Commons Sitting of 28 March 1827

GAME-LAWS.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he had to present a petition from a most respectable portion of the inhabitants of Wolverhampton, praying for an alteration of the Game-laws. The petitioners stated, that they paid very heavy poor-rates, a portion of which went towards the support of poachers in prison. Now, the petitioners said, that such portion of their rates ought not to be so expended, since they had a right to buy game. The hon. member said, that, in a former parliament, he had given his support to a measure, having for its purport, an alteration of the Game-laws; and he now wished to see those laws altered, as he thought much good would accrue to society from a judicious alteration of those laws, which, in their present shape, were so injurious to it. He could not, however, agree with the petitioners, when they said, that poachers were the victims of those laws. He did not think so; and he would not vote for any alteration of them, which would not give protection to landed proprietors for the preservation of the game on their grounds. The landed proprietor had as good a right to have the game on his land protected, as the merchant had to have his wares protected.
Sir J. Sebrightconcurred with his hon. friend in the necessity of protecting the landowner; but he also concurred with the petitioners in terming the persons imprisoned in consequence of the Game-laws, the victims of those laws. They were the
118
victims of that provision which prevented game from being brought to market like other articles. This provision held out a temptation to the poorer classes which they were unable to resist. He appealed to the honourable members who were magistrates, whether the evil attendant on the present Game-laws was not a greatly-increasing one, and whether it had not arrived at a height that required legislative interference?
Sir C. Burrellsaid, that the persons who were imprisoned for offences against the Game-laws were victims, not of those laws, but of their own imprudence in violating them. He agreed with the hon. member for Staffordshire, in the necessity of preserving the game. With respect to the alleged hardship suffered by the tenants in not being allowed to kill game on the land which they occupied, it ought to be recollected, that when they obtained their leases, they were aware of that circumstance.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, it could not be denied but that those laws tended to the demoralization of the people. He would state to the House a fact, which had come within his own personal knowledge. In one of the prisons in Wiltshire, there were lately confined no less than two hundred and thirty prisoners. Now, the House would be surprised to hear, that out of that number, one hundred were incarcerated for breaches of the Game-laws. The House, knowing that fact, must, he thought, see the necessity of altering those laws.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, he agreed in the prayer of the petition; and, after the statement which the House had just heard from the hon. member for the University of Oxford, they could not, he thought, defer any longer the devising of some measure, to check the evils of laws which assumed such an enormous magnitude. Something should be done; and he thought the first step ought to be the repealing of the laws which prevented the sale of game. A bill had been introduced into that House, about three years ago, by an hon. member, now a member of the other House. It contained a provision to legalize the sale of game; but there was so much other matter mixed up with it, that he could not approve of all the provisions of the bill. He thought that if the hon. member who spoke last would bring in a bill to legalize the sale of game, disencumbered of the objectionable provisions of the

119
bill he had alluded to, it would meet with the support of the House.
Mr. Littletonsaid, he must dissent from the opinion of his hon. colleague. He thought that making game saleable would be the reverse of an improvement of the Game-laws.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he thought it desirable to try the experiment by a partial operation, and to ascertain the effect of making game a saleable commodity. He was far from meaning to say, that if game were made saleable, the Game-laws ought to continue in their present state. He had long felt that a change had taken place in society, which absolutely required that those laws should be revised, and placed upon a different foundation. He had no wish to interfere with the privileges of private property. The owners of estates, and of game preserves, would naturally defend their rights. All that was desirable was, not to withdraw the protection from game, but to put the Game-laws upon a better and more practicable foundation. At present, the sale of game was confined to poachers, and it was desirable to let the owners of game come in competition with them. In Scotland, the laws relative to game were of a much better description than those of England. As to an alteration of the laws now in force in England, it appeared to him an easy matter. It could not be difficult to legislate in such a way, that persons who were now entitled to kill game should have an advantage over those who had not such a description of property; but in doing this, he should certainly wish that the qualified person should not have the exclusive privilege of selling game. He wished, too, that something might be done to withdraw the ground of quarrel which frequently took place between the small and the large landed proprietors residing in the same neighbourhood. He did not at all enter into the fears of those who thought that if the right of shooting was extended, the Man of three acres would materially diminish the game of his neighbour possessing three thousand. On the contrary, a compromise would generally take place, in which the person of such small property would be glad, for a trifling sum, to agree not to shoot at all. To say that the man whose few acres contributed to the food of the game, should not have the privilege of killing the very birds that devoured the produce of his field was monstrous. Gen-
120
tlemen would find it perfectly fruitless to attempt to continue their laws in their present state. Such was the altered condition of society, that those laws could not remain ten years without material modifications.
Ordered to lie on the table.