HC Deb 01 August 1862 vol 168 cc1149-55

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON

presented a Petition, signed in a few hours by 3,000 persons in Coventry against night poaching, but praying that this unconstitutional measure might not be passed through the House at such a late period of the Session. The Petitioners desired the Petition to be read by the Clerk at the Table, but he would not press a Motion to that effect at such a late period of the evening (twelve o'clock).

MR. BUTT moved that the Bill be re-committed. He had a very strong feeling that the present Bill ought not to be passed into law. He voted for the second reading of the Bill; but he did so in the belief and in the hope, although he did not approve of all its provisions, that in Committee it would be altered so as not to violate every principle of law and every idea of common sense. For the credit of Parliament and of legislation, he objected that such a Bill should be sent out of that House, for it would bring them into deserved disrepute throughout the country. The Bill as it came down from the Lords was simply a measure to prevent a practice which was a serious offence against the law, and which often led to serious frays and to loss of life. He had understood that that was its sole object, and that it was not introduced to increase the strictness of game preservation. As it came down from the House of Lords it was in good Saxon English, and required no interpretation; but the first thing that this House did was to insert an interpretation clause, which rendered the whole Bill a mass of inextricable confusion. In the first place, the word "game" was defined to include "rabbits" and "eggs." Since the days of Shakespeare he should have thought there had been no need to explain even to a poacher what was meant by "a justice of the peace," or "a justice of the quorum." Yet the drawer of the Bill, or at least of the Amendments introduced into it, could not properly describe a justice of the peace. Positively, according to this Bill, unless game was found, there could be no justice of the peace in a county or division. If they passed this Bill, they gave a policeman power to stop a man and search him, and then let him go again; this was establishing a most dangerous precedent. Then the Bill came down to the House as a Bill to prevent night poaching, and they had made it a Bill also to prevent day poaching. Nothing could be more loose than the way in which this Bill was drawn. By this Bill every police officer in the kingdom had power given to him to arrest any person—for he could not search him without arresting him. At present no search could be made without a search warrant. By the help of the interpretation clause the police were authorized to stop and search any female. He wanted to know whether it would be necessary that every constable should be accompanied by a female searcher—because the only restriction was that the search should take place in some public place. Why this exemption in favor of game? Then he objected to the police being employed to preserve game. It was calculated to make them unpopular. He admitted that there was an anomaly in the game laws. Poaching was treated as an offence, but the fruits of poaching might be carried off with impunity. But there was another alternative, and that was to make the game laws less stringent. He hoped the House would be spared the indignity of passing this unworthy piece of legislation.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "That the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Order for the Third Reading of the said Bill be discharged, for the purpose of re-committing the said Bill, —instead thereof.

MR. BASS

agreed that great changes had been made in the Bill since it came down from the other House, but he contended that all these changes diminished its original stringency. He regretted that some difference of opinion prevailed on the subject of the measure between himself and his constituents; but he must be allowed to say, that while hon. Members ought to pay much deference to the opinions of their constituents, something also was due to their own, inde- pendent judgments. He had that evening received a report from Colonel Hogg, the Chief Constable for Staffordshire, who called the attention of the magistrates to the fact that night poaching was much on the increase; and that large organized gangs, armed with deadly weapons, and accompanied by ferocious dogs, might be seen almost nightly going and returning from their operations. The Chief Constable also stated, that during the last two years and a half the police, when on their ordinary rounds, had stopped and searched great numbers of poachers on the highway, and found in their possession great quantities of game netting, iron and wooden spikes, guns, bludgeons, life-preservers, and skeleton keys, and with two exceptions no resistance had been offered to the police. There were in the district 1,637 night poachers, whose names and places of abode were known. Of these 1,133 had been convicted of burglary, highway robbery, poaching, or some other offence, and many of them were returned convicts. Surely that state of things called for some remedy. It was said that a want of deliberation had been exhibited in this matter; but that assertion did not seem well founded, for the Bill was referred to the consideration of a Select Committee in the other House, and it certainly could not be said that the measure had not been sufficiently discussed in the House of Commons; and he now understood that its opponents threatened to prolong the present discussion till twelve o'clock on Saturday night.

MR. WHALLEY

said, that though he voted for the second reading, in the hope that the measure might be rendered efficient, he could not vote for the third reading, because he believed that the Bill as it stood, instead of putting down night poaching, would augment that crime by increasing public sympathy in favor of poachers; but if the Legislature declared the stealing of game theft, to be dealt with by the ordinary rules of law, it would then have the support of public feeling.

