HC Deb 19 April 1848 vol 98 cc527-33

MR. COLVILE moved that the House do go into Committee upon the Game Certificates for Killing Hares Bill.

MR. ADDERLEY rose to move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to extend the operation of the Bill to enable occupiers of land, having a right to kill game on that land, to do so, by themselves or persons authorised by them, without being required to take out a game certificate. He was sorry to occasion any delay to the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but the subject was one of great importance, and the hon. Member sought by his Bill to deal with the question in detail, whereas he thought it should be treated upon a broader and more general principle; and all he proposed to do was to enlarge the Bill, and to extend it to game generally, instead of confining it particularly to hares. He considered it most desirable that they should deal with the question at large. Game might be considered either with reference to luxury and sport, or with reference to agriculture and the interests of landlord and tenant. A measure had been proposed by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright); but his object was a national object, not merely affecting landlord and tenant, but which involved the interests of the public at large. He agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester in regard to the evils of the present system, and that the attempt to introduce wild sports into a country in a high state of cultivation was open to two very material objections: it tended to obstruct the improve of agriculture, and it also held out to the public mala prohibita in such a shape as to lead certain classes of the people to think there was no impropriety in infringing the law. So far, therefore, he agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester. But what was the remedy the hon. Member proposed? Surely the hon. Member did not expect that the House would consent to his sweeping interference with the rights of property. At the same time, if he saw no other remedy, the evils of the existing system were so great, that he should be prepared to adopt the remedy he proposed, violent as it was. But he could see a remedy less violent, by an inducement being held out by the House to a voluntary action, and that was the only action they should seek to create. He considered that the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, enlarged as he proposed by his instruction, would offer many facilities for the reduction of the evil, and would tend to conciliate the public. He would likewise hold out to game preservers that the measure so enlarged would give them a better mode of preserving game than hitherto. To those who desired and expected to put down game, no other meaure than that which he proposed was practicable. They could not interfere compulsorily with the rights of property; and the measure he proposed held out no encouragement to the voluntary action, which was the only action to effect the object which all had in view. This was a measure not likely to interfere with the revenue, and on that ground to justify an objection by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He only proposed to abolish certificates where certificates would not now be taken out; and the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not object, would affect the revenue as much as his proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had thrown away the other night more than 40,000l. of copper duties; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman might deal with small branches of revenue and relinquish them, when a great moral advantage could be attained thereby.

The EARL of MARCH thought his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire had done wisely in applying his Bill to hares, and that the hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had assigned no reason for his alterations, to which he should offer his most decided opposition. As to the argument drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving away 40,000l. of copper duties, it was no reason, because the right hon. Gentleman had done one foolish thing, that he should do another.

MR. SEYMER thought if farmers were permitted to kill hares on their farms, the number of them who would take out certificates would be extremely few indeed. The objections to the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) should come from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rather than from the benches behind him. It should be recollected that by the existing law the farmer had a right to destroy game on his farm where no compact to the contrary was in force; and he was convinced that no Act would be as effective in carrying out the wishes of the landlords as would be arrangements with their tenants. The hon. Member for Manchester was called on to support this Bill, for though it might not go as far as he wished, it was impossible for him to deny that it was a step in what he called the right direction. The hon. Member contended that farmers had very great objections to game, and that they would destroy it wherever they could. He was of a totally different opinion. Well, then, let them see which was right. Let the tenant have the choice of preserving or destroying as he pleased. With respect to the practical effect of the measure, he believed it would be found that while hares would not be too abundant, they would be quite numerous enough. The hon. Member for Manchester seemed to ridicule the idea that shooting was a manly or invigorating exercise; but if he would just walk from ten till six o'clock in a Lancashire potato field with a gun on his arm, he would soon alter his opinion. He would support the proposition of his hon. Friend.

