§ On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House went into a Committee on the Game Laws Amendment Bill. As it was late in the season, he said, and as he wished to try the experiment of the Bill as early as possible, he should propose that the Act come into operation twenty days after it had passed.
The Marquis of Chandosthought it would be better to delay the operation of the Bill until the commencement of the new year, rather than propose an indefinite time. He would, therefore, suggest, it should come into operation on the 1st of January next.
§ Lord Althorphad many objections to this Amendment. There were four months between the commencement of the shooting season and Christmas, and as he considered the measure likely to be very beneficial, he wished to derive all the advantages possible from it.
§ Colonel Sibthorpthought, the Bill could not be understood in the short time that was proposed to be allowed for its discussion. It would be much better to have it thoroughly understood before it was to be acted upon.
Sir Thomas Fremantleobserved, that the Bill, as it stood, might, in some cases, enable the tenant to prevent his landlord from shooting over his own land, and further time should be, therefore, allowed to obviate this inconvenience.
§ Mr. Portmanwished the Bill to come into operation immediately after it was passed. He had not the least doubt that some of its clauses would be immediately acted upon, and therefore, great inconvenience would result from the proposition of the noble Marquis. He should even object to the delay of twenty days proposed by the noble Lord.
The Marquis of Chandosdid not wish to press his proposition, against the sense of the House; but he considered it most desirable that a longer delay than was proposed should be allowed.
An Hon. Memberconsidered the proposition of the noble Marquis most objectionable; the great season for poaching and selling game was at Christmas. He hoped this Bill would come into operation before that period and prevent the usual mischief.
§ Mr. Huntcould not agree with the hon. Member, for he knew that thousands of pheasants were sent to Leadenhall Market before the 1st of October. There were many objectionable clauses in the Bill, and he feared it would increase poaching and bloodshed.
§ Mr. Wrightsonhoped the Bill would be carried into effect without any delay, as he anticipated the best effects from it.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it would be much better if such an Act came first into operation at the beginning of the shooting season, rather than at the middle or end of it. The hon. Member had stated, that the new law would be partly acted upon as soon as passed, but that could not be the case. Magistrates had no discretion, but must administer the laws as they existed. They 941 could not punish under the new law until the old was repealed. He therefore hoped that no doubt would be left as to the time when the Act was to come into operation.
The Marquis of Chandoshad no other object in view but to make the Bill as perfect as possible. He did not approve of all the clauses, but he highly approved of the principle of reforming the Game-laws.
§ Mr. Protheroethought it was absurd, after they had agreed to abolish the present laws, to propose to continue them in operation some time longer.
Mr. Wasonwas desirous of knowing, whether this Bill was to extend to Scotland. No lawyer could tell what was the qualification there. It was stated to be a ploughgate of land, but no two men agreed what that quantity was.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleyentertained great objections to the present system, and was desirous of an alteration as soon as possible. If the Bill came into operation twenty days after receiving the royal assent, it might be available for three months during the present season. He indeed wished, that the Bill should come into operation on the 1st of September, rather than the 1st of January. Many laws were carried into effect within a few days of their passing. Poaching was at present carried to such an extent, that a friend of his had received notice, that a caravan of Moor-game would be in town at a particular day, when he might have any quantity he required.
Mr. Goulburnthought, that a Bill which contained so many enactments should have a day fixed for coming into operation some months after it was passed. There were distant parts of the country where it could not be known, much less understood in twenty days.
§ Lord Althorpcould not agree to the Motion for postponing the commencement of the Act. He had no doubt that it would be soon generally known, and doubts as to the construction of the clauses would not be remedied by delaying its operations.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, that many Gentlemen, unless they had reserved their right, would be placed in the awkward situation of being liable to an action for trespass by their tenantry, according to the letter of this Bill. On this ground alone further time should be allowed to examine it.
§ Mr. Weylandtrusted, that every endeavour would be resorted to to make the Bill generally known to the agriculturists, that it might be brought into effect. He had no doubt that an end would be put to poaching by its operation.
Mr. Wasondesired to be informed, if the Bill was to extend to Wales. There was a doubt also at present, whether the proprietors had a right to sport over their own manors. In Merionethshire the game-preservers had commenced a suit on the part of the Crown, to put a stop to all sporting unless with their permission.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the right was undoubtedly vested in the Crown.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that was doubtful, and the alleged right was contested particularly on the extensive sheep-walks.
Mr. George Lambwas not aware of the state of the case to which the hon. Member alluded, but this Bill could not disturb or control the rights of sporting settled in a Court of Justice. It would not alter in the least degree the mutual rights of landlords and tenants. He saw no reason why the Bill should not come into operation at the time proposed. The details would be immediately known, and would be commented upon by the newspapers.
§ The Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ The Chairman having put the clause, proposing that a penalty, not exceeding 5l., should be inflicted for selling game on Sunday or Christmas day,
§ Lord Althorpproposed as an Amendment, taking into consideration the magnitude of the offence, to make this penalty 10l.
§ Colonel Sibthorpvery much approved of the alteration, and would suggest, that for using snares, the penalty for the first offence should be 5l., to be increased for subsequent offences by an additional fine, imprisonment, or transportation.
§ Mr. Portmanwished it to be remembered, that if the provisions of the Act were framed to award long and severe punishments, the county rates would be materially increased thereby.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Lord Miltonproposed an Amendment, to the effect of extending the penalty to game killed in the public roads "or highway." He did not see why game should be pursued in high roads more than in other places, and high roads frequently ran through open fields, commons, and even through preserves.
§ Mr. Huntmust observe, in respect to that part of the clause relating to tracing hares in the snow, that he had never known a man convicted for that merely, nor did he believe, when gentlemen coursed hares in the snow, they were liable to punishment.
