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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, PEBRUARY .28, 1845.

Midhurst, where there five allotments, likewise great again, the poachers on Lord Rendelsham's and the Mar-
d smage had been done, though not to a groat quis of Hertford's estates carried their calling so far that they
extent ; but in must cases they were afraid to say had formed a society and subscribed a fund for their mutual
much for fear of offending. Another case from Suffolk protection, feeing counsel, Hear, hear, and laughter.)
he would mention, in which great damage had been done fo These were men who had led this Ife se long that they were
allotments. From a respectable farmer in the neighbourhood now in fact almost shut out from the pale of society, and led a
of Clare he had received a letter, which stated that a poor man, kind of savage life; and this he thought showed how little a
of the name of Bruce, had twenty shillings' worth of da- breach of the game-laws was regarded as an offence against
mage done to his barley by lesres and rabbits ; and this twenty moral law. In a country newspaper lately, the obituary con-
shillings was more than he could earn in two weeks, even tained an account of the death of a notorious poacher, but it
hough he had been constantly employed. Another case—a said that in every other respect he was a highly-respectable indi-
poor man, who had a worse crop, in the same neighbourhood, vidual, and was so esteemed in his neighbourhood that he was
was obliged to sow his crop three times over, having been actually entrusted with his own commitment, when convicted
eaten up by the pheasants as soon as sown. And what re- of an offence.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) It sometimes
mained after the damage done by the hares and rabbits was happened that landlords employed poachers as game-keepers ;
cut with a knife in the harvest time, there not being a suffi- but he would ask, would any man in business promote a clerk
ciency of stem to employ a sickle. He asked, in all earnest- whom he might have found with his hand in his till ?—( Hear,
ness, that the Right Hon. Gentleman would attend to these hear.) He had dwelt long upon this subject, but he did
statements, as being very important. There were parties in think he might be excused as this was a subject of no ordin try
this country who considered that the allottment system was a interest, and not one which usually occupied the debates of the,
good one. He was of opinion that it would be a great en- House.—(Hear, hear.) In the past session of Parliament,
couragement to the agricultural labourer to have a nice bit he moved for certain returns upon this subject,
of ground attached to his house. There was no doubt that in a and by them it appeared that at one assizes there
moral point of view it was worth half of the police of the dis- were 152 convictions in England and Wales for
trict. Those very landowners should, if it were possible, give offences against the game-laws; and 4,377 at the quarter ses-
to every cottage as much land as would supply a little amuse- sions ; of those 35 had been sentenced to transportation at the
merit and employment, and enable him to provide a few things assizes and 5 at the sessions, and 112 to imprisonment; others
for his family. Now the case he was about to put would be had been sentenced to pay a fine of 21., and others again to
at once understood by the House. A labourer got up two seven weeks' imprisonment. It would be very easy for Hon.
hours before his usual time—at sunrise—he worked with glad- Member of that House to throw down a fine of 21. Many of
ness and sprit on his little bit of land. He sowed his crop, them spent as much in a day. But when a poor labourer was
hoping to get a profitable return from it. During the day it fined that sum for an infraction of the game-laws, he would
might be that his wife and children were weeding and planting ask, was it not a monstrous punishment when compared with
it here and there, as far as was consistent with their strength the offence, and was calculated to destroy all respect for the
and knowledge; and then, when the sowing was beginning to law, and all confidence in the justice and impartiality of the
appear above ground, the game from some landed proprietor— Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) He would now call attention to
some man who, standing on the highest eminence in the another return of still deeper interest and importance than that
country, could not see to the extent of his land—the game he had read. By that return it appeared that in the year 1842-
from his estates came into the poor man's garden, and de- 43, no fewer than 40 gamekeepers had been killed ; and of those
voured the produce of his labour. He (Mr. Bright) did not the verdicts of the coroner's juries were wilful murder in 25
envy the feelings of any man, who, conscious that cases. In the case of the murder of Lord Knowsley's game-
the game which ministered only to his sport, committed keeper, both he and the poachers fired; the latter escaped, the
such damage as blasted the hopes and destroyed the former was shot, and, on his death-bed, he expressed how
pro.pects of the honest labourer.—( Loud cries of " Hear, pleased he felt at not having shot the poacher.—( Hear. )
hear.") But there was another consideration respecting the No fewer than five persons were convicted for this offence; one
labourer. All farmers were agreed, and landowners who of them was hanged, and the others had been sent to the penal
spoke their honest sentiments were of opinion that the preser- colonies, leaving wives and helpless families destitute behind
vation of game was most injurious to agricultural pursuits, and them, with a stain upon their names.—(Hear, hear.) This
very much prevented the due cultivation of land. In Ruislip, was the class of grievances attending those game-laws that led
in that county, a petition had been got up, and signed by every him, more than any other, to bring this subject before the
farmer in the parish. A farmer there told him that in that House; and he could not help saying that he could not under-
..

parish, containing 7,000 acres of land, there were not
more than 100 labourers employed ; the game was preserved
to a great extent there, and he had suffered severely from it
for several years back. From this and several other statements
he (Mr. Bright) was led to this conclusion, that where the
game was rigidly preserved, there could not be good farming;
arid if there were not good farming, there could not be a rea-
sonable amount of employment. If he were a landed pro-
prietor he would feel proud to see the labourers growing up
around his demesne. Nothing he would be so anxious to ad-
ance as to give them greater employment and
greater remuneration—(Hear, hear)—or increasing their
physical comforts, and laying that foundation without
which, all attempts at moral or literary education would
be useless.— (Hear, hear.) Let them recollect what had taken
place in Suffolk last year—in Wales sometime ago—what a re-
fractory spirit periodically spread throughout all the counties of
England. Justice to all owners of property, and common
sense, induced him to tell the House that a remedy must be
provided for such a state of things. He asked the attention of
the House to the condition of the labourer, and to the mode in
which he had been treated by the administration of the law.