MR. HALSEY supported the Bill because it would lead to fair arrangements between landlord and tenant as to the right of shooting. He could not at all agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, for he believed the damage from wing game to be very small comparatively. From various conversations with tenant-farmers, and from his own observation, he was convinced the loss inflicted on growing wheat by winged game did not exceed one per cent of the whole damage. The great source of mischief was the abundance of hares. He hoped the Bill would not be interfered with, but would pass the House without the proposed alteration.

MR. COLVILE said, when the hon. Member for Staffordshire sought to introduce into his (Mr. Colvile's) Bill a measure so foreign to the object he had originally proposed, and so irrelevant to the principle embodied in it, he hoped the House would assist him in resisting it. So utterly alien was the proposition to the spirit of his Bill, that it might have been introduced into a Landlord and Tenant Bill, or any other Bill. If the hon. Member had chosen to bring in a Bill, it might have been discussed on its own merits. The preamble of the Bill before the House set forth that— Whereas it having been found that much damage has been and is continually done by hares to cultivated land, and great loss has occurred thereby to occupiers of land, it is expedient that occupiers of land should have power to kill hares. He utterly denied that partridges did the damage to the land which had been attributed to them. The evidence taken before the Committee on the Game Laws sup- ported him in the assertion, that hares were the great culprits, and that they ought to be put in the same category with rabbits. The Committee had passed an unanimous resolution that it was desirable to pursue the course he had adopted.

MR. P. BENNET said, the Bill was calculated to satisfy many and to emulate more of those farmers who occupied lands situated under the cover of a neighbour whose game was highly preserved. He thought the Bill would put the owners and occupiers of land upon fair terms. He was against all interference with the rights of property; and he thought that, whilst the Bill would not place either owner or occupier generally in a better or worse situation than at present, they would settle matters between themselves far better than by Acts of Parliament. The Bill would, however, be serviceable in a moral point of view, as it would diminish poaching, which was generally pursued in consequence of the value set upon hares, and the wish of the occupier to have them reduced; whereas by the proposed Bill he would have an interest in the property. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were enabled at a future time to reduce the malt tax, and thus free the poorer classes from the temptation of frequenting the beer-houses, he would attack the root of poaching at once, and enable the cottager to enjoy with his family the beverage his labour had assisted in producing.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER must say a few words upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Staffordshire. He did not object to the Bill of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, which gave occupiers power to kill hares without a game certificate; but he should not be justified in sacrificing so much revenue as the proposition of the hon. Member for Staffordshire would amount to. If parties went out shooting for the sake of the sport, it was reasonable that they should pay the tax; but if parties destroyed hares merely with a view of preventing damage to their land and property, that was a different consideration. He should have no objection to grant full power to kill any game that occasioned damage to the agriculturist; but he hoped the House would not lose sight of this. The Committee on the Game Laws, in their report, stated that the damage done by winged game was quite inappreciable, as compared with the damage done by hares and rabbits; and therefore, although he was ready, with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, to make hares rabbits, yet he was not willing to go the length of making partridges rabbits. The duty on game certificates amounted to 160,000l., and it was impossible to say how much of that would be affected by extending the operation of the Bill to all kinds of game; and he could not consent to give up any portion of that duty in favour of persons who went out to shoot for the purpose of sporting.

MR. BRIGHT said, he had understood the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Derbyshire to have been founded on some recommendation of a Committee; but, as far as he could now discover, there seemed to be no reason for any such supposition. As to the Committee, the report of which on this subject had already been referred to, he would only say, that a great deal of evidence had been laid before that Committee, and that nothing could be more at variance than was that evidence with the report. The present proposition he regarded as quite worthless. Under its authority persons could merely kill hares, and even that they could not do except in those cases in which they had previously obtained the leave of their landlords. He had listened attentively to the present debate, and he had heard no argument whatever, showing that the Bill had the least tendency to destroy the evils which sprang out of the game laws. The evidence before the Committee proved that rabbits were as mischievous as hares; yet passing the present measure would leave matters precisely as they had been. But that ought not to form the principal object of legislation with the House of Commons at the present day. Their object ought to be to improve the morals of the people. He had always thought that that constituted the real question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them, that the injury done by winged game was inappreciable. He could not say how the case might stand with respect to partridges; but he believed there could be no doubt of this, that the pursuit of pheasants gave rise to some of the most fatal encounters that the annals of game-preserving presented. He believed there was no one who, possessing competent information, and dispassionately considering the question, would contend that it was the duty of the House to pass the present Bill. It appeared to him that it would be much better to withdraw the Bill, and permit the Government to introduce a better and a larger Bill; at the same time that, if the hon. Member for Staffordshire went to a division, he should certainly feel bound to vote with him.