Mr. Wasonpresumed it was well known that game, particularly grouse, frequently resorted to highways.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the clause, "that nothing in this Act contained shall in anywise affect or alter, except as hereinafter mentioned, the existing laws respecting game certificates,"
§ Mr. Ridley Colbornesuggested, that the revenue arising from the duty on game certificates should be farmed out to individuals, instead of being collected as it was at present. Private vigilance and interest would be more likely to discover and enforce penalties. Of those gentlemen who now sported, not one out of a thousand took out game certificates, and they were never suspected, while poor persons were severely punished. He spoke from his own knowledge in many instances, and he believed there were some parts of the country where, in very large districts, not more than four or five persons took out certificates.
Mr. Goulburnthought the hon. Member very unfortunate in those he met when he went out sporting. He (Mr. Goulburn) sometimes went out with a large party, and he found they had generally taken the precaution of providing themselves with certificates. He was sensible, from experience, of the inconvenience of farming the post-horse duty, and therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would not be adopted.
The Marquis of Chandosbelieved, that it did, unfortunately, happen, that many rich persons were in the habit of sporting without certificates. There was a great difficulty in remedying the evil; but he thought that some remedy would be afforded if all certificates were granted previous to the 1st of September.
§ Lord Althorpwas aware of the difficulty now pointed out, and had taken great pains in endeavouring to frame a clause to meet it. He could not say, however, that he had been successful. Gentlemen sometimes took out their certificates in London, and then went down to a distant county, and no one knew whether they 944 had certificates or not. To oblige persons to take out certificates before the 1st of September, he found, would not remedy the evil, and it would, he feared, injure the revenue.
§ Mr. Hunthoped the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not listen to the recommendation to farm the game-certificate duty. The jealousy of the country gentlemen was, in his opinion, a sufficient security against persons sporting without a certificate. Such persons were always liable to be pointed out to the tax-gatherer.
Lord Miltonwas satisfied, that a great number of persons of all ranks sported without certificates. He wished very much that a heavier penalty could be levied on the gentleman, than on the person in a lower rank of life, who was guilty of sporting without a certificate. It was a much greater crime in the rich man than in the poor; although he did not well see how any distinction could be made in the amount of the penalty. Perhaps the difficulty pointed out by his noble friend (Lord Althorp) might be remedied if persons sporting in a county different from that in which they had taken out their certificates were obliged to renew them.
§ Mr. Trevorsaid, that any poacher could be punished for want of a qualification, and penalties amounting to more than 30l. could be imposed upon him for snaring one hare, while a gentleman was only liable to a penalty of 20l. for shooting without a certificate. Such a penalty was not adequate to his offence.
The Marquis of Chandoswas also of opinion, that the penalty of 20l. was not sufficient for the gentleman who sported without a certificate, considering the heavy penalties and punishment to which the unfortunate poacher was liable.
§ Mr. Horatio Rosssuggested, that certificates taken out after the 1st of September should be charged higher, say 5l., than those taken out previously.
Mr. Goulburnfeared, that such a regulation would be injurious to the revenue. Gentlemen who forgot to take out their certificates previous to the 1st of September, would not be induced to do so afterwards, by finding that they had to pay 5l. instead of 3l. 13s. 6d.
§ Mr. John Martinobserved, that the great hardship of certificates was on those who only went out shooting two or three days in a year. He wished the certificate 945 duty could be made lower for this class of persons.
§ Mr. Huntthought it would be injurious to the revenue, if the suggestion, as to taking out certificates before the 1st of September, were adopted. He had omitted, himself, to take one out previous to that time.
Mr. Pagetexpressed a hope that the noble Lord would not add to the amount of the penalties in his Bill, or encumber it with unnecessary clauses.
§ The clause agreed to.
§ Upon the clause reserving existing rights of Lords of Manors, and others to preserve and pursue game,
Mr. Goulburninquired, merely for information, what would be the situation of the Lord of a Manor under this Bill, if the tenant did not choose to permit him to sport over his lands? He apprehended that the tenant might arrest him immediately, and take him before a Justice of the Peace.
§ Lord Althorpreplied, that the Bill would make no difference whatever in the present rights of Lords of Manors. No man could be arrested immediately under the Bill, unless he refused to quit the lands of another, after he was desired so to do, and Lords of Manors were left in the same situation as all other persons. No Lord of a Manor could shoot now over lands, except by permission of the owner, unless he had reserved the right.
§ Mr. Hunthad a great objection to this clause, not as it affected Lords of Manors, but as it affected the farmer. In existing leases, the landlord reserved the right of shooting over the lands for himself and his friends. Under this Bill, however, he was empowered to transfer the right to kill game to others who would make a market of it. Now the landlord, he conceived, might encourage game to an extent very injurious to the interest of his tenant, and as a new power was to be given to the landlord, to transfer to a third person the right to kill game, some corresponding protection should be given to the farmer. He ought not to be left liable to the caprice or cupidity of his landlord.
§ Lord Althorpadmitted, that the law would empower the landlord to transfer his rights to a third person, and that he might insist on the preservation of game to an extent injurious to the tenant; but to suffer this was much less unjust 946 than to deprive the landlord of the power of preserving his own game, which was the only remedy. A landlord might take an unfair advantage during the continuance of an existing lease; but this was a much smaller evil than to deprive the landlord of the right he now possessed.
§ Mr. Hunthad not said it would be altogether proper to deprive the landlord of the power he possessed, and yet he thought some protection ought to be given to the farmer. Suppose the case of a long lease in which the landlord had reserved to himself the right of sporting. They were now about to enable him to dispose of this right to a third person, who might exercise it most injuriously to the tenant.
