HC Deb 24 February 1848 vol 96 cc1301-6
MR. COLVILE

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable all occupiers of land, having a right to kill hares on that land, to do so by themselves, or persons authorised by them, without being required to take out a game certificate. It was well known that many persons occupied small plots of land lying contiguous to the game preserves of great men, and that before such persons were at liberty to protect their property, by killing the animals that were constantly coming upon their land and destroying the crops, they were obliged to pay a heavy tax by taking out a certificate. He had so prepared the Bill he wished to introduce that he believed the revenue would by no means suffer from it; he therefore hoped the Government would not oppose its being brought in.

SIR G. GREY

thought the proposal which the hon. Gentleman made a very reasonable one, and he saw no ground for opposing the introduction of the Bill.

MR. STAFFORD

complained of the conduct of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), who, having in 1845 and 1846 taken upon himself the task of legislating upon the subject of the game laws, had since suffered the matter wholly to rest. He (Mr. Stafford) had been requested by his constituents to bring forward a measure on the subject; but he told them that the question was in the hands of the hon. Member for Manchester, and that he should not like to poach upon the hon. Member's manor. That hon. Member had, however, suffered the report of his own Committee to pass by without any notice whatever; and so little did he appear to be interested in the question, that he even permitted the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Colvile) to bring forward a Motion on the subject without thinking it necessary to be present. Let it be observed, therefore, that this measure for mitigating the rigour of the game laws did not emanate from a free-trader, but from an hon. Gentleman who belonged to the agricultural class.

MR. BRIGHT

had nothing to say in opposition to the present Bill. It was impossible a majority of the House, after all that had been stated and was known in connexion with the practice of the game laws, could consider such a measure sufficient to cure the evils that attended the existing system. However, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire knew extremely little of the practical working of those laws if he supposed that placing hares in the same category with rabbits would have any serious effect in putting a stop to the thousands of convictions that every year occurred in consequence of the infractions of the game law. It was, therefore, fully his intention, notwithstanding any measure of this limited nature, as soon as possible to introduce a Bill for the purpose of repealing the game laws altogether. He had, however, had his time occupied by other matters, particularly by the subject of the growth of cotton in the East Indies. But so soon as the Committee on that subject should close its labours, which he hoped would be within one month, he should then ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the laws concerning game. He should endeavour to establish this principle—that the law should not give any sanction or encouragement to the practice of preserving game in this country. Although there had been great delay since the report of the Committee on this subject, yet he did not believe the question had lost anything by that circumstance. The attention, both of the House and the country, had been more fully called to it, and it would now come forward for discussion with a much greater chance of success than if it had been brought forward in the last or preceding Session.

MR. NEWDEGATE

was glad to hear that the hon. Member for Manchester did not intend to oppose the introduction of the present Bill. With reference to the wider subject which the hon. Member had mentioned—namely, a total repeal of the game laws—he trusted the hon. Gentleman would fully consider this fact, that if he were to repeal the game laws many large districts in this country would remain unprotected. The game laws assisted very materially the rural police; and his conviction was, that if the game laws were repealed, large woodland districts especially would be left so unprotected as to make it absolutely necessary to enact a law on the subject of trespass infinitely more vexatious and onerous to the people of this country than the game laws. He thanked the hon. Member for South Derbyshire for introducing this Bill, which he believed would remove a great practical evil—the destruction of crops by game.

MR. H. BERKELEY

would certainly object to any proposal for the repeal of the game laws which deprived the owners or occupiers of property of protection against trespass; but if the hon. Member for Manchester, in proposing the repeal of the game laws, would afford some remedy to the owners of property against lawless trespassers, he would most gladly give the hon. Gentleman his aid. If, however, the hon. Gentleman intended to repeal the game laws, and thereby to expose the landed property of the country to the ravages of an armed and lawless mob, he would oppose him to the utmost of his power.

MR. F. MAULE

observed, that some years ago he had, in two successive Sessions, brought forward measures on this subject. One of those Bills, which passed the second reading, was intended to protect tenants from the very evils of which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Colvile) complained. The House, however, did not think fit to adopt the proposition he made, which was simply to give the tenant a right to obtain, from those who preserved game, particularly hares, compensation for any injury they might occasion to his crops. He had been told by a farmer that, upon a field of young grass in his occupation, 200 hares daily depastured, and that he reckoned that ten hares eat as much as one sheep. The House would see, therefore, that it was absolutely necessary, especially where hares were preserved, that some compensation should be given to farmers for the destruction they occasioned. He was most anxious to see a good feeling existing between landlords and tenants on this subject; and he was satisfied that the fair sport of a country gentleman, which might induce him to reside on his estate, would not cause any dissatisfaction on the part of his tenantry. He would support this measure, because he thought it would provide for the protection of the tenant, without disturbing the good understanding which ought to exist between the tenant and his landlord; but if the hon. Member for Manchester proposed the entire repeal of the game laws, without protecting the country gentleman by some law of trespass which would prevent persons from intruding upon his property and destroying his crops, he must say that he thought such a measure would be much more objectionable than the game laws themselves.

