[BILI No. 204] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 July 1862)

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that after the decision of the House on the second reading it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the present Motion. He took that course the more willingly, because he did not know what the Bill was which they were now asked to sanction. He had no reason to be dissatisfied with the result of the discussion on the second reading. Very serious objections had been stated to the Bill as it came down from the other House. Those objections had not been satisfactorily answered, and the result was, that the supporters of the Bill had themselves given notice of important amendments and alterations, which filled upwards of five pages of the paper. He had no objection, therefore, to go into the consideration, he would not say of the Bill, but of the Amendments, some of which, if carried, would alter the measure very materially and would improve it. It would be observed, for example, that the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill (Sir Baldwin Leighton) had given notice to move that those provisions of the Bill which enabled a single policeman to apprehend persons without warrant, on mere suspicion, should be struck out. He was glad to find that that provision of the Bill found no supporters in that House. But there were other objections to the Bill which remained untouched, and, among others, the objection which had been so ably urged by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, that the Bill would entirely alter the nature of the employment of the county police. The police now patrolled singly, and they were generally popular as the defenders of life and property; but it would be impossible for one policeman to cope with gangs of poachers; and if the Bill were to be carried out, there must be large bodies of policemen combined together, which would render indispensable a large addition to the force. Should the force be increased, it might be necessary to revise the proposal that one-fourth of the expense should be borne by the country at large. He was as anxious as any one to see poaching put down, and he therefore had no wish to throw his shield over poachers; but he believed the evil 706 was caused by the over-preservation of game, and the remedy lay in the hands of the landowners themselves. Nobody could desire to prevent a gentleman from preserving game for the purpose of sport; but Parliament ought not to be asked to give additional protection to those who maintained great preserves in order that they might have the pleasure of reading in the newspapers towards the end of the season that they and their friends had in the course of a few days killed 4,000 or 5,000 head of game. These enormous quantities of game must be preserved throughout the year, and the consequence was, that this qualified property invited, perhaps to a greater degree than other kinds of property left exposed, the depredations of the poacher. When other kinds of property were unduly exposed, the thief, of course, was punished, but the judges condemned the practice; and it appeared to him, that if large preserves were to be maintained, they should be protected at the expense, not of the ratepayers, but of the owners themselves.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
appealed to the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill (Sir Baldwin Leighton) whether this late period of the Session was the proper period for bringing forward so important a measure. There were so many Amendments and alterations that the Bill would require to be redrawn. With the alterations it was, in fact, an entirely fresh Bill, or rather two Bills. There was a strong feeling against the Bill in the country, and if there was time, numerous petitions would be presented against it. He did not think that at so late a period of the Session a Bill of this kind should be introduced in opposition to the opinion of the Home Secretary, who was responsible for the peace and order of the country, and he would recommend that it should be postponed till next Session, when a Select Committee might be appointed to inquire into the whole law upon the subject.

§ SIR JOSEPH PAXTON
said, he was satisfied, having had the management of large game preserves, that the Bill, if passed into law, would create difficulties and disturbances in every county in England. Gamekeepers were very unpopular, not only with the common people, but likewise with the tenant-farmers; and to associate policemen with them would simply be to throw upon that force a portion of the odium which was now borne by the latter alone. The police had plenty 707 to do already, and the House should pause before calling upon them, in addition to their other duties, to assist in putting down poaching. The police in the rural districts, and the gamekeepers themselves, were opposed to this measure. Under this Bill, if a farmer was going in his cart to market, and happened to be carrying a brace of pheasants or a hare, he might be stopped by the police, and carried before a magistrate to account for the possession of this game. That would never be tolerated. His own opinion was, that the evil lay in the large amount of game preserved and in the facilities afforded by railways for sending the game to market. He trusted the Bill would be withdrawn; but meanwhile he had no hesitation in moving, as an Amendment, that the House should go into Committee upon it that day three months.

LORD HENLEY
seconded the Amendment. He had two objections to the Bill. One was, that it would make the police force in counties very unpopular. He had had considerable experience with regard to the police, for he had been a Member of the Police Committee in Northamptonshire, in conjuuction with General Cartwright, and they had always set their faces against the police being used to assist in the preservation of game. This course had made the police in Northamptonshire a popular force with ratepayers, instead of an unpopular one. This Bill, therefore, would undo all the good that had already been done in Northamptonshire. Nobody could doubt, that under the altered state of the law the walks of the police would always be taken in the direction of the best game preserves, inasmuch as the first wish of a chief constable was to stand well with the principal magistrates in the county. He thought that those who had game preserves should pay for their preservation. The other objection was, that the Bill would increase poaching, instead of diminishing it; because it would make preserving so much easier that a great many landowners who did not now preserve at all would be induced to follow the example of their neighbours, and thus offer additional temptations to 708 the poacher. It had been said that poaching invariably led to other crimes, but the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had exposed that fallacy. In the minds of the common people there was a great distinction between game and other kinds of property. The peasantry looked upon game as they looked upon rooks and foxes, and to take game was not, in their opinion an act of theft. The governor of the gaol of Northamptonshire once pointed out to him a man who was then committed to prison for the twenty-second time, but invariably for poaching. Let them consider what that man cost the county for police expenses, and for maintaining him in prison. He admitted that an evil existed, but it might be remedied in a way very different from that proposed in the present Bill. It might be met by an arrangement similar to that adopted in Roxburghshire, where the game preservers, in return for a certain money payment towards the police and county rate, obtained the services of the police. Another plan was to give a little more power to gamekeepers, allowing them to stop and search poachers, not only when they found them on their masters' ground, but also whenever and wherever they had reason to suspect that they were carrying game away from it. This Bill would cause great evils, and render the police unpopular. If it could be shelved for this winter, they might be exposed to certain evils, but the evils would not be so great as those that would be caused by the operation of this measure.