The Right Hon. Gentleman at the close of the last session of
Parliament expressed his desire to mitigate the hardships in-
flicted upon many persons by the operation of the game Acts ;
and had sent through the country expressions of his opinion that
the magistrates should administer the law with a little more
mercy, and in a more lenient spirit. Rle had a case or two
which he would state to the House as samples of the oppression
which had been practised, and he could as easily have brought
a hundred such cases as one. One case took place at the Petty
Sessions of Ashby-de-la-Zouch, in the county of Leicester,
before Mr. Abney and Mr. Chafnell Manning. The case oc-
curred on the 12 of March, 1844, before that court. The whole
facts of the case had been represented to the Home Secretary,
but no alteration had bean made in the punishment of the
individuals. William Edwards, John Edwards, and James
Finch, the former two being brothers, one of them only eleven
years of age, all of Worthington, were charged by John Peters,
one of the game-keepers to the Earl of Ferrers, with using a
net for catching game without having a game certificate. The
parties who absconded had not been arrested until the 17th.
Each of them was fined Si. and costs, and, in default, to three
months' imprisonment and hard labour. They were then charged
with a Sunday offence (the offence took place on Sunday) and
fined 51. and costs, &c., in default of payment to three months'
imprisonment and hard labour. Wm. and John Edwards were
charged with trespassing in search for game, and fined 40s. and
costs, and, in default, to two months' imprisonment and hard
labour. Wm. Edwards and John Finch were then charged with
an assault on Peters, the gamekeeper, and fined 51. each, and
in default of payment, two months' imprisonment. Here was
a ease in which two men had been convicted of an overwhelm-
ing offence. One would imagine that the magistrate would
look to the condition of life and the degree of intelligence of
the parties, and proportion the punishment accordingly. But
instead of doing so, the very worst penalties of the law, the
most stringent of its enactments, were carried into effect, and
eight and ten months' imprisonment and hard labour were
inflicted on those unfortunate men for going out on a Sunday
with a net, in search of game. Another case, one which
must be fresh in the remembrance of most Hon. Members from
its having been put so prominently forward in the neigh-
bourhood—it was the case of a man named Hibburn, which
took place in Buckinghamshire, in September last. 'f he
gamekeeper of the Rev. G. Chetwoode saw him at the snare;
the man was seized, but it did not appear that there was any proof
that the snare had been found at all. The gamekeeper said he
believed it was the man's first offence; the man cried bitterly ;
he had a family of four children, one an infant; nine of
them had died—having had fourteen in all. He further stated
that he had only had ten days' work within the last month—
that he was in great distress, and that his children had not a
bit of bread to eat. Mr. tone, the magistrate, a most ap-
propriate name, for it required a heart of stone to take the
course which that gentleman took in this case ; he said the
prisoner was liable to three months' imprisonment and hard
labour, but as this was the first offence—what extraordinary
views some men take of misery !—he would sentence him only
to six weeks' imprisonment and hard labour, and to
find sureties, himself in ten pounds, and two others
in 5L each, and in default thereof to be further imprisoned,
with hard labour, for six months. He presumed this gentle-
man was still a magistrate, but he asked the House to observe,
that here was a man who said that he had got only ten days'
work for the last month, his children had not a bit of bread to
eat, and yet a man sitting on the bench to distribute justice,
under the constitution of this country, sentences him, not only
to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, but orders
him to find sureties likewise—a man who had not constant
work, and when he had, did not earn more than 7s. or Bs. a-week,
ordered to find sureties !—( Hear, hear.) What must be the
opinion of the public on this case? Why, every newspaper, of
whatever politics, took it up and denounced it as one of the
most flagrant instances of cruelty that had ever been inflicted
by a court ofjustice. But there were a multitude of such cases. The
sympathy of the country was so much enlisted in this case that
money was sent from all parts of the country. A five-pound
note was sent in a letter, the fine was paid, and the man was
liberated. He ( Mr. Bright) hoped that some of this poor
man's friends took care to remove him from a district in which
he had suffered this punishment, and conducted him to some
honest district where justice for an offence against the game-
laws was not dispensed by a bench which had invariably shown
the interest which it felt in the preservation of game.—( Hear,
hear.) If either of these cases of Hibburn or of Ashby-de-
la-Zouch came before a jury, what would be the consequence?
