The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette. — 1862-08-12 (Dorchester, Dorset, England)

THE NIGHT-POACHING PREVENTION BILL  The Night-Poaching Prevention Bill, as amended by the Commons, has struggled into existence as an Act. Some of its objectionable features have been struck out of the Bill, and it may not be uninteresting to our readers to inquire, what, in its new shape, it may be expected to do, and on whom its operation is likely to fall. In the first place, then, its whole substance is comprised in the enactment that a constable may, in any highway or public place, "Search any person whom lie may have good reason to suspect of coming from any land where he shall have been unlawfully in search or pursuit of game,"—any game or gameimplements found to be forfeited on conviction. Supposing that this power is not abused or nutapplied, it will obviously fall on persons carrying on poaching as a trade—not on the occasional or accidental transgressorof the game-laws, but on the person who makes a trade of an unlawful, to the neglect of his lawful, occupation. Now, there certainly ought to be no sympathy with that class—a class which, as a general rule, is composed of the idle and the dissolute, who are commonly known as the blackguards of the district, and who as habitually break other laws as the game laws. No clearer illustration is needed of this than in the lives of the Preston and Yosdingbridge murderers. We heartily wish that the trade of that class were not rendered femunerative by the tendency of some gentlemen for over-preserving—a system at once destructive both of crops and sport • but it is, nevertheless, out of the question that such a class should receive encouragement by any law of immunity. Whatever may be the evils of k game preserving, they have neither the right nor the fitness to redress those evils. To whomsoever the game belongs by natural right, it does not belong to the poacher. It was not fed at his coat, and he suffered nothing by its wanderings. We have heard it sometimes said that the poachers are the beat friends of the farmers,. We very much doubt whether that is true in any sense—certainly it is not true in any general and effective sense, even supposing the poacher confines himself e capture of wild animals only. On pr d, no less game is bred end fed because , acher, and it is difficult to see how, afte genie has been bred And efilii,to fed, the farmer is beifitted by its being taken by the poacher instead of the landowner. But, In truth, where the object is to get up a certain "head" of game, that object in most cases will be, and is accomplished,in spite of the poacher— s° that the poacher causes more game to be bred 'aud fed—game for him as well as the sportsman. There are, however, objections to the Bill, one tot which is, it employs the police in a duty Aseoessarily unpopular as being connected with .the preservation of game. He is authorised to search any person whom he has "good cause to rsiTeczt ;" and here seems to be the great evil or of the Bill. For whom may not a policeMall sect? Anyone who has rendered him'self obnoxious to him in any way whatever. , While the Bill was under discussion, those , members who opposed it spoke as if they were In the interest of the poachers. Scarcely anyone referred to the danger of innocent people being more or less culpably mistaken as poachers. If the Bill should really hit, as of course it was only designed to hit, nobodt but trading poachers, we should care little how hard it hit; but there is an entire absence of all reasonable precautions against its hitting other people. Suppose some stupid or malicious policeman were te atop and search an innocent and respectable person, where is the remedy? It is true any person convicted may appeal to the Quarter Sessions; but what is wanted is some redress for persona not convicted but wrongfully accused. And the redress ought to be in the power of some less implicated tribunal than the Quarter Sessions. There ought to have been a clause entitling any person thus wronged to compel the constable to prove before a Court of Law that he had "good cease to suspect," and to grant redress where that proof was not forthcoming. For the honour of our Legislature, as well as for our desire for the preservation of the liberty of the subject, we trust some such amendment will be introduced during the next Session, and then no honest and rational mind will have aright against the Night Poaching Prevention Bill.