was really a
kind of partridge. The penalties were extended even to the
migratory woodcock.—( hear, hear. ) Now let them turn to
the laws of the State of New Jersey. That State
more resembled England than almost any other State
of the Union ; it was very populous, and it
was adjacent to the States of New York and Philadelphia.
The first game-law of this State to which he should call their
attent ion, although there were others passed before it, was of
the date of 1771, when New Jersey was a British colony.
'I hat law prohibited any person from carrying a gun over
another man's property without leave, under a penalty of forty
shi!lings and costs.—( Hear, hear.) There was the same
penalty for setting snares for deer, for carrying spears, or
pointed stieks, or fur hunting with dogs. If any stranger in
the culons should shoot over another man's land, without
leave, he was liable to a penalty of 5/. and the forfeiture of the
gur.—( Hear.) Now, it might be said, that this law was
passed in 1771. But when these republicans shook oil the
yoke of Great Britain, did they shake off the game-laws ? By
no means. At that time they were not in a humour
to find much to admire in British institutions ; yet they
found no fault with the game-laws. In 18.20 they increased
their stringency ; in 1837, they enacted a supplement to these
laws, and in 1638, a second supplement. But there was one
more I.w he ought to mention, which prohibited hunting even
over the waste lards of the State. It enacted that all persons
except freeholders, or the sons of freeholders, above eighteen
years of age. should be prohibited from hunting on he waste and
unimproved lands of the State, under a penalty of 20s. for each
offence. Now, at some future time, the lion. Member for
Durham would no doubt visit the sty of Philadelphia, in which
be would find many respectable men of his own peculiar class.
He could say that for no class had he ( Mr. H. Berkeley)
more respect. He numbered many friends among the
Society of Friends, and he could s►y that that class
was a most respectable, kind, and hospitable sme. He had
no doubt that the Honourable Member for Durham would
be made very welcome in the city of Philadelphia. In that
State he would find pheasants, and quails, and partridges, and
birds of all descriptions, with which the Hon. Gentleman
might amuse himself.—( Laughter.) But let the Hon. Gen-
tleman beware how he carried that natural imtinet, which he
said all men possessed, to kill game wherever they saw it ; let
him beware how he indulged his propensity for poaching—
(Laughter)—in the adjoining State of New Jersey, because
he would find it rather more expensive than in Englat.d.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.) And let him give the Hon.
Member a word of advice ; if he carried out with him one of
Manton's or Purday's guns, he might find the penalty by the
forfeiture of the gun, amounting to 601. or 761.—( Ilear, hear,
and laughter.) He had to thank the House for the patience
with which they had heard him. He could only say, in
conclusion, that he trusted that this Committee, be it what it
might, would prove successful. He would not oppose it e but
what on earth its attention was to be directed to he could not
conceive.

Captain ROTS said he had been much pleased with the
tone of the speech of the lion. Member for Durham ; it was
different from what had been expected from him, and he was
sure that there was but one feeling on that side of the House,
that it was an able and statesmanlike speech.—( Hear, hear. )
At the same time, he could not bring himself to believe many
of the sta'ements made by the lion. Member. 'They were too
exaggerated ; and he had lived too long in a sporting coun-
try not to know that they were exaggerated. He held in his
hand a pamphlet on the subject of the game-laws that had
gone through three editions. That pamphlet re'erred to a
noble relative of his, and stated that in a cover on his estate,
in the course of last year, a keeper was killed by poachers. lie
could only say that, to the best of his belief, for the last hun-
dred years, no gamekeeper or poacher had been killed or hurt
on that estate. Again, the pamphlet said that on his property
two keepers had lately shot themselves, fearing that,
on the arrival of his noble relative from Ireland, they
would be found fault with for the want of game. This pam-
phlet had been in circulation for three months, and he was sure
the House would excuse him if he said a few words in defence
of his own brother. The first man who destroyed himself had
been a keeper for thirty years, and was, at the time, head-
keeper. He had been in a very bad state of health, and had
offered to give up his situation, but he had been urged to retain
it, and his son was taken to assist him. But his state of health
had such an effect on his mind that he destroyed himself. It
was a most extraordinary fact that on the following day
another of the keepers, who had charge of the greyhounds, de-
stroyed himself a'so. His wife had gone to church, one
of the children was in the garden, and another
was playing about the house, when he took down his
gun, and whether by accident or design was
not known' but he was found dead. Now, as to the question
itself, it had been said that it was absolutely necessary, on some
occasions, to deduct as much as 20 per cent. from the rent of
estates, as the compensation for the damage done by game.