§ Mr. Benettcould not perceive any weight in this objection. There was nothing in the clause to increase or diminish the rights of landlords. They could have nothing but what they covenanted for in the lease, and it would be unjust to deprive the landlords of their rights.
Mr. Wasonwas perfectly satisfied no practical grievance would arise. The landlord, and every person who had any title to the game, knew it was their interest to keep on good terms with the farmer. If they did not do this, there was but little chance of their finding much game.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it appeared to him, that the remarks of the hon. member for Preston had some force, which the hon. Gentleman who spoke last did not understand. He had said, while the game was not saleable, the landlord only preserved it for amusement; but as this Bill authorised the sale, it enabled landlords to transfer their interest, and gave persons a power to preserve game, who would do so for the purposes of making money by selling it.
Sir Charles Burrellwas of opinion, that the objection taken by the hon. member for Preston deserved consideration. At present, in the great majority of cases, game was preserved for amusement only, and was often distributed among neighbours and tenants. When this was the case, the farmer would not feel severely annoyed at the game being preserved; but if the game was preserved for the purpose of sale, or for exclusive enjoyment, it would necessarily be more offensive to the farmer, and likely to be more hurtful to his interests.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he knew the farmers' 947 feelings, for he had felt the evil himself, and he had no doubt the measure would be offensive to that class of persons. This would not be the case as concerned respectable landlords, who were liberal with their game, but where it would be made available as property, and sold. If that were not to take place, what would be the use of the Bill? Suppose a Gentleman possessed inclosures where game had been preserved, and transferred them to others, who would make the most of them, by selling the game. But, suppose that, adjacent to the preserves where the game bred, there was a tract of cultivated land, the tenant of which had no means of preventing the increase of the game, and, in proportion as that took place, his crops would suffer; would not that be an injury to this tenant? He had often been called upon to value the damage done in similar cases, which he had known amount to from 3l. to 8l. per acre. He admitted it was difficult to protect the tenant in such circumstances, without interfering with the rights of the landlord; but the latter ought to be compelled to make some arrangement.
Lord Miltonsaid, the only way by which this Could be done would be, to compel landlords to make new leases, which was wholly out of the question.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, whatever the force of the objection was, it did not apply to this particular clause. There was nothing in the clause which would permit the landlord to let his game, or gave him any peculiar authority
§ Mr. George Robinsonsaw the objection of the hon. member for Preston, but he did not well see how it was to be got rid of. It was perfectly clear, that the operation of the clause would let in a very different class of game-preservers, who might, and probably would, use their power, without any regard to the interests of the farmer.
The Attorney Generalsaid, he never saw a lease drawn out yet, but there was contained in it a clause to the effect that the landlord could not devise the game.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he would give the objection every consideration.
§ Mr. Benettsaid, that he could discover nothing in the clause which gave the landlord any additional power. He believed 948 there was no practical evil to be apprehended, and the remedy suggested would aggravate, rather than lessen, the mischief anticipated from the operation of the Bill.
§ The Clause agreed to.
§ The Clause empowering Lords of Manors to appoint gamekeepers was then read; part of which went to authorise gamekeepers to take and seize all dogs, nets, and other engines and instruments for the killing and taking of game, except guns, used by a person not authorised to kill game.
§ Colonel Sibthorpwished to be informed why guns were excepted.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the exception was introduced, in the hope of preventing those sanguinary encounters which had so often taken place between gamekeepers and poachers, by the former endeavouring to deprive the latter of their guns.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleywould most earnestly recommend, that the words "except guns" should be omitted. He was very much afraid, the clause, as it stood, would induce poachers to carry arms, and his noble friend's humane attempt to prevent bloodshed would only lead to regular battles.
§ Mr. Huntwas sure, the words were introduced with the very best intention, that of preventing those fatal conflicts which had so often taken place; and, perhaps, taking the Act as intended for an ameliorating Statute, it would be better, on that account, they should remain where they were.
§ Sir Matthew White Ridleywas quite satisfied, the effect of their remaining would be, to encourage the poacher to take this weapon in his hand; and as he could more effectually destroy game by it than by any other instrument, leaving the words would undoubtedly encourage poaching.
The Marquis of Chandosconsidered, that guns ought, by no means, to be excepted. It was well known, that air-guns were frequently used by poachers; and by the words of this Bill, no gamekeeper would be authorised to seize an air-gun, if he should see it in the hands of the poacher.
§ Lord Althorpwould agree to leave out the words "except guns."
§ The amended Clause agreed to.
§ On the Clause being read, "that no tenant possessing land under the annual value of 300l., (such land being together, or only separated by some road or water) should be permitted to appoint a gamekeeper for the preservation of game,"
949§ Mr. Ridley Colbornethought, the value of land was the worst criterion they could select, because inferior sorts of land often had more game than the best. It ought wholly to be left to the proprietors of land whether they would appoint gamekeepers or not.
§ Colonel Sibthorphad great objections to this clause, because small landholders being permitted to appoint gamekeepers, would most likely establish a nursery of poachers, who would be well acquainted with the places which were the favourite resorts of game. The words "some road or some water" were also very indefinite.
The Marquis of Chandossuggested, that it would be better that the resolution be confined to 300 acres, in preference to a yearly rental of 300l.
§ Lord Althorphad no objection to change the 300l. to 300 acres. As to the words "some road or water," which had been objected to, it was quite necessary some limitation to the appointment of gamekeepers should be placed; and it would be absurd to prevent a man who had 300 acres, nearly equally divided by a road or a stream, from appointing a gamekeeper.
