GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 23 March 1824)

§ Mr. James

rose to present a petition from Mr. William Cobbett, against this bill. The hon. member observed, that this new Game bill made a species of property of a vast variety of wild fowl, which were never before considered to be property. The hon. member for Yorkshire seemed to have omitted scarcely a single bird except the wild goose; which it was to be presumed he had left out from reverence to the immortal Shakspeare, who had said, that "the wild goose soars aloft, unclaimed of any man." The petitioner prayed, not only that the pending bill might be repealed, but that the House might be radically reformed.

The petition was then read, setting forth, "That there is in the county of Sussex, a chain of land called forests, extending, with scarcely any interruption, from the neighbourhood or Rye, on the borders of Kent, to that of Petersfield in Hampshire; that these forests, which thus run the whole length of the county, are upon an average equal in width to a third part of the county; that the farms on the borders or in the interior parts of these forests, consist on an average of about one sixth part of arable and meadow land, two sixth parts of underwood, and three sixth parts of heath and scrubby coppice, generally called forest land; that these farms are in general rented by men of moderate pecuniary means, who mix with their farming, charcoal-making, hoop-making, and the like; that a large portion of the produce of these farms consists of rabbits, which abound exceedingly throughout the whole of these forests; that it is the practice of 1330 these farmers to have a number of rabbit traps constantly set on their farms; that the rabbits yield a considerable part, perhaps a full third, of all the meat expended in the farm-houses in that part of England; that, besides this the farmer looks to the rabbits which he sells to the higglers, who supply the London markets, for a part of the means of paying his rent, tythe, and taxes; that when a farm is taken in these parts the tenant counts much more upon rabbits than he does upon sheep, and that without full power to take, kill, and consume, or sell the rabbits, and to use nets and traps, in order to catch them, no man can pay either rent or rates upon one of these farms, and indeed cannot live upon it at all, seeing, that unless the rabbits be kept down, no corn or underwoods can be grown; that a bill now before the House will, if it become a law, totally ruin this whole body of farmers; that that bill purposes to violate all existing leases; that it proposes to take from these farmers and to give to the landlord, the right to kill and use and sell the rabbits; that in Cases when the ownership of the land is in the occupier, he must nevertheless be ruined unless he be a man of great estate, seeing that none can use nets or traps but a gamekeeper, seeing that none but men of great estate are to have power to appoint gamekeepers, and seeing that unless the farmer can freely use nets and traps to catch rabbits, his land in the parts above-mentioned must be overrun, and he can grow no corn, no underwood, and cannot turn the rabbits to account; that the petitioner's reluctance to take up any portion of the precious time of the House would naturally suggest to him, that it is impossible for such a bill to pass, but that experience has taught the humble petitioner to listen with great caution to such suggestions, and that, besides, he can see no reason to conclude that a bill, which has been not only received but read a second time by the House, may not also be passed by that same House; that the petitioner therefore prays, that the House will not pass the aforesaid bill, and that believing, as he sincerely does that a bill so unjust and revolutionary never could have been presented to a reformed House of Commons, he most humbly prays, that the House may be speedily and radically reformed."