But it should be understood that, in many cases, the land was
let 20 per cent. less than the value on that account. That
was the fact, to his certain knowledge. The Hon. Member
for Durham complained that the very circumstance of pre-
serving game had a tendency to affect the morality of the la-
bouring classes, and that gentlemen had no right to do it.
Why the same argument applied to the case of a shop-
keeper exposing his goods in the street. There was
a tendency in the poor labourer to steal game, and the starving
man in a town might be tempted to steal the goods before
him. But what was the reasen that the agricultural labourer
was a poacher, and stole pheasants and hares in preference to
ducks and fowls ? For this reason, that they could be sworn
to, and the others could not. But the same men would, in
all probability, go on in crime till they stole sheep and cattle;
but there was one thing that checked them, and that was,
that, they might be hanged or transported for the offence.- He
had lived all his life in a country full of game, and well pre-
served, and in his part of Suffolk there were no better disposed
people on the face of the earth, more hardworking, or indus-
trious. There had been no incendiary fire within ten
miles of his house, and nothing could be better
than the feelinr, that existed generally among the
people.—( Hear, 'hear. ) But he could show a case
which had occurred in his own county, on the estate of a most
amiable nobleman, who had written a pamphlet on the game-
laws. He also preserved his game, but in a peculiar mode,
inasmuch as he did not allow any keepers to watch by night;
but he allowed his neighbours to shoot over the estate on one
proviso—that they should not employ any labourer on their
property who had been detected 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.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, that was the difference between a coun-
try well preserved andl 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 legislation to the
extent of destroying the game in this country ; it gave an in-
ducement to young men of family and fortune to live on their
own estates; if they contracted the habit of living on th? Con-
tinent, they generally came back insignificant and worthless
members of society.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) In dealing
with the game-laws, therefore, he hoped that they would pre-
serve entire all the rights of property,
Mr. 11U51E 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 lion. Member, and some that he might be disposed
to adopt. The lion. 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
couldpr esen tl
look
moment,
twhto‘ rnet pobreidnuingc appalled. g great evil, a
Neither
othe no man
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 migkt
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 exist, 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 th
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 Hon. 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 yea., 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 th,t 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
father 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 galled on by a sense of duty to make such a proposition•
been
thrown ot
whe o
ureally
ttoh otuhgehat
rnsociumner, saungdgeesxttieonnt
csoufg.th ihte to
°hav
alteration i
re-
quired. For they must be careful n this matter ; while
lamenting the number of convictions they saw under the law
as it existed, they must take care they di I not make matters
worse instead of b,tter. He was perfectly convincel 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.

hourhoods every third person they met would be armed with a
gun. On holidays, and SundaTs. and every time of a temporary
suspension of labour, they would meet marauding parties o‘i
the puhlic roads ; all these dangers had to be avoided in any
alterations they might. suggest. It. was 'fair that they should
consider who were the crirties to blame in these outrages ; let
him put a case to the House. In the immediate, neighbour-
hood of that Ilemtc, there were some I), 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•
non of waterf. wI, which might be seen every day, and fur-
nished a great deal of amusement to the public. What would
Le said if a man, because 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 agrizulteral produce, and the ~ther
was the question of the outrages to which he had already re-
ferred. Now, the amnunt of groin destroyed by these creatures
was. he believe 4, greatly exaggerated. In almost every quest:on
between landlord and tenant, where an excessive quantity of
came was preserved,a compensation was always given to the
tenant, 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 whaturer. Though a certain
amount of grain was destroy cd, yet another article of food was
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 lion. Member coul I object, to the course the
Bight Hon. Baronet had taken. He thought there would be
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 smell
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 sucti effect.—( Hear, hear.)