§ Mr. Benettthought the clause unjust, as it took away a privilege from a person with a small estate, and conferred it on one who had a large property. Suppose a person possessing 250 acres of land was, from some cause, unable to sport, under this clause he would be prevented from appointing a gamekeeper, and lose the use and enjoyment of his game. In point of principle, a man with ever so small a quantity of land ought to have the same privileges or authority as the man with a large estate. This might be found inconvenient in practice, but the qualification of 300 acres was a great deal too large.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the clause did not prevent a person who owned a single acre of land from killing game. It merely deprived him of the power of appointing a gamekeeper, and transferring his authority to another. As the clause now stood, no person owning less than 300 acres could delegate his authority to a gamekeeper, a person to whom, for the purposes of this Act, some authority was given.
An Hon. Memberthought, the right should be granted, leaving the use of it to the option of the individual. They were about to make an invidious distinction between large and small proprietors, when no distinction ought to be made.
§ Mr. Benetthad no other object than to make game cheap, and prevent poaching.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, poaching would increase in proportion to the quantity of game. Diminish the number of preserves, and poaching would be stopped in a great degree. When game was generally distributed through the country, poaching was not so common, or game so easily taken. There ought to be some restriction to the appointment of keepers, and a tax might be raised upon them. He thought, an estate of 300 acres sufficiently small to authorise the proprietor to appoint such persons. The clause, if carried into effect, would increase game, and, consequently, increase the number of poachers.
Lord Miltonobjected to the clause entirely, because it would put the right of preserving game on a new footing, which would be injurious to the morals and feelings of the people. It would not be beneficial to have the land infested with gamekeepers. In many places, manors had become obsolete, and how were such persons to be appointed in those districts? No legislation would put down poaching while game increased. He did not see how they could form any general and satisfactory rule for regulating such appointments. He doubted whether the principle of making game property was a good one; but, although he disapproved of this clause, the Bill in general had his hearty concurrence.
§ Mr. Moretonwould not enter into the questions of morals and poaching, raised by the noble Lord, but simply rose to declare his opinion, that a man with fifty acres had just the same right, in principle, to appoint a gamekeeper, as a man with 5,000 acres, and he wholly disapproved of any distinctions being made.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, if every proprietor was allowed to appoint keepers, gun-making would be a thriving trade. Farmers would never become game-preservers, as game could not be bred in confined places, or so cheaply as poultry. It was in its nature to roam at large, and it cost as much to breed and feed a hare as a sheep. If the right to appoint gamekeepers was extended, the land would be overrun with them.
§ Lord Althorpthought some limit was necessary, and the amount of acres proposed was so reasonable, that he did not anticipate any evil from it. Certainly, no man in his senses, with less than 300 acres, would appoint keepers.
§ Mr. Benettsaid, a license-duty of half a guinea would be a sufficient protection on the appointment of keepers. They must take care to prevent the London dealers from keeping game for their own purposes.
Lord Miltonwas sure, if his hon. friend the member for Wiltshire, wished to give a receipt for the encouragement of poachers, he could have no better one than the present clause as it stood. He thought it an improper mode of legislation to give to men possessing the quantity of land named (not being a manor), the power of appointing a substitute to kill game, in the same way as was now permitted to the lord of the manor.
§ Mr. Curteisthought, every man had a right to appoint his own gamekeeper, or do what he liked with his own; and he therefore put it to the hon. member for Preston, if he desired to have this right limited?
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that he was endeavouring to make the best of the Bill, by bringing what little practical information he possessed to bear on it. He was not averse from gamekeepers, as had been supposed, but he would again declare there never would be an end of poaching so long as there were game preserves and gamekeepers. He wished to see the Bill made as serviceable as possible, but he did not anticipate such benefits from it as other hon. Gentlemen. He wished to see the farmer made the natural protector of the game produced on his ground. It was hopeless to believe that those conflicts would cease, which took place between the poacher and gamekeeper, so long as the present laws were permitted to remain on the Statute-book.
§ Mr. Briscoeconsidered it but reasonable that a man possessing 300 acres of land, should have the same power over his land to appoint a substitute as the lord of the manor enjoyed. He had never considered poaching as a great crime, and entertained objections to the whole principle of the Game-laws, but he wished to have the power of appointing a substitute to kill game, if he was unable to do so himself.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the object of the clause was, to enable the proprietor of small property to appoint a substitute to kill his game, and he saw nothing unreasonable in that proposition. He believed, that his noble friend was mistaken as to the effect 952 of the clause, for it would not encourage poaching, but tend to supply the market legally, as the dealers would prefer obtaining it by legal means to their present method.
Lord Miltonthought the effect of this Bill, like most others of late date, relating to landed property, would be, to take from the rights of the lords of the manor, under the pretence that they had become obsolete, and substitute for them those of the proprietor. The question before them was, whether it was advisable to transfer the rights of the former to persons owning 300 acres of land. It would, in his opinion, be more desirable that this right should remain as it was before. The whole effect of the clause would be most injurious, and he should, therefore, persevere in his opposition to it.
Mr. Maberlycould not coincide with the noble Lord who had just addressed the Committee. The noble Lord's doctrine was, not to give persons possessing 300 acres of land those rights with regard to game which the manorial owner had. He thought the clause perfectly free from objection, and he saw no reason why the owner of 100 acres, or even fifty acres, should not be entitled, on principle, to a similar privilege, although probably the limit that had been set was fair and proper.
§ Mr. Sanfordsaid, that the powers of gamekeepers were already very extensive, and he should object to the appointment of gamekeepers upon small property, in the way prescribed by the clause.
§ Mr. Huntwas still of opinion, that the clause was highly objectionable. The noble Lord complained of a man being endowed with manorial rights who only possessed 300 acres of land now he did not so much object to that as to give him the power to appoint gamekeepers to seize guns, dogs, nets, &c. Such a power would be the means of causing thousands of people to kill game, who might be much more usefully employed.
