§ Lord Althorpmoved the third reading of the Bill for amending the Game Laws.
Mr. Pagetopposed the penal clauses of the Bill as too severe: if the noble Lord looked to page 160, line 15, he would there find these lines, "That in case any man shall assault or molest any Gamekeeper, or other person duly authorized." Now the words in the Act of George 4th were "shall assault or offer violence." He considered there was much difference between the two sentences, and he trusted the noble Lord, as he had manifested so great a desire to ameliorate penal statutes, would modify this part of the Bill. Such clauses were likely to produce much discontent among the labouring classes at this particular time. The present Bill was, no doubt, a mitigation of the former penalties, but still it did not go so far as he desired, for it attempted to make property of an article which never could be identified. His great objection to it was, that it authorised summary and severe punishments at the discretion of a single Magistrate, who ought never to have the power to fine and imprison, at his own will and pleasure. In this case the power was much aggravated, because the same person might be prosecutor as well as judge. Going out at night for the purpose of destroying game was no trivial offence, and deserved severe punishment, 1062 but six months' imprisonment, with hard labour in addition, was far too severe. Moreover another part of the Bill inflicted transportation for seven years, or two years' imprisonment with hard labour, for a man detected going out at night with the supposed intention of committing an offence, but with no other weapon than a piece of wire in his pocket. It was not necessary to convict him that he should be found snaring game. The circumstance of his being found on land, and attempting to make his escape, was sufficient to subject him to such severe punishments, which was infinitely too severe for such an offence. With this conviction on his mind he should move, that the punishments in several of the clauses be mitigated.
§ Lord Althorphad some amendments to propose as riders after the Bill was read a third time, which would perhaps lessen the hon. Member's objections.
§ The Bill read a third time.
§ Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the whole Bill, from beginning to end, and would oppose its passing.
Mr. Maberlymoved a cause, allowing persons having 300l. a year clear landed property to appoint gamekeepers, as well as lords of the manor.
§ Mr. John Weylandwas of the same opinion.
§ Mr. Benettsupported the clause, and regretted that it did not make the qualification lower.
§ Colonel Sibthorpopposed the clause, and appealed to the candour and fairness of the noble Lord (Althorp), whether he could assent to this clause, which he (Lord Althorp) himself had first introduced, but abandoned in the Committee.
§ Lord Althorpadmitted, that he at first thought the clause would do good; but he was convinced by the arguments in the committee that its tendency would be dangerous. He therefore had withdrawn it, and must now oppose it if pressed.
§ Clause negatived without a division.
§ Mr. Stricklandmoved the omission of that clause which authorised a single Magistrate to inflict a summary punishment of a fine on persons trespassing on the lands of others in the day-time.
§ Lord Althorpthought, that in making so great an alteration as this Bill made in 1063 the Game-laws some severity must be retained.
§ Amendment withdrawn, and the Bill passed.