Ile 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 ought to have inquiry on the subject.—( Hear,
hear. ) The speech of the lion. Member for Durham seemed
to him to have been founded on the supposition that the
greatest existed between the landlord and the tenant-
lamer. Ile cared nothing about game, but this he would tell
the Hon. Member for Durham, that if he caught him ou his
preserves wing any of his snares, he should not be long in ap-
preliend.ng him.—(A )
_ _

Mr. G. BERKELEY would not have addressed the House,
had he not been particularly alluded to by the lion.
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 not the labourer that poached, but the home-
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 not 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. lie 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 lion. Member said
that before that statute was passed, the restrictions on poaching
were much more severe and stringent than those now in opc.
ration. The protection of game seemed to proceed on 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 increa e that pi o-
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 prosecteor
could be guilty was the holding out a temptation that poverty
could hardly withstand, and that wi.s also a reason for not
granting the costs of the prosecution to shopkeepers and others
who exposed their wares in the street. The existing game-
laws gave an incentive to the poacher, by providing a
market for his game, and then, as soon as he
obtained this market, they increased the penalties for a trans-
gression of the law. He believed that there was another point
that greatly increased the evil, and that was the frequency of
summary convictions. It would riot do to leave the law in the
hands of those who had the greatest possible interest in carry-
ing 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. lie would not wish to put down field
sports, but he believed with the lion. Member who had last
spoken, that there was nothing in this inquiry to interfere with
the preservation of their sports.
Mr. WAK LEY would make one or two observations, which
were prompted by the remarks of the Hon. Member fir West
Gloucestershire, 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 1(10, he stated that the offence of
poaching was coin mitted 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 farm.—(Cries of " Oh, oh,"
" No, no," and " Hear, hear.") Its the parish of Ruislip,
which had been referred to by an Hon. Member, it n•as stated
that the greater number of labourers employed there came from
distant parts of the country, for the farmers connected with the
preservas ion of game would not employ men who had ever been
detected poaching.—( Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.")
It was astonishing to him that gentlemen of England could sit
down to enjoy themselves, when they knew that their pleasures
cost so high a price to the poorer classes of their countrymen.
It was deeply to be regretted that this state of feeling;
should exist ; but although that Committee were ap-
pointed, it would be useless unless it came to a more
rational conclusion than that referred to by the Right
lion. Baronet. He had been himself a preserver of game,
and he knew that a system might be introduced which would
effectually preserve the game without being an annoyance to
those around them. His assurance to the preserves was this. If
they wanted a day's sport fur themselves or friends, and gave
him notice, the land would be kept quiet for some days before.
lie had caught a poacher once, and how did he act on that
occasion. lie would tell the House. He said to him, " I
presume you are in distress and cannot find employment
,to
support yourself and your family. lam sure you are in dis-
tress or you would not do this. Come to my house and I will
give you a joint of meat, and when you want food for yourself
and family come to me and you will have it." He replied,
" You will give me meat, then depend on it I will never
snare another hare. "—(Laughter.) Then why should
not lionotrable Members adopt this system ?--(Laughter.)
Such would be better than invoking the vengeance of the law
upon those poor creatures, who were probably driven by dis-
tress to this crime, in order to obtain a meal for their wives
and children. The evil of preserving game had now increased
to an enormous magnitude. The Hon. Member for Montrose
had stated that between 4,000 and 5,000 persons had been
convicted in 1843, and the term of their imprisonments, taking
the average, amounted to six weeks for each person. Now,
he would ask Hun. Members if the pleasure they derived from
their sport would compensate to themselves for the curse these
laws inflicted on the country ? He did not believe that when
the amount of demoralisation induced by these laws was con-
sidered, that they could possibly desire them to be continued.