Mr. Maberlywas well aware that great objections existed to the appointment of game-keepers, but it was impossible to preserve game, unless authority was confided to some individual.
§ Mr. Westerndid not wish to extend the powers of game-keepers. The object of the Bill was to afford all classes equal protection, and to abolish some of the obnoxious regulations which at present pervaded the whole system. He thought that 953 the owner of 200 or 300 acres of land ought to be protected from trespass, but he would not invest him with the power of seizing dogs, guns, or nets.
Lord Miltonsaid, his objection was not confined to the taking away from the lord of the manor the right he now enjoyed, but it also extended to the appointment of gamekeepers and the extension of the operation of the Game-laws, over tracts of land, where rights derived from them were now obsolete. There was another point of view in which the case ought to be considered. They knew how much ill-will and jealousy existed with respect to game, even among the higher ranks, and on that account, any legislative measure which had for its object the preservation of game should respect the rights of large proprietors. If such rights were much extended, that would probably tend to destroy the good feeling which prevailed among the middle classes, and engender the same heart-burnings and ill-will as now existed in those above them. Suppose, for example, five individuals had 1,500 acres of land lying together; those persons would most likely be set completely at variance by the power given by this clause.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that the clause was more likely to prevent than cause ill-will, but he would not press it.
§ Question negatived.
§ On the clause authorizing Magistrates at Quarter Sessions to license dealers in Game,
Sir Charles Burrellbegged to suggest the propriety of inserting a clause to prevent licensed victuallers, and retail dealers in beer, from selling game, as he feared, if they had that privilege, it would tend to promote disorder on their premises.
§ Lord Althorpcould not conceive that granting licenses to beer-shops would make them more disorderly than they were at present. His opinion was, that it would have quite a contrary effect because granting the license, was wholly at the discretion of the Magistrates, and it would always be in their power to take away the advantage, the beer-seller might derive from it. The Magistrates therefore would have a stronger hold over this class of persons than they at present possessed. The magistrates no doubt, would take care that licenses should only be granted to proper persons, whose interest it would be to prevent poaching as far possible.
§ Lord John Beresfordregretted that he differed from the noble Lord, for he conceived if licenses were granted at all, giving them to beer-sellers would be a most mischievous proceeding. He was also quite satisfied from experience, that much discontent would be excited, and much odium cast upon the Magistrates, in consequence of this discretionary power of licensing.
§ Mr. Huntwould grant no licenses at all, or at least not leave them to the discretion of the Magistrates. First, they granted licenses for persons to preserve game, second they licensed persons to kill it, and now thirdly, they would license persons to sell it. There was no possible occasion for all these complicated proceedings. If there was any class of persons to whom licenses ought not to be granted, except them at once. The consequence of allowing the Magistrates to issue licenses would be, there would be no uniform principle followed. In one place, one class of persons would be excluded, and in another, the same class would have licenses. The Magistrates would have a most difficult and responsible duty to perform, which would subject them to great odium, as had been observed by the noble Lord who spoke last.
§ Mr. Westernhad great objections to allowing the keepers of beer-houses to have licenses, and still stronger objections to allow uncontrolled power to Magistrates to license whom they pleased to sell game.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, that he also had great objections to vesting this power in Magistrates. It would be better, if possible, to prevent them from interfering, but the changes now proposed were such as would not have been listened to two or three years ago. The House, on this account, was bound to provide the greatest possible safe-guards, and they must give the Magistrates some authority, although they should endeavour, by all means, to prevent their using it capriciously, or give a license to a person to sell game one day, who the next might take out a license to sell beer. A strong temptation to take game unlawfully, would exist when a man could run up a score at a beer-shop, and pay it with game. The great object ought to be, to make it the interest of the persons licensed to sell game, to obtain game from lawful sources. And the best security for this would be, to except such persons as beer-sellers from 955 the privilege. Another class of persons also whom he wished to have excepted, was, coachmen, guards, and drivers of vans; he should therefore propose, that words be inserted in the clause to exclude from licenses all inns, and tavern-keepers, victuallers, coachmen, guards, drivers of caravans and such conveyances, and all higglers or any one in the employment of such persons.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the object of the machinery of the Bill was, to make the law less objectionable. He disliked the whole of it, and hoped to see the day when they could dispense with such precautions; but as many gentlemen felt alarmed at the change proposed, he felt disposed to introduce all the safe-guards they wished for. He had, therefore no objection to exclude coachmen and guards, but he thought the other provisions of the Bill would render this change unnecessary, as all these persons would be capable of selling only at their own houses; the dealers might travel about to purchase it, but could only sell it at home. There were penalties for licensed dealers purchasing from any person who had not a license to kill, and for the licensed game-killer selling game to an unlicensed dealer. He therefore saw no necessity for this amendment. At present coachmen dealt with poachers, because the law as it at present stood, prevented them from obtaining game from other persons; to exclude them from dealing legally was to tempt them to evade or break the law.
§ Mr. Charles Rosssaid, it was because higglers and such persons would be able to collect game illegally obtained, which they might afterwards dispose of legally, that it was proposed to except them. They might travel about, and collect game from the poachers, and sell it only at their own residence, according to law.
An Hon. Memberbegged to suggest the propriety of persons requiring licenses giving security to the amount of 25l., to comply with the terms of the Act.
