SALE OF GAME BILL. (Hansard, 2 June 1823)

Lord Cranborne
, on moving the second reading pf this bill, observed, that the details of the measure would be best discussed in 'the committee, and respecting them he should therefore reserve himself until that stage arrived. Against the principle of the measure he was not aware that many objections could be made. He referred to the, evidence given before the committee, to show the great quantity of game which was annually disposed of in the London markets. The object of the bill was, to take that supply out of the hands of the poachers, and place it in those of licensed dealers.

§ Sir John Shelley
objected to the bill, that it would not only increase the number of poachers, and add to the demoralization of the lower classes, but would tend also to the entire annihilation of the game. He much doubted whether the bill would increase the sale of game; and observed on the great difficulty there would be in keeping the market regularly and fully supplied, as it was not to hue supposed that every gentleman would dispose of his game. He much doubted whether the fair trader would be able, as it was said, to undersell the poacher. How should he, when the latter stole that which the former paid for? He begged to refer honourable members, to the well-known story of the rival broom-sellers The one asked the other, how he could afford to undersell him, since he stole the materials. "Why," replied the other, "I steal mine, ready made." On this principle, he was persuaded the licensed man would not be able to compete with 645 the poacher. The bill would take away the odium of selling game, and increase thereby the number of poachers; for every farmer's son and small tradesman would fall into their ranks. and the difficulty of convicting a poacher would be increased in the same proportion as their numbers increased, sheltered as they would be by the licenses to be granted. He declared that he looked upon field sports as a part of the political institutions of the country, which this bill would have a direct tendency to destroy. He could not approve of a law which went to alter the good old habits of the country, and induce gentlemen to sell that for a paltry consideration in money, which, as it was now disposed of, gave equal gratification to the donor and the receiver. He would therefore move, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time on the 1st of September next.

Lord Deerhurst
seconded the amendment. The bill, in his opinion, would increase the number of poachers by as many as there were idle men to be found in each parish in the country. He insisted strongly on the policy of encouraging country gentlemen to live on their estates, by securing to them the amusements to which they were accustomed. Legalizing the sale would have the effect of destroying the game. He would, therefore, resist the bill upon that principle, though he was willing to vote for the correction of the game laws in any salutary way.

§ Mr. W. Peel
objected to the bill, which, if passed into a law, would confine the possession of game to persons occupying large tracts of country.

§ Mr. Poyntz
said, he could not agree with those who thought that the passing of the bill would decrease the quantity of game or increase the number of poachers. The offence of poaching had been carried to a great extent of late years, in consequence of the miserable pittance which labourers had been accustomed to receive for their labour. That class of persons had preferred poaching to being employed for a few shillings a week in breaking stones oh the highways. One reason which would induce him to vote for the present bill, was the severity, he might say the unconstitutional severity, of the existing game laws, which rendered it, in many instances, impossible for magistrates to enforce them. He thought, also, that respectable tradesmen, who possessed the pecuniary means of regaling their friends 646 with game, should be invested with the legal right of so doing. Any change that might be made in the law as it stood at present, must be for the better.

§ Mr. S. Whitbread
was convinced that the laws respecting game required to be amended. He saw that the offence of poaching had grown with the growth arid strengthened with the strength of these very Jaws which were enacted with the intention, of suppressing it. Those laws, under their present severity, were a disgrace to the national character, and a great cause of the demoralization of the poorer classes.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, he concurred' in what had fallen from his hon. Friend who spoke last, and from the hon. member for Chichester, respecting the system of the game laws. He felt as strongly as they possibly could do not only disapprobation, but an abhorrence, of that system and its principles—if any thing in itself so unprincipled could be said to have any. Any thing which was calculated-to mitigate gate the evils of that system he would hail with the greatest satisfaction, But a specific measure being here proposed for his adoption, he was bound, in the first instance, to inquire—agreeing as he did in all that had been said in reprobation of the old system—whether that which was intended as a substitute for that system was likely to produce the effect which was expected therefrom. Nevertheless, when he looked at the bill, however might approve of the principle on which it proceeded, and whatever Credit for humanity he might give to the noble lord who had brought it forward, he could see nothing in it which entitled it even to the benefit of a doubt in his mind, as to whether he should support it or not. Did gentlemen know what they were about to give their approbation to? Did they know what the bill was Were any persons led away by the cry of "we are about to abolish the game laws" If such there were, to them he would say, that they would not abolish the game laws by passing this bill. They were, indeed, about to preserve the worst parts of the system. Some gentlemen, perhaps, were led away by the cry of "let us legalize the sale of game" But would that be done by the bill? No such thing. He would tell those who were so anxious that the bill should pass, what they were about blindfold to give their sanction to. On of the objections to the present system of game 647 laws, and a most just one he considered it, was the monopoly which they gave to landholders, to the exclusion of those who were not landholders or proprietors of freeholds to the value of 100l., or leaseholders to the value of 150l. per annum. The bill before the House maintained the land-owners in possession of all their former monopolies, and gave them a new one in addition; by declaring that they alone should have the right to sell game. It was not enough that they alone should be allowed to kill game, but it must be proposed to make them also the exclusive traffickers in it. Were magistrates at present too much divested of power and patronage? Those who thought so, would do right to vote for the present bill; for it would increase the patronage of justices of the peace. It provided, that no person should buy a single head of game, unless he obtained a license from a magistrate at petty sessions. That was one of the greatest objections to the measure in his mind. If another bill should be brought in to legalize the sale of game, by making it private property absolutely, and declaring every man to be the owner of the game which was bred and nurtured on his own ground, he should know how to deal with it. Such a bill might be liable to objection on many grounds; but it at least would be free from the objection which he had to the present measure; namely, that it was inconsistent with its own principles. Being of opinion that the bill under the consideration of the House was radically defective, fundamentally improper, and inconsistent with itself, he felt himself bound—opposing still the present system of the game laws—to vote against it.

Mr. S. Wortley
expressed himself anxious that some change should be made in the game laws, the first step to which was to legalise the selling of game. No man could doubt but that the markets were abundantly supplied at present; and the effect of the existing law was, to throw that supply into the hands of poachers. He did not mean to contend that poaching would be put an end to by the measure before the House, or by any measure that could be devised; but it was reasonable to expect, that as the risk increased, and the temptation diminished, poaching would diminish also. As to the qualification to kill game, the sooner it was placed upon the system which prevailed in Scotland the better it would be for the country.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was an advocate for the present measure, though he would allow that he was originally prepossessed against it. He did not imagine that the power of granting licenses for retailing game was given to magistrates for the purpose of patronage, but in only because there were no other, persons in whose hands that power could be so fitly placed. The introduction of the legal proprietor into the market, would pro tanto have the effect of preventing the illegal sale of game For these reasons he should support the bill; not as the best measure that could be devised, but because it went some way towards correcting the defects of the present system.

§ Mr. Tennyson
supported the amendment in a speech which was inaudible in the gallery, in consequence of the impatience in the House for the question.

Sir T. Ackland
rose amidst incessant cries of "question." He expressed his' g sorrow, that the learned member for winchelsea could not give his support to this bill. He trusted, however, that the learned gentleman would not oppose the measure at its present stage, but would wait to see its details after it came from the committee. If he did not then approve of the bill, he could reject it oh the third reading. The existing laws were so: bad, that if the house allowed them to continue for another twelve months, it would be giving its sanction to a system of crime and bloodshed.