'there was a very great difficulty with regard to a remedy on
this subject. The lion. Member for Durham, who had devoted
so much time to the subject, had explained to the House that
remedy, in a speech seldom equalled, and he (Mr. Wakley)
was of opinion that the time would ultimately arrive when game,
by an increasing population, would be driven out of the country,
as the Red Indians in America were by the encroachments of
a more civilised people.—(Cheers.)
Mr. NEWDIGATE felt bound, by the reference which had
several times that night bean made to the parish of Ruislip, to
give some explanation upon a subject with which he was inti-
mately conversant. It had been stated that the inhabitants of
Ruislip had been oppressed by the expense of maintain-
ing a police force which had been almost wholly em-
ployed in the suppression of poaching. He (Mr. New-
digate) denied that statement, and he called upon the
Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department to k.seertain whether there was any
reason fur such an allegation. In many instances of trials at the
sessions lie did not remember of policemen giving evidence in
eases of infringement of the game-laws. He was glad to see
that the landed proprietors were willing to submit their plea-
sures as •well as their properties to the examination of this
Committee.

Mr. COBDEN said that although there was a general con-
currence in the tone and temper of his Hon. Friend in bring-
ing the subject under the notice of the Hou-e, there was a great
disposition to attribute exaggeration to his statements ; and
when he mentioned the quantity of produce of farms which
had been consumed by game, there were loud cries of " Oh !
oh!" The fact was, the county Members knew less of the
grievances and circumstances of the farmers than the me tu-
bers of that much maligned body, the Anti-Corn-law League.
If there were any one subject in which landholders, game-
keepers, and labourers were agreed upon, it was in a thorough
detestation of the game-laws.—(oh, oh.) Hon. Members
might cry " Oh, oh." That cry would go forth to the coun-
try, hut it would rather strengthen than alter that universal
agreement.—( Hear, hear.) Hs would venture to say that he
had conversed and shook hands with more tenant-farmers, ten
to one, than any Member of that House.—( Laughter. ) With
regard to the exaggeration of the statements, as they were
called, of the cost of keeping game, he had been in Scotland
himself last year, at Cupar, In Fife. A farmer wrote him a
letter, which requested a public meeting in Cupar, in order
that he might state the grievances which the game-laws
entailed upon him. The farmer said that the Anti-Corn. law
should take up the question of the game-laws as
sewll
)
as the corn-I aws.—(lronical cheers from the Tory en
This farmer gave his name, and he had no objection to state
it. It was Andrew M•Farlane, who lived near Cnpar. "
In
order to convey to you some idea (this farmer writes) of the
destruction by game, I beg to inform you, that in
w7ooScoteh
acres, held by me and four farmers, from Captain etnyss,
whod 00l
7001. awarded
seatinthis House—(Laughter)—that in 1841 we
had
to us by arbitration, for the destruction by
game, and even that did not indemnify us for the damage done."
This showed what a loss of human food these game-laws
entailed. H lle repeated that the most entire ignorance prevailed
among the landlords of the condition of the tenant farmers.
It was easy to talk of exaggeration, but he would point his
finger to the reports on the table of that House. Was it any
exaggeration to say that the game-laws were a monstrous evil,
when 4,500 persons were convicted under them in one year,
and forty transported in ten years? Twenty-seven persons
had been shot in game preserving. Sixty thousand persons
took out licences to shoot. In order that 60,000 persons should
have amusement, 4,503 were convicted and forty transported ;
so that for every fifteen licensed sportsman, one man was con-
victed and punished, You think that exaggeration and com-
plain of it as an evil ; and the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down found fault with the Anti-Corn-law League, as did the
Hon. Member for Bristol, fur the part they took ;a this matter.
He pleaded guilty to the accusation that the Anti-Corn-law
League had been the means of bringing this question before
the House. Nothing hut the force of public opinion could
have et:impelled the Government to want the Committee.—
( Cries of " Oh, oh.") He said again;
that had effected it. Ile did,. • was public opinion
not want to come there as the
farraVE'i 'rile farmers had suffered too much from pro-