MR. AGLIONBY

considered that the Bill of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire would operate beneficially, and he hoped it would be sanctioned by the House. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had said that when he brought forward his measure for the total repeal of the game laws, he expected to receive the general support of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, founded upon the evidence adduced before the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into the subject in the last Parliament. He doubted very much whether the hon. Gentleman would find a strong feeling in his favour; but he was prepared to say that when the hon. Gentleman introduced his Bill he would give it his most attentive consideration, with a view to place the relations of landlord and tenant on a more satisfactory footing, and to remove some of those temptations which caused many of the poorer classes to become inmates of gaols. The hon. Member for Manchester had said that he thought there ought to be no game laws in so densely populated a country as this. He trusted the hon. Gentleman was not averse to maintaining the rights of property, and that he was not prepared to assert that persons ought to be authorised to trespass upon the land of their neighbours without restriction.

SIR R. PEEL

believed that the most effectual remedy for the evils attending the game laws would be a strong impression on the part of the landed proprietors that hares and rabbits in excessive quantities were very injurious to the produce of the soil, and a disposition to consent to some arrangement which would tend to diminish the excessive quantity of this description of game. He considered that such voluntary arrangements, made by the proprietors themselves, would lead to the preservation of other descriptions of game, with regard to which the same objections were not entertained. The true sportsman must feel that hares could give very little real amusement, and that they were chiefly kept for the amusement of metropolitan sportsmen, who found it difficult to kill anything else. With respect to the winged kinds of game, he apprehended the damage they did to the crops was very slight. He certainly thought the hon. Member for Manchester would find it a difficult matter to deal with the game laws, if he contemplated any infringe- ment of the rights of property. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman would not propose to carry his interference so far as to prevent persons from preserving game; but if the hon. Member meant that all persons should be entitled to traverse the property of their neighbours in order to kill game, they would have the country in a state of rural insurrection. He considered, however, that it was quite premature to discuss the general object of the game laws on this occasion. He had not the slightest objection to the Bill which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire proposed to introduce, and which he believed would afford greater facilities than now existed for the amusement of coursing. If he understood the Bill aright, it would not give any pecuniary remedy to the tenant for any damage his crops might sustain; its object was merely to enable occupiers of land, having a right to kill hares on that land, to do so, by themselves, or persons authorised by them, without being required to take out a game certificate. He wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, what was the construction to be put upon the words "having a right to kill hares?"

MR. COLVILE

said, it was well known that the right of game was with the occupier; but in many cases the landlord reserved to himself that right, and the occupier could then only kill game by permission. What he proposed was, that when the landlord gave his tenants permission to kill hares, they might do so without a certificate.

SIR R. PEEL

observed, that the owner of 1,000 acres of land might farm his own property, and would then be the occupier. Would he have the right to kill hares without a certificate?

MR. COLVILE

replied in the affirmative. His object was to place the law with regard to hares precisely on the same footing with the law respecting rabbits.

MR. HUDSON

thought it was perfectly fair that an individual occupying a small farm adjoining the estate of a gentleman who preserved game, should have the privilege of destroying the game if it became a nuisance to him. He did not, however, concur in the free-trade principles of the hon. Member for Manchester, who, as he understood, contended that any person should have a right to go upon any estate he pleased, and shoot what game he thought proper. Why, he (Mr. Hudson) might just as well enter the warehouse of the hon. Member for Manchester, and take away a piece of cotton. That would be just as equitable a proceeding. He (Mr. Hudson) concurred in the complaint which had been made with regard to the expense entailed upon the country for printing blue books containing the evidence taken before the Committee which had been appointed some time since, to inquire into this subject, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Manchester. He considered that such an expenditure was altogether unjustifiable; for he believed that no general feeling against the game laws existed in the country. He could answer that there was no such feeling in Yorkshire. When a person entered upon a farm, he took it on certain conditions, and one of those conditions might be that the game should be preserved. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had stated that hares committed great destruction. He (Mr. Hudson) could only say that in Yorkshire they were a very desirable thing at table, and he would be very sorry to see them extirpated. The tenants in his part of the country made no complaints of the injury to crops occasioned by game. The fact was that that House was fond of meddling with everything—there was no subject too trifling or too minute to engage its attention; and he would recommend the hon. Member for Manchester to leave the landlords and tenants to manage their own affairs, which they could do without the busy meddling interference of Parliament.

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought they could not do better than follow the advice which had been given not to discuss a Bill which was not before the House. He certainly did not understand that the hon. proposer of the present Bill contemplated any interference with the rights of property.

Leave given.

Bill brought in and read a first time.