One of the principles of the Constitution was, net only that a
man was to be tried by a jury, but he was to be tried by his
Peers. Agricultural or manufacturing labourers were not
often on juries, nor did they often have a jury of Peers, but
in this case they had not even a jury of disinterested
persons. But it came before a bench who entertained strong
feelings in favour of the preservation of game. When the
Right Honourable Baronet brought forward his Bill last
session for the regulation of fuctories, he took care to intro-
duce a clause to prevent the owners of factories from sitting on
the bench when factory cases were to be disposed of.--( Hear,
hear.) And why should a different principle be applied
to the owners of mills and to the owners of land? Why
should they consent to a different system from that which was
practised in reference to millowners in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or
any other county ? Those poor men when brought before the
bench had neither counsel nor attorney. It might be said the
law empowered them to obtain such aid? But where was the
money to come from? Virtually they were excluded from
such assistance. So here was a poor labourer dragged before a
bench of magistrates, who were enthusiastic in the preserva-
tion of game, without any assistance whatever, and fined and
imprisoned as these magistrates thought fit. Yet this was
called law and justice in this country. He did not blame the
magistrates so much as the law itself. He supposed if there
were magistrates at all, they must execute the law. But he
thought those who acted in the manner described, if they were
not men of very little feeling, would join with him in his en-
deavour to abolish, or at least modify, these cruel laws, so that
the feelings of the community might not be outraged by the re-
currence of such cases.--( Hear, hear.) In considering the
amount of criminality which attached to a labourer's infringe-
ment of the game-laws, some consideration ought to be made
with respect to the amount of temptation which was pre-
sented to him. —( Hear, hear.) They had an authority
altogether indisputable that temptation in some districts was
more than flesh and blood could stand. It had been stated be-

stand how any man could set up his o vfn personal enjoyment in
comparison with a system that led to such great and grievous
evils.—( Hear, hear.) The year 1844 had also its catalogue
of victims.—( Hear.) In one of those desperate en-
counters between gamekeepers and poachers, two of the latter
were killed, and two men were hanged for their murder, under
circumstances by no means satisfactory, both of them having
protested on the scaffold, with a solemnity of manner that it
would be impossible to imagine could be feigned at such an
awful moment, that they had no hand, act, or part, in those
murders. Then, again, he would say, there were incidents
which made it worth the while of the Legislature to consider,
whether the mere amusement of a very small portion of the
community should be kept up at such an awful expense.—
( Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that there should be
no game, nor laws affecting game ; but he made these state-
ments in order to show the lamentable consequences attending
the present state of those laws, and to show that he had a strong
claim upon that House for the Committee he asked for.—( Hear,
hear,) There was another case which he had well nigh for-
gotten to state; it was that of a man who had been sentenced
to be transported for stealing rabbits in Staffordshire ; and
that man's mind became so affected at the awful penalty
he was about to suffer for this act, that he put an
end to his existence in the prison. ( Hear, hear. )
There was another case of a young person of sixteen years of
age, who went shooting sparrows, hut a pheasant coming in
his way, he shot it also. Was there any one of those who
heard him who would deny that he would not have done the
same at the age of sixteen ?—( Hear, hear.) But for this he
was threatened with the law, and having all its consequences
before him, he hanged himself to escape the troubles he saw
before him in' this world.—( Hear, hear.) What a system
must that be which produced these results ! It was said that
gentlemen kept gamekeepers to be spies over those very farmers
who paid dearly for their land.—( Hear. ) It was a system of li
terrorism injurious in its effect upon the labouring classes,
and detrimental to the agricultural interest. He did not be-
lieve that any Gentleman in that House would oppose his
motion for an inquiry into such a system, except, perhaps, the
Hon. Member for Gloucestershire ( Mr. G. Berkeley)—
( Laughter)—who had written a pamphlet in defence of it.
They had heard of a Berkeleian theory before, which denied
the existence of matter.—( Laughter.) That was the doctrine
of immateriality, but in this new theory there was nothing
of that kind, for " punches in the head, and blows before
words"—(Laughter)—had:semething very material and sub-
stantial about them.—( Laughter.) But he would not attempt
to answer the arguments in that pamphlet, for it was its own
bane and antidote. But one singular discovery which it con-
tained was, that the British Constitution lauded as it was—
(and it was net without some merit)—and liberty of conscience
were, in some way or other, interested in the preservation of
great heads of game. —( Laughter.) He had often said
harsh things of the proprietors of land, but he had
never said anything so harsh of them as those persons
who defended the preservation of game and the battue system ,
and who maintained that it was the enthusiasm of the chase
which kept gentlemen upon their paternal estates. His opinion
was, that there were other pursuits besides those connected with
the preservation of game, which it would better become
them to follow, and which would be better for the country.
Why, there was not a finer position in the world, than that of
a gentleman of property who attended to his own estate—he
had an opportunity of doing untold good.—( Hear, hear.) He
might look after his tenants—watch over the physical comforts
of his labourers, attend to their cottages, and see that they
were neat and commodious—build schools, and provide for the
education of the poor.— ( tlear, hear.) Those were pleasures
as great as those of the chase, and far better, because the plea-
sure of doing good never tired—(Hear)—and those gentlemen
who looked to those things far better deserved the character
of English gentlemen, than those who merely dwelt
amongst their tenants for the purpose of enjoying the
pleasures of the cbase.—(Cheers. ) One mode of enjoying
sport was called the battue system. He had never seen it
himself, but he heard it described, and he believed it consisted
in the sportsmen standing in a line on both sides of a wood,
and firing upon the game, which were driven within the range
of the muzzles of the guns which were driven out by persons
employed for that purpose. It was pretty evident that none of
the game could escape. He would say nothing ridiculous of
this system, because it was not worth it.—( Hear, hear.) It
was too absurd for ridicule.—( Hear, hear.) A person might
as well go to Leadenhall-market and put the muzzle of his gun ,
upon the game in the baskets, and having killed them all, come
home with a quantity of game and enjoy the reputation of a
good sportsman.—( Hear, hear.) If there was anything more
unsuited than another to the character of England it was this
system.—( Hear, hear.) The maintenance of this system of
game-laws would counteract all their efforts for the improve-
ment
of the poor, and now more than at any former period
they showed their sympathy for the poor. All their legislation
lately was in some way or other connected with the poor.—
( Cries of " Hear, hear,") The Noble Lord the
Member for Dorset ( Lord Ashley) to whom he gave every
credit for the honesty of his motives, had half-a-dozen plans
every session, and the Hon. Member for Hereford introduced
a Bill connected with the allotment system, and not only in ,
that House, but in the country, amongst the higher and middle
classes, there was a sincere and anxious desire to promote the
happiness and comforts of the poorest classes.—( Cheers.) He
had (Lawn no exaggerated picture of the operation of the game-
laws, and he thought he had stated sufficient to induce the
House to grant the Committee which he asked for.—(Hear,
hear.) But he did not want a sham Committee.—( Hear, hear.)
