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

any other trespass,,—( Hear, hear.) He thought it was very
improper to call game property ; although he admitted that it
would V absurd to say that pfica,ants, which were fed tie if in
a coop, were
.ferce natura, and no man'. property.
But ether kinls of game, ef which there was no identity and
no reclaimer, were not tightly called property ; and he agr, ed
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 aggra,a:ion of the former evils.
He thought the Bight Hon. Gent!eman 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 coati, each in his own district.

Mr. 15/11113Y was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman taunt the Govern rent ev:th not having introduced any
measure on the subject; for, by his remarks in reference to it,
be had involved it in inextricable difficulty and confusion.—
( Hear.) With respect to the s, eech of the lion. Mewiter for
I Durham, lie must confess that to the tone of that speech he
thought no one ceuld pe-sily object. He only hoped that on
all future occasions he w ,uld adopt a similar tone ; and he
would then find geritl, non who were connec eel with the agri-
cultural districts ready to join with him in doing anything
which could be effected for the good of the country.— ( Hear,
hear ) It appesred that the lion. Member was not prepared
to interfere with private rights. Undoubtedly that part of the
subject which was rot:nes:tea with the morality and good con-
(int of the poor, was well worthy of the consideration of the
Committee; but if the lion Gentleman supposed that by
removing the came-laws they would take away atl temptation to
crime and make everybody virtuous, be was under a great mis-
take. '1 here would always be persons disinclined to work, and
reedy to engage in poaching, whatever might be their circum-
stances. Still I e 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
debate should terminate without at least one Member of that
Hoene expressing his dissent from the positions which the Hon.
Member for Durham hod 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 bad advocated so
strenu usly the alsolitien 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
brit creditable.—( Hear, hear.) It was an agitation which, in
his own opinion, was very well calculated not to forward the
cause, but to mike people look upon the course the Hon.
Member was pursuit's, with susp.ciin. 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-
thing which Hon. Gentlemen pleased—a radical, a reformer,
or, if the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite preferred the term,
a Whig-radical—(Laughter)--Lot 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 ore-
dit for proper motives when he happened to differ from then 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 Hoe.
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 conced:ng 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 a hich 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, under 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 int down the evil.—
( Hear' hear.) But the Hen. 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 Itw s which were equally distasteful to one class
cf persons frequently referred to in the newspapers—the light-
fingered gentry.—(Laughter.) There were certain laws
which were extremely disagreeable to that portion of society.—
( Laughter.) But 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 pat titular 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
Hear, hear.") Such a principle of legislation
was of the most imbecile order. He could imagine nothing
mere 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 bcl ; but
if they will not, why, then, let them sleep till they be sober.
If we know a man to be a thief, stall we not lay hands upon
him ? The most peaceable way, if you know him to be a
thief is, let him show himself what lie is, and steal himself
out oef your. c
Member for
Exactly the principle
of h
for Durham. Dogberry let the thief
t os sr pany
go ; and the Hon. Member would abolish the statute
which detained him in custody. 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 laboura 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 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 House 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 asportsman was to be one of a
denounced 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?—(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. Gentlemanthat he
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 seiz ng ears of
corn before the corn had been cut ? The pheasant, as many
Hon. Members whom he addressed well lieew, if he might use
the expression, was a gleaner and not a reaper. To
judge, however, front 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.
L
Henry Baring was depicted as a kind of Robinson Crusoe,
going about deetroying 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
which
ring. He n
i . that
jei petition
kwinoso_l was agreed to was a most
d(
Jenkins—(Laughter)—the tell the Hon. Gentleman
—the gentlemanauoht
dtthhisaertemPheueits fg a
atibnerie rantie l t
, 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 could 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 °flan 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.) Somet' ing
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 car. y 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 bear is 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 2.5 dollars; and the law went on from a deer, through
a number of other animals, down to the miserable musk-rat,
fur shooting which the peealcy 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