GAME ACT (Hansard, 28 March 1833)

Mr. Lennard
moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the 7th clause of the last Game Act; and to enable all tenants to shoot over the lands in their possession, unless restrained by a special agreement to the contrary with the landlord. The clause, as it at present stood, was the occasion of much injustice and hardship to tenants. He knew of several instances in which it had acted, not only contrary to the intentions of those who introduced the present law, but frequently contrary to the conditions on which the leases were taken. One instance within his knowledge occurred in Hertfordshire, which was attended with peculiar hardship. A gentleman had taken a farm under the express condition that he should have the exclusive right of shooting over it; and, at the time of making the bargain, he mentioned that he would not give the rent for which he bound himself upon any other condition. By the practice of that county, however, there was no clause to that effect in the lease, and the only manner in which it was made to appear that tenants had the right to sport over their lands, was, when there was no clause inserted reserving the right to the landlord—the omission of such a clause being considered as conferring the right upon the tenant. Soon afterwards the Game Act passed, and took from tenants all right to sport, unless they had an express condition to that effect in their leases. The consequence was, that this gentleman was deprived of his right for which he had given a sum of money. That was but one of many similar instances of injustice which he could quote. He would allow that that House was not to be blamed for the insertion of the clause of which he complained. It was introduced in the other House, he believed, with the hope and expectation that the House of Commons would never agree to it. The whole Bill was disagreeable to the great proprietors in the other House, and they had hoped that, by the insertion of such a 1206 clause, they might get rid of it altogether. They were, however, disappointed, for the Bill, as it contained much undeniable good, was not rejected on account of one objectional clause. But it was not injustice to the tenant alone that he wished for the repeal of that clause. He was sure it would be found necessary to do justice to the landlord also, as it would do away with all ambiguity, and allow him to retain the right of sporting where he wished; while it would put all cases beyond doubt in which he had the right. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to the effect above stated.

§ Sir Edward Knatchbull
concurred entirely with the hon. Member, and begged leave therefore to second the Motion.

Mr. Gilbert Heathcote
thought, that if they did not go into the consideration of the whole subject of the Game Laws, it would be better to let the Bill stand as it was. He said, that the Game Act had not been found to have the effect anticipated by the proposer of it. Poaching and the crimes connected with poaching, had increased to a most alarming extent since the passing of that Act. He believed, that the Sale of Beer Act and the new Game Act had together worked prodigious mischief, and had been the causes of that demoralization which was now so much complained of. He thought, that the question should, at all events, be postponed till it could be fully considered.

Mr. Baring
said, that the tenant ought in justice to be put on the same footing as before the passing of the last Game Act. With respect to the question about the increase of crime, and the cause of demoralization, it was rather difficult to assign the true cause, for both the Game Act and the Sale of Beer Act had been passed in the same Session; and it was impossible as yet to distinguish between their effects. He was himself inclined to think that the blame which was laid on the Sale of Beer Act would not have been so much deserved if the Game Laws had not at the same time been altered.

§ Mr. William Brougham
said, that the House would certainly do well to revise the Bill, but ought to retain the principles of it. By the present Bill, to constitute poaching, the offence must be committed in the intermediate period between an hour after sunset, and an hour before sunrise, Now, it was notorious that more game was illegally destroyed in those two 1207 identical hours than at any other time. The punishment for poisoning grounds was, in his opinion, too small. That offence was only visited by a fine of 10l., while other offences, not so atrocious, were punishable under the act by transportation. Why should not poisoning lands be punished as a misdemeanor? He knew an instance of dreadful destruction of Game effected in that way:—A boy who had been discharged, revenged himself by poisoning a vast quantity of pheasants. For his own part, he would decidedly say, that he would certainly rather transport any man for seven years who had been guilty of such an atrocious offence as this, than for petty larceny. He considered the former an offence of the greatest enormity.

Mr. Faithfull
was perfectly astonished at the declaration of the hon. Member. It did not appear to him that there was any more moral guilt in poisoning a pheasant than in shooting a sparrow. The Game Laws appeared to him the most unjust, arbitrary, and tyrannical laws that ever were made; they were a protection to the rich, and an injury to the poor; and they ought to be altogether repealed

§ Mr. Aglionby
said, when he heard the hon. Member declare that those laws were enacted to give protection to the rich, and to inflict injury on the poor, he must enter his protest against such an assertion. He would expunge from the Statute-book any law that operated to the injury of the poor, while it conferred advantages on the rich. He begged leave, however, to deny, in the most decided manner, that the Game Laws had any such effect. Those laws were enacted for the purpose of protecting the property of individuals. Game, he supposed, belonged to those by whom it was bred, and the rich man had surely as much right to it as the poor man had to his pigs or fowls. Let each party possess that which was his right. A privilege of this nature was a stimulus to men to endeavour to attain the same advantage by pursuing industrious habits and amassing property. Every man in this country might arrive at that privilege if he duly exercised the ability with which Providence had blessed him. It was not out of the reach of any person.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.