He did not want a Committee composed of persons who took
extreme views on either side.—( Hear, hear.) All he wanted
was a fair, honest, and impartial Committee—( Hear, hear)—
which would go through the question, beginning, middle, and
end. —( Hear, hear.) He did not object to the fair sports of
the rich, but the interests and rights of the poor were not to
he sacrificed to them.—( Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured
to state his case without uttering a harsh expression against any
class or person. He could state with the utmost sincerity
that he did not harbour in his breast an unkind feeling towards
any individual in connexion with this subject.—( Hear, hear. )
But he had seen the sufferings of thousands of the poor and
the defenceless, to whom the law should be a protection, and
for whose especial good parliaments and constitutions were in-
stituted.-_( Hear, hear.) He had seen some sacrificed under
this system—he had seen others led out to receive the dreadful
sentence of the law, while the public sympathy was in their
favour; and seeing and knowing those things, he called on the
Government and the Legislature not to assent to a principle, or
to give the aid of their influence or encouragement to a system
prouctive of such grave evils, not to one, but to every class—
not to one district, but to the entire kingdom. The Hon.
Gentleman concluded (amidst loud cheering) by moving for a
Committee to inquire into the operation of the game-laws.
Dr. BO WRING seconded the motion.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that though the Hon. Gen-
tleman had occupied a considerable time in the delivery of his
speech, he had no fault to find with its tone or temper—( Hear,
hear )—more particularly as regarded his closing remarks, in
which he (Sir J. Graham) cordially concurred. The Hon.
Gentleman, on this question, had done justice to the gentle-
men of England, and he thought the Hon. Gentleman esti-
mated rightly the feelings of the House when he said he
hoped there would be a general disposition, in the present cir-
cumstances of the case, to sanotion a full, fair, and dispas-
sionate inquiry. He heard the Hon. Gentleman with satisfac-
tion when he said that there was no higher sphere of action
`,han that of a country gentleman who inspected the state of

fore a Committee, of which the Hon. Member for Wiltshire
(Mr. Benett) was a Member, that agricultural poachers were
more successful because they began early ; the boy of twelve
years of age sets snares with his father. He had received a
letter from Huntingdon on this subject, in which it was stated
that the shepherd boys, when they left their work at twilight,
seeing hares running about in all directions, were so much
tempted that they could not resist the temptation ; and the
writer further stated that poaching was more injurious to boy;
than public-houses.—( Hear.) They were brought up in a
manner so as not to believe that any moral guilt attached to an
infringement of the game-laws. He hoped Hon. Members
had read the 9th Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, and
they would there find the strong language which Mr. Williams
used on this subject. The substance of what he stated was, that
with most other offenders there was some hope of reformation
by prison discipline, but that those confined for poach-
ing were very seldom reclaimed.—( Hear, hear.)
He held in his hand also the testimony of chaplains who
attended prisoners, and they stated that argument, admonition,
entreaty, were all alike unavailing, in trying to induce those
prisoners to admit that they felt they had committed any moral
offence ; and they add that there was more sympathy for those
people than any other class of offst,nders Their invariable
answer was, that the law was oppressive,' and that they had as
good a right as others to those hares. In the report of the year
1823 on this subject, Stafford, the Bow-street officer, stated,
in answer to questions put to him, that it appeared to him that
those who were taken for offences against the game-laws did not
at all conceive that they had taken any portion of the property
of another; and Mr. Hunt, afterwards a Member of that House,
said that the large quantity of game in the country was too
strong a temptation to the people to resist, and that they did
not conceive they had taken anybody's property..—(year,
hear.) Mr. Benett, the Member for Wiltshire, in his an.
swcr, stated that neither in the lower order, in the class a little
higher, nor in the occupiers, was it deemed any disgrace to be
punished for an offence against the game-laws. Hon. Members
might say that all this arose from a confused idea as to the right
of property; but he ( Mr. Bright) would contend that the right of
parties to game was not at all so distinct as might be imagined ;
if it were, it was very odd that that House should pass a law to
prevent the sale of game ; and it was the only description of
property against the sale of which any law had ever been passed.
If game were property, it should not be forgotten that it could
not be identified or impounded if found straying like a pig or
other animal. But notwithstanding that, if a mail were caught
with a hare or a rabbit in his hand, or even a piece of copper
wire and a string, or taking a gun from a smith's shop across a
field, he was sure to be imprisoned and otherwise punished. A
man might meet a hare crossing the wood and kill it ; but this
House had hedged round these animals with so many laws that
the man was liable to be punished very severely, To so great
an extent had poaching been encouraged by those laws, that in a
place in Suffolk there was a poacher who was said to be
carrying on a " very respectable" trade—(Laughter)—he
employed thirty or forty Men, sant his hampers to market, and
received his remittances and paid his men as regularly as any
man in any other line of business. —( Hear, hear.) Then,

his labourers and tenants, watched over the wants of the poor,
ministered to their necessities, and afforded them the means of
education ; and he must say that he felt a pride and honour
(however imperfectly he performed those duties individually)
in being one of that class. He was confident, if
the fact had not been notorious before, that the
result of the Committee would show that the
gentry of England had fulfilled their duties.—( Hear, hear. )
And, as a sportsman, he would say that the enjoyment of field
sports was not inconsistent with those duties.--( Hear, hear.)