LORD STANLEY
said, that he fully concurred in the views which had been expressed by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on the second reading. He did not intend to go into the merits of the Bill, partly because they had already been fully discussed, and partly because, looking at the Bill and the Amendments upon it, he had no idea what was the question really before the House. The Amendments extended to almost as great a length as the Bill itself; some of them were very important, affecting the principle of the measure, and if they were adopted, the Bill would assume a very different form from, that in which it had been considered in the other House. He admitted that the Game Laws required amendment, but they should be dealt with in a more comprehensive manner than was now proposed. Much might be done, while giving all reasonable pro- 709 tection to the amusements and interests of game preservers, to remove the undoubted unpopularity which attached to the present Bill; but Parliament ought to proceed by way of inquiry, and then by a revision of the whole law. There was also a question of policy which they were bound to consider. We had before us a season of greater distress than had occurred during the last fifteen or twenty years. Hitherto the unemployed operatives had borne their sufferings with exemplary patience; but no man could doubt that where there was a great deal of distress sooner or later there must be popular discontent. The present Bill was promoted because it was believed to be a measure for the enforcement of public order and the protection of life and property; but how would it be regarded out of doors? He did not say what the Bill was intended to be, but what it would be represented to be. It would be said that in a time of national distress—almost of national famine—when every thinking man was looking into the future with anxiety and dread, the last act of the House of Commons before the recess was to pass a law for the protection of their own amusements. Looking to the popularity and influence of the House—looking more especially to the political position of those hon. Gentlemen on his own side who were the principal supporters of the Bill, he felt it his duty to warn them against passing such a measure at such a time. Reserving his opinion as to the real merits of the measure, and as to its principle, until the subject had been inquired into, and not wishing that such a Bill should be passed at the present time, he should vote against going into Committee.

§ MR. WALTER
admitted the necessity of putting down that system of poaching which had been so long the disgrace of the country and the terror of the neighbourhoods in which it was pursued; but, at the same time, on carefully looking over the Bill, he had great doubts whether it would effect the object which all had in view. He agreed with the noble Lord who spoke last (Lord Stanley) that the subject should be entered into much more deeply than was now proposed. The Bill in principle did not go far enough, because it continued that mischievous old feudal doctrine upon which the legal theory of game was defended, namely, that game were feræ naturtæ, the property of any person who took possession first. Such 710 was the legal theory both in England and in France, and he believed that upon that theory the whole superstructure of poaching rested. It had been truly said that poachers had loose ideas as to the nature of the offence they committed when they killed hares or pheasants. The distinction drawn between game and other kinds of property was a very pernicious one. Poaching was neither more nor less than theft. Game was property of a qualified description—it was an attribute of land; and it would comport with common sense and the spirit of modern civilization to recognise it as such, dealing with it accordingly. Make poaching simple larceny, and its sentimental and romantic character would be destroyed;—treat a poacher as a thief, and his neighbours would no longer regard him as a hero. The first clause of the Bill invested the police with a power which was exercised only in cases where private property was stolen. It consequently proceeded upon a theory which was not recognised by the law in the case of game. But the second clause was still more objectionable, because it rendered all tradesmen who sold game liable to have their books searched by the police. Such a provision would be intolerable in its operation, and it might be as well applied to fishmongers and poulterers as to persons who sold game. It appeared to him that the first thing the House had to do was to decide what game was. He thought it should be treated as private property, and he believed the country generally would acquiesce in that view, as far, at all events, as the most important portion of English, game—pheasants—was concerned. It was difficult to understand how pheasants could be considered feræ naturæ. Gamekeepers called them by their names; they came when called, and there was in all respects a broad distinction between them and rabbits and snipes, which lived upon what might be termed the natural plunder of the land. He did not think that anything could be done with the present Bill, but it might be hoped that the Government, without having any more Select Committees, which were unnecessary, would lose no time in bringing forward a measure framed upon right principles, and calculated to effect the object which all had in view.

§ LORD GREY DE WILTON
said, he could not see how this Bill would make the police unpopular.