§ Mr. Benettpreferred prohibiting beer-shops altogether, and that as little discretion as possible should be intrusted to Magistrates. The line they were to go upon, should be plainly chalked out. He knew many gentlemen who were deterred from acting as Magistrates, on account of the obloquy they were exposed to, by the discretionary powers invested in them.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, coachmen, 956 guards, and such persons, who were constantly travelling through the country, would easily form connexions, and furnish supplies to the dealers. If the object, therefore, was to encourage legal dealers, such illegal dealers as these ought to be checked. The House ought, if possible, to make it the legal dealer's interest to obtain his supplies from the game-owner directly, but the latter would be supplanted, if persons constantly travelling through the country, and with great facilities to form connexions, were allowed to obtain game from poachers. He therefore approved of the amendment, although he was not very sanguine in his expectations that the Bill would prevent poaching.
Mr. Warburtonhad come to a different conclusion. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to consider that guards and coachmen derived a facility for carrying on this trade with poachers. If those parties, therefore, were deprived of the power of dealing legally, the Bill would be a dead letter. The same method of reasoning applied to publicans and victuallers. The argument was, they would exchange game for beer; would any Gentleman prevent a greengrocer having a beer-shop, because his gardener might barter some of his produce for beer?
An Hon. Memberthought it was necessary for guards, coachmen, and others in similar circumstances, to have licenses, or how could the game be brought to market?
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he could see no reason why persons requiring game licenses could not obtain them from the Excise Office, as well as beer licenses. He knew the difficulty of objecting to power being placed in the hands of Magistrates, in an assembly chiefly composed of such persons. He knew, also, that they were not in general fond of beer-shops, and feared they would be receptacles for poachers; but in France, where half the houses were licensed to sell liquors, there were no masses of people collected, nor any drunkenness, and game was double the price at Paris, to what it was at Leadenhall. Game was scarce in France; there were no preserves there, which proved, that making game private property would not preserve it, The farmers preferred corn to game. It did not look well that Magistrates who were landlords, and game-preservers, should also have the absolute power to license those who were to sell and retail it. He hoped the noble Lord would find some method to avoid 957 throwing this responsibility upon them, and would find other means to prevent poaching.
Mr. Pagethoped that granting the license would be made imperative, for if a respectable housekeeper applied for a license, it ought not to be refused.
§ Lord Althorpwould accede to the proposition of the hon. Baronet.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On the clause being read, inflicting a penalty on persons killing game without a certificate, and the question put, that the blank be filled up with 5l.,
§ Colonel Sibthorpthought, that a repetition of crime should cause an increase of punishment. Instead, therefore, of three months' imprisonment for a third offence, he would propose six months, and for a fourth, seven years' transportation.
§ Lord Althorpthought, that as an unqualified person was liable to a penalty for being without a license, as well as to an action of trespass, that the addition of any further punishment would be disproportioned to the offence.
Mr. Warburtonthought the punishments in the clause too severe, and if any one would propose their omission, he would second him.
§ The clause agreed to.
§ On the clause proposing a penalty of 5l. on any person buying game, except of a licensed dealer, being put,
§ Mr. Briscoesaid, they had just imposed, in a preceding clause, a penalty of 40s. only on any except licensed persons selling game, and he thought, no higher penalty should be imposed on the purchaser, than on the seller.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, purchasers must commit this offence with their eyes open, and would wilfully attempt to violate the law; for a licensed dealer could only sell game at his own residence, having a sign on the front of his house, to show that he was a licensed dealer.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, this clause appeared to prevent a gentleman or other person having a right to kill game, from selling it. If purchasers could obtain their game only from licensed dealers, no others could sell it.
§ Mr. Benettobserved, any person having a certificate might sell game.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that Magistrates were to have the power of determining the number of houses to be licensed to sell game, which would give the dealers a kind of monopoly, and enhance the price. He therefore thought some regulations as to the maximum price to be charged, as in the case of fares of coaches and boats, should be introduced into the Bill.
§ The clause agreed to.
Mr. John Stanleyproposed that "rabbits, woodcocks, snipes, quails, landrails, and conies, should be introduced into the clause, and be considered in all respects as game."
§ Colonel Sibthorpwished the landrail to be omitted, as the pursuit of this bird was often permitted to persons not otherwise authorized to kill game.
§ Mr. Huntthought the hon. Member must be mistaken, and meant the water-rail, not the landrail, which was more like game than several other species which were included.
§ Mr. Curteisagreed with the hon. member for Preston.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ On the clause being read, imposing a penalty of 40s. on a person trespassing in pursuit of game,
Lord Newarksaid, this penalty would not be sufficient to deter a man from sporting on other people's grounds. He might destroy more game than would pay the penalty, and still leave him a handsome profit, unless he was also compelled to forfeit the game.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, other clauses would prevent the evil apprehended by the noble Lord.
Mr. Pagetwas surprised that rabbits had been considered as game. They were very mischievous little animals, and ought not to be taken under the protection of the Legislature.
§ Lord Althorpthought, if they had not been introduced into the clause, many persons would destroy game, under the pretence of taking rabbits. If they were pernicious, the owner of the land could destroy them.
§ Mr. Farrandwas much afraid property could not be secured, unless a larger penalty was allotted for trespassing. He had been a Magistrate for several years, and knowing the evils of the present system of Game-laws, he had been anxious to correct them, and he feared that this Bill would not accomplish that object.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the clause certainly increased the security, for at present there was no penalty for trespassing.
Mr. Goulburnthought it was fair and right, that a trespasser having game in his possession, should be deprived of it.
Lord Newarkwished, that a penalty of so much per head on the game found in the possession of a trespasser, should be imposed. He should be ready to assent to any proposal to prevent such a person killing game, selling it, and by the produce paying the penalty.
§ Colonel Sibthorpwould be very happy to join in any such amendment.