He thought the Hon. Member had laid sufficient grounds for
inquiry, for in the course of the last two or three years most
lamentable circumstances connected with the preservation of
game had forced themselves upon the notice and attention of the
public, and they had not escaped the consideration of the Go-
vernment.--( Hear, hear.) He would state the reasons why he
thought an inquiry—a fair and impartial inquiry—such as the
Hon. Memberdesired, would be politic. Since 182.3 there was
no inquiry instituted by the House of Commons into the opera-
tion of the game-la•s. An inquiry took place before a Com-
mittee of the other House in 1828, and that Committee recom-
mended that game should be made property, and should be pro-
tected as property. In 1831, Lord Alt horp, as the representative
of Earl Grey's Government in the House of Commons, pro-
posed alterations in the then existing game-laws. The feudal
distinction of the possession of property as a necessary antece-
dent to the liberty of killing game was taken away, and a large
class of persons was thereby enabled to kill game, who were
previously prevented by law from doing so. The effect of that
law was, that where a person was both owner and occupier the
game that would be kept was kept at his own cost, and even when
a person was only occupier there was nothing to prevent his
killing all the game on his farm, if he took out a three guinea
licence, unless there was a specific stipulation to the contrary.
—( Hear, hear.) But he admitted that the law which made
game property was an extensive change. The first effect of it
was, as he before stated, to open the right of sporting to a
large class of individuals before disentitled to do so.—( Hear,
hear.) A consequence of this was, that the large cities
were better supplied with those luxuries which were
to be found at the tables of the rich. For a long time that law
appeared to have operated favourably ; but, of late, there was
unhappily an increase of crime connected with the game-law.
That being the case, and fourteen years having elapsed since
any inquiry was instituted into the matter, he thought the time
was arrived when the operation of the law should be inquired
into.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted that there were many
grave errors committed in the way game was sometimes pre-
served—( Hear, hear)—and whatever might be the result of
the Committee, ho was sure that the present debate would•
have, at all events, a good moral effect.—( Hear, hear.) But
the cases which the Hon. Gentleman adduced, he might men-
tion, were almost entirely confined to hares and rabbits. If
that species of game multiplied very much, he believed the far-
mer had good ground for complaint. The Hon. Gentleman,
much to his credit, had avoided to mix any feeling of hostility
with the question, and he (Sir J. Graham) would follow the
example. But he must say; that he could not help thinking
that there was gross exaggeration in some of the statements—

was of the most imbecile order. He could imagine nothing
more monstrous and ridiculous. It was actually the prin-
ciple of Old Dogberry, the constable.—(Laughter.) If they
took Dogberry's language, word for word, they would find
the opinions of these who advocated the abolition of the game-
laws precisely similar to those of the weak old constable. If
the House would allow him, he would point out the resem-
blance.—(Laughter.) Dogberry tells the watch -(continued
the Hon. Gentleman), " that they shall visit all the ale-
houses, and bid them that are drunk get them to bed ; but
if they will not, why, then, let them sleep till they be sober.
If we know a man to be a thief, shall we not lay hands upon
him ? The most peaceable way, if you know him to be a
thief is, let him show himself what he is, and steal himself
out of your company."—(Laughter.) Exactly the principle
of the Hon. Member for Durham. Dogberry let the thief
go ; and the Hon. Member would abolish the statute
which detained him in custaly. The principle was the same ;
it was the principle of abolishing all statutes against which
offences were committed. Such a principle appeared to him,
he repeated, to be absolutely monstrous, and he trusted that
the House would not assent to Hear, hear.) Now, as
this Committee was to be appointed, he did trust that it would
be a fair one. He should like very much to hear to what
point their labours were to be directed ; for upon that subject
he confessed that he was at present entirely in the dark. If
they were to follow the course of the agitation, he must pro-
nounce the inquiry to be absolutely absurd. The Hon. Mem-
ber confessed that he was perfectly ignorant of farming, that he
knew nothing of sporting.---( Hear, hear.) He had shown a
great want of knowledge of ornithology and natural history.
Honourable Members who came to that Howe impressed
with an idea of the destructiveness of game, were
utterly ignorant of the subject; and persons should
know more about it before they took part in the
discussion. He would appeal more especially to those Hon.
Members who were agriculturists, and who were not
ashamed, also, to be called sportsmen, for really, if he might
judge from the accounts which he had read of this agitation,
to be either an agriculturist or a sportsman was to be one of a
den'unced class.---( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
would ask whether it would not appear from those accounts
as though the pheasants, the partridges, and game in general,
had not a moment to themselves from year to year, but were
constantly employed in devouring grain 2—( Laughter.) Now,
did the Hon. Member for Durham know that, for six months
in the year, pheasants and partridges could hardly be called
granivorous ?—( Hear, hear.) From the time that the heat
of the sun brought the insect egg into life, from that moment
the quantity of grain destroyed by pheasants and partridges was
actually as nothing. He could tell the Hon. Gentleman thathe
had seen pheasants on their nests tempted with grain, and actually
turning away from it.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to any
Hon. Gentleman whether he ever saw a pheasant go near a stack
of wheat after the month of April? The fact was, that they
fed on insects and grubs ; and they were particularly destruc-
tive to that injurious insect the wire-worm. It could not be
pretended that they eat the corn in the month of May. The
injury which they committed must take place when the grain
was ripe. But who ever heard of a pheasant seizing ears of
corn before the corn had been cut ? The pheasant, as many
Hon. Members whom he addressed well knew, if he might use
the expression, was a gleaner and not a reaper. To
judge, however, from the writings and speeches of those
who agitated this question, and especially from those
of the Anti-Corn• law League, it would appear as if the
pheasants were continually eating wheat and barley.—( Hear,
hear.) The most extraordinary statements were made, and
the most extraordinary abuse was lavished on the proprietors.
Henry Baring was depicted as a kind of Robinson Crusoe,
going about destroying game with four guns on his shoulder.