MR. COX

avowed that his intention in moving that the House should be counted early in the evening was to defeat the Bill, and he greatly regretted that there were forty Members present. The Bill was utterly unintelligible.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, no case had been made out for this Bill in Ireland, and he should oppose it, believing that the Bill would be a disgrace to the legislation of the country.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he should have no objection to a recommittal of the Bill if there were time; but if he were to consent to the Amendment it would be tantamount to giving up the Bill. He was much obliged to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Grey) for the assistance he had given him. If other Members had followed the right hon. Gentleman's example, he had no doubt but it would have been a much better Bill. If it had not been for the violent opposition which the measure had received, it would have been a much more satisfactory one. He denied that the police would be much employed under the Bill; and he could not but think that the objections which had been made on that score were owing to the ignorance of hon. Members as to the practical working of the constabulary force. The action of the Bill was made to extend to Ireland, because he objected to exceptional legislation. As to the powers of search, they were not more extensive than were already given in the case of stolen property.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he thought the Bill exceedingly objectionable in principle—but he would not at that stage go back to that question. He did think, however, that they should strive to put the language of the measure into a more creditable shape. The first clause was singularly objectionable, inasmuch as it extended the definition of game; and it really required a great deal of study to know what the second clause meant. In consequence of the number of Amendments it had received, the whole clause had become a mere hotch-potch. To give an example of the carelessness with which it was drawn, the phrase "every county, division, or borough in Great Britain and Ireland" really meant some impossible place which was at once in both countries. ["Oh, oh!"] But to come to the substance of the clause It contemplated two persons—the poacher and some one else who might be aiding and abetting him. Now, all that could be done to the principal offender was to arrest him and search him on the highway. The aider and abettor could also be searched, but only if he had game in his possession. In that case, any cart there might be with him might also be searched. ["Oh, oh !"] Some Gentlemen who were impatient might hereafter be called upon to construe the Bill—a task which he did not envy them. The clause proceeded on the supposition that the accessory was the party who had taken the game—in fact, the accessory who might be proceeded against to conviction was a different accessory from the one that might be stopped and searched in the first instance. Anything more absurd he could not conceive; and no clause involving such contradictions could possibly have been drawn by any person who was competent to the task. He should certainly support the proposal for re-committing the Bill, whatever the consequences of that step might be.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he was averse to giving more power to the police, but he did not think that the Bill would have that effect. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had used the undoubtedly great talents which he had to pervert the manning of the measure; and he could not help remarking on the conduct of the Attorney General, who had not till that moment taken any part in the discussions on the Bill. It was the hon. and learned Gentleman's duty to have been in his place to take care of the liberty of the subject.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Attorney General had voted against the second reading of the Bill, and had now interposed at the earliest opportunity after the Bill had been brought into its present shape. The fact was it had pleased the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Leighton) to introduce on the Report Amendments which had converted the Bill from sense into nonsense; and his learned Friend, who was the special guardian of the criminal law of the country, had taken the first opportunity to fulfill the duties of his office. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) protested against the idea that the faults of the Bill were chargeable upon its opponents. He protested against the House passing a measure in language which no village schoolboy would be allowed to use without correction. He regretted that hon. Gentlemen did not see the discredit which would be brought upon the Legislature if they dealt with criminal law in this lax fashion. He advised that the Bill should be re-committed in order to amend the phraseology, even if they immediately afterwards proceeded to consider the question of the third reading.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

contended, that it was the duty of the Government, and especially of the Law Officers of the Crown, to have been present to see that the Bill was expressed in clear and correct language. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been present during the important debate which had taken place in the early part of the evening, and in which the policy, including the financial policy of the Government, had been seriously impugned; and now he came there at between one and two in the morning to obstruct this Bill. Any amendments that the Bill really required might be made in another place; but he did not think the Bill was open to the objections which had been made against it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought it was a very strange doctrine that the Attorney General was not to give his opinion of the Bill now because he had not done so before. The Bill, if passed in its present shape, would make the House a laughingstock. If it were re-committed, every attempt would be made to delay it unless a clear understanding were come to that it should be limited for one year.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, the whole difficulty had arisen from the way in which the promoters of the measure had been met on the other side.

MR. CLAY

said, he thought it would be better if hon. Gentlemen opposite withdrew the Bill, and next Session proposed the abolition of the Game Laws, accompanying it with an Act declaring game to be property.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

was ready to accept a proposal to limit the operation of the Bill to one year, and to make the amendments pointed out by the Attorney General.

MR. LYGON

suggested that the arrangement would be unobjectionable if the Bill were allowed to pass to-night.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

approved of limiting the Bill to one year, as it would secure inquiry into the Game Laws next Session.

MR. CRAUFURD

recommended the supporters of the Bill to accept the compromise. It would be a drawn battle, in which neither side would have any advantage.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 61: Majority 29.

Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. W. E. FORSTER moved the adjournment of the House.

SIR GEORGE GREY

regretted that the Bill had not been re-committed, but he was not disposed to sit up any longer for the purpose of attempting to oppose the further progress of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 35; Noes 88: Majority 53.

Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

SIR JOSEPH PAXTON moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 89: Majority 59.

Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Mr. TAYLOR moved that the House do now adjourn.

Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 86: Majority 60.

Original Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

Debate arising; Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

The House divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 29: Majority 55.

Bill passed, with Amendments.

House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock in the morning, till Monday next.