SIR J. TYRELL observed, it would be quite unreasonable to expect that the hon. Member for Manchester should be content with such a measure as the present, considering the views which on some occasions he had expressed with regard to the game laws; and yet, after all, the hon. Member for Manchester ought to be content with what he had obtained—a Committee had been granted to him, and he ought to have been satisfied with that. Besides, he ought to have dropped his opposition to the game laws when the corn laws were repealed. It had all along understood that the propositions of the hon. Member for Manchester about the game laws were merely to be used as a lever for carrying on his opposition to the corn laws: that object having been accomplished, he really did think that the hon. Member for Manchester ought now to rest satisfied. That hon. Member and other Gentlemen talked frequently of the injury which agriculturists sustained from the alleged depredations of game; but he believed that those grounds of complaint frequently occurred where land was ill-farmed. The present matter presented a striking exemplification of the difficulty of legislating upon trifles; but he did think that the Bill now before them ought to satisfy all the reasonable Members of that House. He could very well understand that Gentlemen who resided in Lancashire and other thickly inhabited districts felt but little sympathy with persons who pursued field sports; but that was not the question before them. The hon. Member for Manchester had brought in his Game Bill for the purpose of setting the farmers against the landlords; and, as there was now no occasion for continuing that species of warfare, the hon. Member ought to be satisfied with the triumph that he had obtained, and not meddle with matters which he did not understand.

MR. BERKELEY had always been ready to repeal the game laws, provided the House were ready to introduce some measure for the protection of property. The hon. Member for Manchester spoke of the murders which had taken place, as if the men who were executed were condemned for killing a cock pheasant, and not for the crime of murder. Who had the sympathy of the hon. Member? Why the murderer, and not the murdered man. When a man was executed for the murder of a gamekeeper, it was said, "Here is another victim to the horrible and bloody game laws." It was never reflected that that murder was committed upon an unfortunate man who went forth to protect the property of his master. Such a man, after having faithfully served his master for a number of years, was murdered, and he received no sympathy from the hon. Gentleman; but take a man to the foot of the gallows, and he was instantly received with the pseudo sentimental whine of the hon. Gentleman. He would be the last man in the world to keep a law on the Statute-book that would be productive of demoralisation; and when the hon. Gentleman found fault with the existing law, after having obtained a Committee of Inquiry, the report of which Committee was against him, instead of making inflammatory speeches, he should propose some practical remedy. Take away the present law, and a gentleman might find thirty or forty fellows in his garden some fine morning, who, under pretence of searching for game, might make free with the poultry, or anything else they might find convenient.

MR. S. CRAWFORD agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester. The Bill seemed to him to be nothing but a delusion, for it did not go to the root of the evil; no Bill would be worth having that did not let every man shoot the game that fed on his land.

COLONEL SIBTHORP had had for some time in his hands a petition from persons licensed to deal in game, complaining of the unfair rivalry carried on against them by hawkers. Every one who knew anything of the subject knew that the gamekeeper was the best protector of the farmer's true interests.

Motion for an instruction withdrawn.

House in Committee.

On Clause 4,

MR. G. BERKELEY proposed to add words, with the of preventing any person, not having obtained an annual game certificate, from destroying hares by "firearms or guns of any description."

The Committee divided on the question that the words he added:—Ayes 49; Noes 44: Majority 5

House resumed. Bill reported.

House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.