—(Laughter.) With respect to the petition from Ruislip,
presented that evening, he had no hesitation in saying, that
the meeting at which that petition was agreed to was a most
disreputab e meeting. He would tell the Hon. Gentleman
that his friend Mr. Jenkins—(Laughter)—the gentleman
who was found speaking at that meeting, went'to the beer-
houses on Saturday night to get signatures to the petition.--
(Laughter.) That he would prove ; and he would prove like-
wise, that the petition was got up merely on
account of a feud between two farmers, and
in point of fact there was not game enough in
the neighbourhood to injure any farmers whatever. But now,
he would ask, what were the Committee to do with reference
to this matter ? Was the House to legislate so that game
should be entirely extirpated in this country ? Should they
favour the intrusion of lan armed invasion on landed estates ?
Should they deny to a man the right to possess the beast and
the bird which he bred and fed ?—( Hear, hear.) Something
had been said about the impossibility or impropriety of making
birds and beasts private property, because they had locomotive
powers. Why, if they were to carry out that that principle,
they would sanction the Duke of Richmond's being deprived of
his salmon, asserting that every man had a right to hook it.—
( Laughter.) Dovecote pigeons were often seen to
follow men as they sowed grain, and there was a
penalty of half-a-guinea for shooting one. He dare say the
Hon. Member for Durham would be exceedingly angry it
any one were to shoot one of his pigeons.—( Hear, hear:-) If
those who agitated this question took care not to go to a Re-
publican meeting for golden maxims, how came it that they
had not heard a word as to the practice of any country ex-
cept England ?--( Hear, hear.) Where was the pattern, Re-
publican America? Where was the El Dorado—the Utopia—
which would, on other questions, have been referred to ? The
fact was that America had game-laws infinitely more stringent
than those of Great Britain. He had there an abstract of the
laws of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, inclusive
of Duchess' County, Queen's County, King's County, and
Suffolk County, and he had selected States in which
the negro and the white man were upon equal terms. Now,
there a law existed protecting the birds and beasts during the
breeding season ; and though they might be considered as
firm natura, he would show that they were treated strictly as
private property. The penalty for shooting a deer out of sea-
son was 25 dollars; and the law went on from a deer, through
a number of other animals, down to the miserable musk-rat,
for shooting which the penalty was one dollar. What would
the House think if an Hon. Member were to get up and
propose a penalty of five shillings for killing a hedgehog?
The magistrates of America, under this law, could act on an
information only, and if it was merely suspected that a red
deer's akin was concealed in a man's house, they could be com-
pelled to issue a search warrant, to enter that house and make
a search, and if a red deer's skin was 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, er 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 explain that though this was the word he
found in the Acts, 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 aljacent to the States of New York and Philadelphia.
The first game-law of this State to which he should call their
attention, although there were others passed before it, was of
the date of 1771, when New Jersey was a British colony.
That law prohibited any person from carrying a gun over
another man's property without leave, under a penalty of forty
shillings and costs.—( Hear, hear.) There was the same
penalty for setting snares for deer, for carrying spears, or
pointed sticks, or for hunting with dogs. If any stranger in
the colony should shoot over another man's land, without
leave, he was liable to a penalty of 51. and the forfeiture of the
gun.—( Hear.) Now, it might be said, that this law was
passed in 1771. But when these republicans shook off 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 1820 they increased
their stringency ; in 1837, they enacted a supplement to these
laws, and in 1838, a second supplement. But there was one
more law he ought to mention, which prohibited hunting even
over the waste lands of the State. It enacted that all persons
age,
for each of 20s .
except
ffree holsdheornisdobr
e theproshoinbsi
prohibited
df
fromfreeholders,oanbohvoewealegthetaene
and
years o
unimproved lands of the State, under a penalty
offence. Now, at some future time, the lion. Member for
Durham would no doubt visit the city of Philadelphia, in which
he 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 say that that class
be made very welcome in the city of Philadelphia. In that
no
oas
daoombto,tt respectable,
hatthotionokuirnadb,leanmdemhobsepritafbolre oDnuer.
hamilewohualdd
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 hew he carried that natural instinct, 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 England.—
( 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 76/.—( Hear, 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 ; but
what on earth its attention was to be directed to he could not
conceive.

( Hear, hear)—and he believed that the inquiry would
have a salutary effect in showing that exaggeration. If even it
effected nothing else, he should like to see the statements in-
vestigated.—( Hear, hear.) He should like t o see the witness
whose 78 acres of land suffered damage to the amount of 104/.
in one year from the ravages of hares and rabbits. (Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) He should like to see the farmer who
had lost by the game 501. worth of his crop upon 100 acres
in a year.—(Hear, and laughter.) He should like to see the
farmer who could prove that he had seen 83 hares at a
time in one corn-field. and that these 83 hares consumed as
much as 23 sheep.—(Laughter.) Above all, he should like to
see that trustworthy, upright.Yorkshireman, who walked nine
times to Wakefield gaol with his committal in his pocket.
Mr. BRIGHT—I told you he was dead.—( Renewed
laughter. )

Sir J. GRAHAM was sure that, so far, the investigation
would be somewhat amusing. Another proposition put for-
ward by the Hon. Member for Durham was, that the preser-
vation of game was incompatible with the cultivation of the
soil. But the Hon. Gentleman admitted that he was not a
sportsman or a farmer, and he did not make the assertion upon
his own experience.—(Hear.) Now, he (Sir J. Graham) saw
an Hon. Friend of his near him who was a preserver of game,
and with whom he had had the pleasure of shooting in Norfolk,
and who he thought could bring abundant proof that the Hon.