Mr. John Stanleythought 40s. as good as 5l. in this case, for excessive penalties were seldom levied, and on that account were useless.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, if the violator of the law, could make a profit after paying the penalty, the object of the clause would be wholly defeated. He remained, therefore, of opinion, that the trespasser ought to be deprived of the game he had taken. He fully agreed in the opinion, that excessive penalties were bad, but they most assuredly ought to be sufficient to cause some punishment to the offender, instead of a chance of profit.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, if a man was to be deprived of the game found upon him, any gentleman who, in the ardour of pursuit, had followed his game into an adjacent field, where he might not be strictly authorized to go, would also be subject to the same deprivation.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, the penalty to be exacted should bear some proportion to the market price of the game at the time the offence was committed.
§ Lord Ebringtonwas also of this opinion, that the penalty should be judged by the value of the game found in the possession of the trespasser.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyknew many poachers who, he believed, with the chances of frequent escape, afforded by the nature of the business, would, though detected occasionally, be able to pay the proposed penalty, and get a handsome living into the bargain.
§ Mr. Briscoewould substitute the words "if found in possession of game," and make the penalty for that offence 5l., but for trespassing without having game in possession, the penalty should be 40s.
§ Mr. Gisbornesaid, if they were to do that, they must first define who was to be 960 considered a trespasser, and there must be authority given to make him declare his name and residence, otherwise, there would be no possibility of recovering the penalty unless he was followed until he was housed or could be discovered by other means.
Lord George Bentincksaid, it was provided by another clause, that an uncertified person was liable to a penalty of 5l. for every head of game in his possession.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On a clause being proposed, which imposed a penalty of 5l. on trespassers not quitting the land when required, and authorizing them to be arrested by the party so requiring, on their refusal to give their real names and address,
§ Mr. Huntsaid, that the clause was open to very great objections. How could the challenger know whether he received a correct name and address? besides, it was a dangerous power to be given to game-keepers or others, to authorize them to arrest men with guns in their hands. Even though they refused to declare who and what they were, the power of arrest ought not to be exercised without a warrant, except by a Constable, and delegating that power to interested persons would lead to bloodshed.
§ Lord Althorpdid not see by what other means, except by the power of arrest, they could give adequate protection to property. A man entered the land of another, received notice to quit, refused, and declined giving his name and address. There was, therefore, no other way but personal coercion to prevent this.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, there was undoubtedly great difficulty, but still it would be very hard upon honourable men to be arrested by such persons as were likely to have this authority delegated to them.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, a gentleman and man of honour would not trespass knowingly, and if he had done so inadvertently, would never decline giving his name and address.
§ Mr. Benettthought, it would be better not to give the power of arrest. The game-keeper might follow the trespassers, and ascertain by that means who they were.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On the proviso being read, exempting persons hunting or coursing with hounds or greyhounds, from the provisions against trespassers,
961§ Mr. Gillonconsidered this very objectionable, and likely to lead to great abuses.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, it would be justly asserted, if the proviso was agreed to, that a set of fox-hunters and land-owners exempted themselves from the chances of punishment to which they subjected men in a lower station of life; a man who could afford to ride a horse at a fox-hunt, would be authorized to trespass on any other man's land.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, it would be hard to impose a penalty on a man for being on another's land, when he might not know where he was.
An Hon. Memberthought, penalties for this trespass, as well as any other, ought to be applied, or they would have people, in towns and manufacturing places, not possessing a foot of land, keep hounds, and hunt; and such people would course over their neighbours' lands at their good pleasure.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, an action for trespass would lie against persons so offending.
§ Lord Morpethwould prefer the clause as it stood at present, for then they would not see a labourer punished for joining a hunting party, as had been done.
§ Mr. Hunthad himself been punished in that way, and did not forget it. He admired fox-hunting as much as any man, but this was making one law for the rich and another for the poor. A man who could only afford to walk and carry a gun, was subject to 5l. penalty for sporting on his neighbour's land; but another, who could afford to keep a horse, and hunt, was exempted, under similar circumstances, from any penalty whatever, although the damage likely to be done by the latter, from breaking down hedges, was much greater.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the existing Game-laws made distinctions between people having certain incomes and those with less, but the punishment for trespass given by this Bill might be enforced against all men, of whatever degree. It could not, therefore, be said justly, that it made one law for the poor and another for the rich. The enactment of the clause was, "that the provisions against trespassers shall not extend to any person hunting or coursing, with hounds or greyhounds," no 962 matter whether he followed them on horseback, or on foot. He looked upon this clause as intended for the benefit of the poorer classes, for any man accustomed to field sports knew very well, that many persons were in the habit of following hounds on foot; had the clause been confined to people on horseback, it would have effectually prevented the poor man from enjoying the sport. He, therefore, put it to the House, whether the hon. member for Preston's objection was borne out.
Mr. Stuart Wortleywas convinced, from the hon. member for Preston's observation, that he had no other knowledge of hunting than that he had acquired in the West of England. Had he ever hunted in other divisions of the country, he would have formed a different opinion.
§ Lord Morpethagreed, that the hon. member for Preston's objections were not applicable to this clause.
§ Colonel Sibthorpwould declare, the clause was perfectly useless, so far as the county of Lincoln was concerned. No farmers there would object to persons hunting over their land.
§ Mr. Hunthad not heard one word to alter his opinion, which was, that the present measure would press with greater force on the poor man than any previous law had done, and he was not wholly ignorant of the enactments of the former laws.
