§ Mr. Wallace
moved that the Lords' Amendments to the Night Poaching Prevention Bill be read a second time.
§ Agreed to.
§ Mr. Escott
had no doubt that the Lords' Amendments had improved the Bill; but he objected to the whole Bill upon principle. He thought that the present Game Laws, in their operation were oppressive and destructive to the liberties of the people; he, therefore, strongly objected to extending the power of magistrates, in favour of preserving rabbits on the high roads, to the extent to which that Bill went. He therefore moved, that the Lords' Amendments be read again that day six months.
§ Mr. Bouverie
would oppose the reading the Lords' Amendments. He thought that the Game Laws were already quite stringent enough.
said that the whole scope of the Bill was the protection of honest people, and not the rendering the Game Laws any stricter.
§ Mr. Roebuck
believed that many hon. Gentlemen had mistaken the object of the Bill. It would be found that its object was to make more stringent laws already stringent enough. If any Gentleman had followed out the administration of the Criminal Laws, as he had, he would have found that the Game Laws were a 1170 most fruitful source of crime. To game, people would not attach, and indeed there could not be attached, any idea of property. That House was composed of lovers of field sports; let them love them if they would, but he implored them not to be so wholly absorbed in that predilection as entirely to forget the first feelings of their nature. His great objection to the Bill was, that it would indirectly lead to the crime of murder. In the few cases of murder which had occurred in the north of England, two out of three had arisen from poaching or the unlawful pursuit of game. Men went out not attaching the idea of property to game, they met armed keepers, a collision ensued, and murder not unfrequently followed, when the life of a partridge, and not that of a man, had been their object when they set out. He entreated that the Bill might not be pressed; let the House recollect that they were legislators and not sportsmen.
§ Mr. Darby
observed that they were not then discussing the propriety of Game Laws. It might be true that men, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, did not attach the idea of property to game, nor more did they in some instances to other things which he could mention. If they had Game Laws, let them be made efficient and perfect.
§ The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 63; Noes 12: Majority 51.
|List of the AYES.|
|Ackers, J.||Greene, T.|
|Archbold, R.||Grlmstone, Visct.|
|Balfour, J. M.||Hamilton, J. H.|
|Berkeley, hon. C.||Henley, J. W.|
|Berkeley, hon. Capt.||Hepburn, Sir T. B.|
|Blackburne, J. I.||Howard, P. H.|
|Boldero, H. G.||Hussey, T.|
|Borthwick, P.||Irton, S.|
|Bruges, W. H. L.||Jermyn, Earl|
|Clerk, Sir G.||Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.|
|Cripps, W.||Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E|
|Darby, G.||Lawson, A.|
|D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T||Lennox, Lord A.|
|Douglas, Sir C. E.||Lincoln, Earl of|
|Drummond, H. H.||Lockhart, W.|
|Duncombe, hon. A.||Mackenzie, W. F.|
|Egerton, Sir P.||McNeill. D.|
|Eliot, Lord||Marsham, Visct.|
|Flower, Sir J.||Martin, C. W.|
|Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.||Masterman, J.|
|Fuller, A. E.||O'Brien, A. S.|
|Gaskell, J. Milnes||Pechell, Capt.|
|Goulburn, rt. hn. H.||Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.|
|Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.||Peel, J.|
|Rashleigh, W.||Tufnell, H.|
|Rushbrooke, Col.||Waddington, H. S.|
|Sibthorp, Col.||Wawn, J. T.|
|Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.||Whitmore, T. C.|
|Smollett, A.||Worsley, Lord|
|Stanley, Lord||Young, J.|
|Sutton, hon. H. M.||TELLERS.|
|Thessiger, Sir F.||Wallace, R.|
|Trotter, J.||Berkeley, H.|
|List of the NOES.|
|Brotherton, J.||Mitchell, T. A.|
|Collett, J.||Morris, D.|
|Dickinson, F. H.||Roebuck, J. A.|
|Duncan, Visct.||Wyse, T.|
|McGeachy, F. A.||Escott, B.|
§ Main question agreed to.
§ Amendment with Amendments read a second time.
§ House adjourned at half-past one o'clock.