Member for Durham was mistaken, and that the preservation
of game was not incompatible with the highest cultivation.--
( Hear, hear.) As he (Sir J. Graham) did not intend to op-
pose
onermenf e
ritetna cicommittal. observation,
m eha byt which
washthi ceh
aH wason
pose the motion, he would not detain the House much longer
case.
Gtnoee cwnethsl
esi
camrhya
h,n
sn to( csaoi nr
cases
je -.
got than
nrnreet ego
irregular
a atrhk
Graham's) attention had been especially turned, and which
led to a regulation hi his office, and he would state to the
House what that was. He had thought it his duty
to direct that, from day to day, copies of all
commitments under the game-laws should be sent up and
should be regularly examined. Frequently errors were found
in the commitments, and these were communicated to the ma-
gistrates, who in every single case concurred with him, and
the penalty was by his advice remitted; or in cases where the
penalty had been inflicted, and it seemed to him to be too se-
vere, he had been met by the magistrates in the same spirit.—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) was mis-
taken as to the law, and he had stated the practice somewhat
to the disadvantage of the magistrates. He (Mr. Bright)
said the game preservers were in the habit of deciding in game
cases, whereas the owner of a mill would not be allowed to de-
cide in a case under the Factories Act. The Right Hon.
Baronet read the Factories Act to show that millowners, being
magistrates, were not precluded by that Act from sitting on the
bench to hear cases under that Act, but that the owner of the
mill in which the offence was alleged and his immediate
relatives were prohibited from taking part in the de-
cisions.—( Hear, hear. ) If in a case under the game-laws
persons standing in a similar relation to the case were to sit on
the bench and adjudicate, he (Sir James Graham) would
have no hesitation in recommending the Lord Chancellor
to remove those persons from the commission of the peace.—
(Cheers.) In making these answers to the Hon. Gentleman,
he must also say that he had great satisfaction in support-
ing the motion—( Hear hear)--with a desire that there should
be a full, impartial, and honest inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) He
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to post-
postpone the nomination of the Committee, upon the under-
standing that by a private examination out of the House they
might agree upon an unobjectionable and competent Com-
mittee. He was sure that whether the inquiry resulted in a
change of the law or not, it would have a great moral effect,
and assured the House, on the part of the Government, that
that would be, in their estimation, a most happy result, and
they would, therefore, give every facility to the investigation.
Mr. V. SMITH regretted the course which was pursued
by the Right Hon. Baronet after what he himself (Sir J.
Graham) had acknowledged. He thought the Government
ought to have done as Earl Grey's Government had done
upon this subject. Having seen the evils which were com-
plained of all over the country, they ought to have brought in
a Bill upon their own responsibility. What was to be the
result of the Committee? Neither the Hon. Member nor the
Right Hon. Baronet had said to what the inquiry of the Com-
mittee was to be directed. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Bright) had stated the evils of the case with great ability, and
the Right Hon. Baronet did not deny their existence; and
yet they both allowed them to continue over another season.
What was the object of the Committee ? Was it only to ex-
pose the alleged exaggerations of the Hon. Gentleman, on
which the Right Hon. Gentleman had facetiously commented ?
A Noble Friend of his had written a pamphlet, with a view to
point out the means by which game might be assessed, but
he had since given up the idea as impracticable.—( Hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) brought forward the
question as one of grievance between the farmer and the lands
lord, which would lead to an interminable inquiry. He thought
the inquiry ought to be limited to this point :—What
were the remedies to be applied to the acknow-
ledged evil ?—(Hear, hear)—for he believed there were not
half-a-doaen Gentlemen in the House who denied the
existence or the extent of the evils. In 1831 the Duke of
Richmond made a speech in the House of Lords, in which he
exposed and reprobated the game-laws as they then were, say-
ing that they widened the distance between the higher and the
middle classes, and condemned to the prison of a feint the
unfortunate labourer, who too often could not resist the tempta-
tion thrown in his way.—(Hear, hear.) In 1831, before the
change took place in the law, the committals under the game-
laws, in England and Wales, were 2,150; in the last year,
1844, they were 4,500, the committals being more than
doubled under the change of the law.--( Hear, hear.) He
thought it would be impossible to compel men to give up pre-
serving, or to say that they should preserve only a certain
amount.—(Hear, hear.) But he thought it right to take
away from them any encouragement, more than was given to
other species of property..—( Hear, hear.) He might be an-
swered that there was little difference between the penalties of
trespass in pursuit of game, and other kinds of trespass. He
contended there was too great a difference.—( Hear, hear.) In
ether kinds of trespass you paid for the amount of damage ac-
tually done, but under the game-laws the fines were accumu-
lative ; and for a single act, even of inadvertence, a man
might be fined 271., when it would be only a few shillings for
any other trespass.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it was very
improper to call game property ; although he admitted that it
would be absurd to say that pheasants, which were fed as if in
a coop, were fine natura, and no man's property.
But other kinds of game, of which there was no identity and
no reclaimer, were not rightly called property; and he agreed
with the Hon. Member for Durham in asking were they to
establish a penal code for their own amusements?—( Cheers.)
He admitted that in some respects the change of the law, in
1831, had been an improvement, but it had in other respects
been accompanied by a great aggravation of the former evils.
He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite ought to have
taken up this subject himself ; and, with the majority which he
commanded, and the facility with which he managed it—(A
laugh )—he would be able to remove some of the evil._( Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. V. Smith) did not think the Committee
would effect any good ; and he thought it would be as well to
postpone legislation on the subject till next year, and that, in
the meantime, they should endeavour to remedy the evils as
best they could, each in his own district.
