HC Deb 17 April 1834 vol 22 cc898-900
Mr. Lennard

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Game-laws. He was gratified that it would not be necessary for him to detain the House, as the present Bill was similar to the one he had introduced last year on the amendment of the Game-laws. He thought the subject was an important one, as it concerned various classes of society, rich and poor. He had understood, that many persons were anxious to support the measure, who did not imagine it would have been brought on so soon. The present Game-law was one of gross injustice, inasmuch as it deprived the holder of the land from any dominion over the game. Under the old law, the occupier had the power of giving the game to any one he pleased. But he was deprived by a clause in the Act lately passed of that fair power. The landlord alone being made the legal owner, if a man held a large tract on a lease of three lives, he could not, under the present Act, notwithstanding the valuable interest he held in the land, give any power over the game, but the landlord could, in despite of the tenant, come to the ground and dispose of the game. That illiberal clause was introduced in the House of Lords, for the purpose of impeding and neutralizing the Act; and it was adopted by the House of Commons through necessity, in order to secure the whole Bill. It might be said, that a tenant might reserve to himself (and was empowered to do so) a stipulation in his lease to shoot over the land, and that in that case he could not be prevented. But the fact was, that the tenants had not at present any such power; at least he had not, after numerous inquiries on the subject, been able to hear of any such instance of that power given to the occupiers. Every one knew how unwilling tenants were to stipulate for anything more than would yield them immediate profit from the produce of the soil, especially if the prejudices or feelings of the landlords were interested. There was a common reservation in leases for landlords to have the privilege of sporting over the tenants' grounds; but that was very different from usurping the whole power. By the last Act the landlord had received a right to come on the land, which he had not before. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal sec. 7 and 8 of 1st and 2nd William 4th, cap. 32 (Amendment of Game-laws), and sec. 30 of the same Act.

Mr. Hume

seconded the Motion. He considered the clauses which it was proposed to repeal committed a gross injustice. The Lords should have been ashamed of themselves to introduce such clauses.

Colonel Wood

said, that however anxious for an improved system of Game-laws, he should state that the hon. Member had not clearly explained, or minutely detailed, the objects of his Bill. It was a very rare case in which a person, properly qualified, was prevented from killing game. It was no new thing for landlords to reserve to themselves the power over game. They always did so; and by the late Act the tenants were not prevented from killing game. Why should the House be called upon to change the law; because, forsooth, there might have been one or two cases of hardship? Game was never the property of the occupier, but was, according to the ancient laws and usages of the country, acknowledged to be the property of the landlord. He did not like the old Game-code. He was glad it was repealed. But then there should be some moderation, some policy and justice, too, in the process of abrogation. The hon. Mover would place game at the disposal of the occupier. He was sure, that never had been the law, and the hon. Member would have as good a right to place trees at his disposal. Game was as much the property of the landlord as trees were. Neither was ever intended to be made a source of direct profit to the tenant. He would object to the Bill.

Lord Althorp

was understood to say, that the Legislature had not intended, in passing the existing law, to confer any new rights on the landlords; and, therefore, in as far as the Bill would only go to restore to tenants the rights they had before possessed, he should not object to its introduction.

Mr. Aglionby

hoped the House would bear in mind, that the question did not at all involve the Game-laws in general, but was simply whether or not the 7th section of the existing Act should be suffered to continue in force, when it operated as an ex-post-facto law, and deprived a large body of men of a right which they had long enjoyed. He cordially supported the Motion.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.