Mr. Maberlybelieved, the hon. member for Preston did not consider the difference between hunting and shooting, and on that account his argument was not sound. He should prefer the continuance of the common-law on the points of trespass; by that, the trespasser must be warned off before the penalty could be inflicted. By the Bill before them, the summary process adopted would annihilate hunting altogether.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On its being proposed "that the Justice or Justices of the Peace by whom any person shall be summarily convicted and adjudged to pay any sum of money for any offence against this Act, together with costs, may adjudge that such person shall pay the same, either immediately, or within such period as the said Justices shall think fit, and that, in default of payment at the time appointed, such person shall be imprisoned in the common gaol, or house of correction (with or without hard 963 labour) as to the Justice or Justices shall seem meet, for any term not exceeding two calendar months, where the amount to be paid, exclusive of costs, shall not exceed 5l., or for any term not exceeding three calendar months in any other case, the imprisonment to cease upon payment of the amount and costs."
§ Mr. Huntfelt it necessary, earnestly to appeal to the Committee, if the penalties in this clause were not too severe. As to the amount of the fine, the infliction of hard labour, and the term of imprisonment, the present measure was quite as severe as any of the previous laws. If he had been wrong in declaring the last clause pressed unequally upon the poor man, he did not labour under a similar error when he characterized this as containing one law for the rich and another for the poor.
§ Lord Althorpcould not see the justice of the remark: the penalty and term of imprisonment were the same to all, if payment was refused: how, then, could it act to the advantage of the wealthy?
§ Mr. Huntsaid, in this way, the rich man would have the amount of the penalty in his purse, and would thereby avoid the imprisonment, but 5l. was of so much importance to the poor man, even if he had it, that he would prefer going to prison rather than pay it.
Mr. Hughes Hughessuggested, that the penalty of hard labour be left to the discretion of the Magistrates.
§ Mr. HuntThen God help the poor man who should be so unfortunate as to be placed at the discretion of game-preserving Magistrates.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ On the Clause being proposed, affixing the penalties of four months, eight months, and two years imprisonment, with hard labour, to the first, second, and third offences of night-poaching with arms,
An Hon. Memberdid not think the description of arms which would bring the person within the meaning of this Clause sufficiently defined, and this was a matter of so much importance, that it ought to be provided for by a separate clause.
Mr. Stuart Wortleythought, they ought to be very cautious in decreasing the punishment attached to night poaching. By 964 the former law, which was certainly more severe, and yet was found to work well, the offender, in addition to four months imprisonment and hard labour, was required, at the expiration of his imprisonment, to give security for good behaviour, and, in default of that, was liable to further incarceration. The object was, to prevent the culprit's recurring to his old habits and connexions. In the generality of cases, the offenders were young men, prompted by older persons. By requiring security on the expiration of imprisonment, such persons were often deterred from returning to their former practices, from the fear of compromising their securities. He would, therefore, suggest the propriety of inserting a similar provision in the Clause now before them.
§ Mr. Hunttook a totally different view of the Clause. He thought its enactments too severe; and, therefore, intended to propose milder punishments. He did not remember the precise words of the old Act, but he knew that, in substance, it was not so harsh as the present. By the Bill now before them, for the first offence four months imprisonment was awarded for all poachers with or without arms; the punishment in the old bill was only five months. For the second offence, this Bill ordered imprisonment for eight months, and hard labour. In the old bill the imprisonment was but six months, without hard labour. For the third offence, the present measure enacted two years imprisonment; the former Act inflicted only one. The punishments, by the former bill, were more severe than necessary, and he could by no means agree with the present proposed enactments; and he, therefore, begged leave to move as an Amendment, "That two months, four months, and one year be the punishments."
Sir Thomas Fremantleconsidered the strongest measures ought to be taken to prevent the class of offences described in this Clause. The quantum of punishment proposed did not seem to him sufficient to effect that object. Coercive measures of a strong character were necessary to put down poaching, as was proved by the result of a bill which passed this House about three years since, by which the punishment for such offences was much increased, for, within two years afterwards, the number of offences rapidly diminished. He was desirous that the present measure should be carried a little further.
An Hon. Memberwas of opinion, that the man who deliberately entered grounds by night, for the purpose of poaching, could not be too severely punished; severity alone could repress such offences. He, therefore, entertained the same opinions as the hon. Baronet, and thought two years imprisonment for a third offence of such enormity as night-poaching, much too insignificant.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, had described two years imprisonment as an insignificant punishment. That hon. Member had never experienced an incarceration for half that time, or he would not have so described it. He still maintained, that half the punishment the noble Lord proposed to inflict was quite enough.
§ Mr. Briscoeconsidered a punishment of two years imprisonment, with hard labour, an exceedingly severe enactment, which would be likely to produce great physical injury to the unhappy man subject to it, independent of the consideration, that a man, being excluded from the society of his family for such a period, became estranged from them and they from him. He was thrown upon the parish for support, while he had contracted idle and dissolute habits by constantly associating with the class of persons usually found in prisons, and whom no system of discipline could reform. From these considerations he was convinced, and was desirous of expressing that conviction to the noble Lord, that transportation for the third or fourth offence, or for any offence accompanied with personal violence, would be preferable to imprisonment for long periods. He would propose three months imprisonment for the first offence, six for the second, and for the third, or for any of them, accompanied by personal violence, transportation.
§ Lord Althorphad strong objections to the infliction of transportation for the ordinary offences under this Bill, although that punishment might be justly due to offences accompanied with personal violence, at the discretion of the Court, and a clause to that effect should be introduced.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, there was so much difference in the character of the offence of poaching by night or by day, that they should be subject to different 966 degrees of punishment. The character of an offence also would be very different if committed by one man in the day-time, or if committed by large numbers at night.
§ Clause agreed to, substituting one year for two years imprisonment.
§ Mr. Hunthoped the noble Lord would make a difference in the punishment, when committed by a single person, to that committed by several poachers in company.
§ Lord Althorpwould certainly take the subject into consideration, whether there ought not to be some difference, before the report was brought up.
§ House resumed. Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.