STATE OF THE GAME LAWS. (Hansard, 5 April 1821)

Lord Cranbourn
rose to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the Game Laws. When the House recollected the numbers who were daily committed to prison for offences arising out of these laws they could not but see the importance of the subject. He thought, too, that the laws were in, many respects absurd and inconsistent. In some cases, a son was qualified while the father was not. The noble lord mentioned several other instances to show the anomalous state of the law upon this subject, and concluded by moving for the committee.

Sir J. Sebright
seconded the motion. He was sure that any change would be for the better. A set of laws more absurd or unjust never disgraced any country. With respect to their effects, they tended to demoralize the people. It was his opinion, that game should be put upon the same footing as other property.

Sir J. Shelly
said, that when he recollected that a bill for altering the game laws had been brought in by the late member for Hertfordshire (lord Dacre), and enforced by all his eloquence and yet had failed, he could not expect much from the present motion. However, the noble lord had said, to use sporting language, "though lord Dacre missed fire, I'll whip on his jacket, and have a shot at the game laws." The game laws had not been fairly treated; for there was no set of laws that might not be open to objection, if their bad effects only were considered. If the game were destroyed, the 39 great inducement to country gentlemen to reside on their estates would be taken away.

§ Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that though he was not a killer of game, he was an eater of that nice article, but since the bill of an hon. member (Mr. G. Bankes) had passed, he had never been able to get a second course. He hoped, whatever bill the noble lord brought in, there would be a clause in it to provide, that when an humble individual like himself was about to give a dinner, and said to his wife, "My dear, let us have some game" he might not be met with the unpleasant difficulty where shall we get it?"

§ Mr. G. Bankes
was glad his bill had been so effectual. If that bill destroyed poaching, it would destroy the nest from which great part of the evil of the country originated. He objected to a committee which would take up the time of the House without adding any thing to its information. As the subject was not new, the noble lord might at once move for leave to bring in a bill. As to the game laws themselves, no one could deny, that a great number of persons were at present in prison on account of them, and nothing would be more easy than to put an end to this, by abolishing those laws. But this might be said of any other law. They all lamented the number of punishments for forgery. Nothing was more easy than to put an end to the laws against it. But what then became of the property of the country? So they might abolish the game laws, but what then became of the game of the country? The general permission to shoot would only make the country people ten times more vicious and indolent: in six months the game would be destroyed, and the better classes of people would be left without their amusement, which attached them to the country.

Colonel Wood
said, he was the unfortunate individual who moved for the committee of 1810. When he had got into that committee, they would agree to nothing that he proposed. He had proposed to the committee to examine to what extent the evil of poaching had gone, and to consider a remedy. This the committee refused, and said they would take for granted there was a great deal of evil from poaching. So that after much discussion the only resolution the committee came to was this—"That it is the opinion of this committee that game 40 should be the property of the person on whose ground it is found:" and so they reported. As for the remark of his hon. friend, that no one in London could get a second course, he could only say that his hon. friend was not so much in the confidence of the poulterers as he was. If his hon. friend would give a social dinner, he would undertake to buy game for him. It was of importance that the committee should be appointed, for he was confident that poaching was carried on to as great an extent as ever it was. The poulterers were forced to encourage it, even against their own will. What they said was, "cut off the supply altogether, or let it be legalised." As to the remedy two courses were open. Either they might return to the state in which they were till the latter end of George 2nd, when the sale of game was legal, the rest of the laws remaining the same; or they might (to which he was more inclined) make game the property of the occupier of the land. He recommended also a revision of the law as to qualifications, which was now enforced only against the poor. The certificate might be raised to 5l. and all qualifications taken away. He was anxious the country gentlemen should have every inducement to reside on their estates, but it was their interest to consider the question with liberality, and to put down an evil which filled our gaols with peasantry, and laid the foundation of so many crimes.

§ Mr. Douglas
opposed the motion. To legalize the sale of game would, he observed, be, in effect, to enable persons to buy licenses for the disposal of stolen purchases.

§ Sir C. Burrell
thought, that at a time when the country gentlemen were labouring under so many privations, it was too much to propose to take from them the only solace they had left. With regard to the main question of the game laws, he was convinced that it would be a bad plan to separate the game from the poperty of the country. In this point he was supported by the late Mr. Fox, who, after having maturely examined the subject, had come to the same conclusion.

§ Mr. Lockhart
thought that a committee ought not to be appointed, unless the specific defect in the law were clearly pointed out, and the remedy stated. The proposition of the noble lord, he was convinced, would not produce the slightest improvement in the morals of the country. 41 If game were to be made property, it must be under the civil law, and then the effect would be, to bring a host of pettyfogging lawyers all over the country, disputing about every head of game. To get rid of one evil, therefore, they were called on to create another of a much worse nature. He begged of the House also to consider what a restriction it would be upon the citizens all over the country, in taking the diversion of shooting, who although they might be permitted to follow the sport on the grounds of those they dealt with, would not dare to cross a hedge after game.

Mr. Bennet,
of Wiltshire, thought the game laws required revision. Few persons stole sheep who did not first begin by poaching. If game was put upon the same footing as other property it would be the interest of the occupiers of the land to preserve it; it was now their interest to destroy it. It might be then sold so cheap that it would not be worth the poachers while to sell game.

Mr. Coke
jun. thought the effect of making game property, would be, to render country gentlemen odious in the eyes of the nation, by giving them a mercenary sordid character, in converting that which had hitherto been regarded as an exclusive source of amusement into a means of lucre. He did not stand up as the defender of the game laws, but he was convinced it was impossible to put a stop to poaching by any laws that could be devised; and the present laws were so fitted and fashioned to their end by the operation of time, that any attempt at alteration would be more likely to defeat the object than to promote it.

§ Mr. Warre
neither wished to spoil the amusements of the country gentleman, nor to remove the inducement which he now had to reside on his estate; but he believed the present laws to be the source of much crime, and should therefore vote for their revision.

Lord Lowther
spoke against the motion, conceiving its object to be two-fold, namely, to legalize the sale of game, and to prevent poaching. He must protest against the former, as it would serve rather to promote than to prevent poaching.

§ Mr. Harbord,
convinced as he was, that great moral evil resulted from the present system, was inclined to support a measure which might tend to correct it. Much stress had been laid upon the argument that the present game laws presented 42 a strong inducement to landed proprietors to reside upon their own estates. If the only amusement which gentlemen could find in the country was that of shooting pheasants, he thought the country would not lose much by their absence.