Mr. DARBY was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman taunt the Government with not having introduced any
measure on the subject; for, by his remarks in reference to it,
he had involved it in inextricable difficulty and confusion.—
( Hear.) With respect to the speech of the Hon. Member for
Durham, he must confess that to the tone of that speech he
thought no one could possibly object. He only hoped that on
all future occasions he would adopt a similar tone; and he
would then find gentlemen who were eonnected with the agri-
cultural districts ready to join with him in doing anything
whieh could be effected for the good of the country.--( Hear,
hear.) It appeared that the Hon. Member was not prepared
to interfere with private rights. Undoubtedly that part of the
subject which was connected with the morality and good con-
duct of the poor, was well worthy of the consideration of the
Committee; but if the Hon. Gentleman supposed that by
removing the game-laws they would take away all temptation to
crime and make everybody virtuous, he was under a great mis-
take. 'I here would always be persona disinclined to work, and
ready to engage in poaching, whatever might be their circum-
stances. Still he thought that the great point to which the at-
tention of the Committee should be directed was the moral ef-
fect of the game-laws.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY said he was very unwilling that the
&bate should terminate without at least one Member of that
House expressing his dissent from the positions which the Hon.
31ember for Durham had assumed. It was not his intention
to oppose the appointment of the Committee which the Right
Hon. Baronet was prepared to concede, but he could not for
one moment allow that the reasons which the Hon. Member
for Durham had stated for its appointment were valid and
sufficient. Indeed, he thought the Hon. Member for Durham
owed the concession of this Committee to the peculiar course
which he had adopted that night, so very unlike the course
which had been adopted throughout the country by those persons,
whether orators or writers for the press, who had advocated so
strenu iusly the abolition of the game-laws.—( Hear, hear.)
He must say that the agitation which had been carried on in
reference to that question, ever since the Hon. Member for
Durham gave notice of his motion—an agitation with which
that Hon. Gentleman was connected, and in which he
had taken part—was one, the character of which was anything
but creditable.—( Hear, hear.) It was an agitation which, in
his own opinion, was very well calculated not to forward the
cause, but to make people look upon the course the Hon.
Member was pursuing with suspcion. He agreed
on many points with the Honourable Member for
Durham. There was no person in that House who
desired an abolition of the corn-laws more than he (Mr.
Berkeley) did. He was perfectly contented to be called any-
thine which Hon. Gentlemen pleased—a radical, a reformer,
or, if the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite preferred the term,
a Whig-radical—(Laughter)—but he never would assume per-
sonalities towards those Gentlemen who were opposed to him,
and he trusted that he would always be found to give them cre-
dit. for proper motives when he happened to differ from them in
opinion. Now, if he followed the agitation touching these
game-laws throughout the country, what did he find? From
east to west, and from north to south, he found the
landocracy held up as a set of tyrants. He found the Ho.i.
Gentleman setting
'himself forth as the farmer's friend, and in
that character striving apparently to set the tenant-farmers and
their landlords at variance. Now he did maintain that such a
course of agitation
' was well calculated to prejudice the Hon.
Member's course ; and he was very glad that on introducing
the subject in that House he had adopted a different mode of
proceeding. He had reaped the benefit of the course which
he had now pursued by the Government conceding to him
the Committee, for he verily believed that for that concession he
was indebted to the moderation of the tone which he had assumed.
—(Hear, hear.) But still he, for one, could not permit the op-
portunity to pass without expressing his dissent from the
opinion that the game-laws were in fault as regarded the
crimes and offences which had taken place under them. They
might just as well contend that any other statute besides the
game-laws was to blame for an excess of crime. Take, for
instance, offences against the revenue laws. There was a great
similarity in the character and pursuit of the smuggler and
the poacher.—( Hear. hear.) There was something adventu-
rous in the life of both, which had, no doubt, great charms for
the wild and the dissolute. But did the Hon. Member
know that at one time more murders were committed under
the revenue laws than were ever committed under the game-
' laws ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member could not be igno-
rant of the fact that more violence was perpetrated, more
murders were committed, tinder the former than under the
latter. But did the Government, on discovering the extent of
crime which prevailed under the revenue-laws, immediately
assume what the Hon. Gentleman had assumed in the case of
the game-laws that the laws should be abolished on account of
the crime which had been committed? No; instead of
abolishing the laws, the Government took the opposite course.
They strengthened the executive power ; they put on a
blockade force ; they adopted every means to check smuggling ;
and the consequence was that they did put down the evil.—
( Hear' hear.) But the Hon. Gentleman, and those who
agreed with him out of that House, contended that
the instant crime took place under a statute that statute
should be abolished. Why, it was not the game-laws alone
which were disagreeable to a certain class of the community.
There were other laws which were equally distasteful to one class
of persons frequently referred to in the newspapers—the light-
fingered gentry.—(Laughter.) There were certain laws
which were extremely disagreeable to that portion ofsociety.—
(Laughte-.) Hut was he to be told that because an excess of
crime arose under particular laws they were therefore to be
abolished. Why, if they were to follow the Hon. Gentleman's
principle of legislation, the result would be this : If any body of
men found particular laws disagreeable they would only have
to offend against them, and to commit murders in doing
so, in order to secure their abolition.—(Cries of
ss Hear, hear.") Such a principle of legislation

Captain ROUS said he had been much pleased with the
tone of the speech of the Hon. 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 Hon. 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 referred 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. He
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
ha I 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 also. His wife had gone to church, one
of the children was in the garden, anti 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 th • 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
Mlll in a town might be tempted to steal the goods before
him. But what was the reason that the agricultural labourer
was a poacher, and stole pheasants and hares in preference to
citv.ks 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 he hanged or transported for the offence. He
hail 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 feeling 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 allevved his neighbours to shoot over the estate on one
proviso—that they should not employ any labourer on their