§ MR. KNIGHTLEY
said, it had been 711 stated that the effect of the Bill would be to make the police unpopular, but he had always thought that the police were bound to enforce the laws. He also denied that game had never been considered in the light of property.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
stated that after the feeling exhibited by a large majority of the House in favour of the Bill on the second reading, notwithstanding the opposition of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, both Gentlemen possessing deservedly great weight, he thought it quite necessary that he should proceed with the Bill. With respect to what had been objected to by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) as to the right of search, that was now conceded; and as to the inconvenience of keeping books, pawnbrokers and others were obliged to keep books.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, after the decision of the House by a large majority on the second reading, he had no wish to offer any objection to going into Committee in order that the Amendments, which were not only very numerous, but important, should be fairly considered, reserving to himself the right, when the Bill came out of Committee, to deal with it as he should think proper. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Joseph Paxton) would not give the House the trouble of a division.

§ MR. STANILAND
, who had given notice of a series of Amendments to the clause, moved the first in order—namely, To leave out in line nine "1," and insert "2;" before "it," to insert "from and after the passing of this Act;" and in line ten to leave out "between. The object of his Amendments was to give the police power to stop parties whom they had reason to believe were about to engage in poaching, and take from them their nets, snares, and other engines. He would give the police the same power 712 which was at present possessed by gamekeepers on the land of their employers. By limiting the time within which the search was to take place, they would altogether destroy the value of the measure. Poachers would then go out on their marauding expeditions only a little earlier than the hour named, and come home a little later, and thus enjoy the same impunity as at present.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that if this Bill were not passed, they were threatened with one more comprehensive, which would really infringe on the liberty of the subject. For this reason he was anxious to support the Bill. He hoped, however, that its provisions would be made as moderate as possible.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, he was ready to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Staniland).

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
objected to the Amendment, because while they only professed to give to the police the power now possessed by an owner, occupier, or gamekeeper, they, in fact, went much furthet. The law at present only gave the owner or occupier, or his servant, power in case of a party trespassing by day-time in pursuit of game to demand his name and address; and if these were given, he could be pursued only in ordinary process of law; but if this Bill passed, after a party who had given his name and address left the land, he might be searched by the police, apprehended, and imprisoned. He objected to the omission of the words proposed in the Amendments.

MR. HENLEY
thought they had reason to complain of the manner in which they were called on to discuss these Amendments. A long string of Amendments had been put on the paper, and there was great difficulty in knowing whether they were to be opposed or supported by the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill. The Bill consisted of only three clauses, and there were no fewer than thirty-three Amendments of which notice had been given. Some of these were utterly inconsistent with others, and no one could tell which they ought to support or which to oppose, or whether they would make the clause more or less stringent. It would be but fair that the hon. Baronet should inform them what he proposed to adopt and what to oppose.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, that there was a very strong impression both 713 among those who opposed this Bill and others, that the power of apprehension was rather too stringent; he therefore thought it better that the police should merely have the power of seizing the property and then summoning the offender. An hon. Member opposite gave notice of an Amendment, that under certain circumstances the police should have the power to apprehend, but, he believed, he did not intend to insist on it. He did not hold himself responsible for any Amendment but what he should propose himself.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, the Bill was for the prevention of night-poaching; but the hon. Baronet now agreed to the very first Amendment proposed, which entirely changed the character of the measure, and extended it to day as well as to night poaching.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, the poaching was committed during the night, and it was to prevent poaching during the night that the police had power to seize during the day.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that this Amendment was expressly intended to include day poaching, and not to restrict the operation of the clause to the unlawful obtaining of game at night. This would entirely alter the character of the Bill, and would, if agreed to, render it necessary to alter the title and the preamble.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
asked, how a policeman would manage to discover whether a man whom he wished to apprehend had obtained his game in the night? He had understood, when the second reading was carried, that the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Staniland) would propose Amendments to make the Bill less stringent; but his first Amendment would make the Bill three times more stringent than it was originally.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
asked, if the police had not within the metropolitan district the very same powers which this Bill gave to the police in rural districts.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that specific, powers were granted by Parliament to the police within the metropolitan district, where parties were suspected of being about to commit felony, or of having stolen property in their possession. Game, however, was not property in that sense; the Commissioners of Police had assured him that game was not considered to come under the clause, and strict injunctions were given to the police not to search poachers.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
understood that there had been one case in which they had done so.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that if the poachers came under the provisions of the Night Poaching Act, it would become their duty to search and apprehend them.

§ MR. BASS
said, that it was not desired by the Bill to employ police in the preservation of game; but it was believed, that if poachers returning home with their plunder were liable to be overhauled, night poaching would be checked. This was what he was told, not only by the police, but by poachers, with whom he had a large acquaintance. He believed that a moderate preservation of game was a national advantage. He had a small preserve in Hertfordshire, within fourteen miles of Hyde Park Corner, and consequently within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Act; and although there was only a small force of gamekeepers, there had not been a case of night poaching in four years, and there had not been any complaint that the police had employed themselves in looking after game instead of attending to their ordinary duties.

COLONEL NORTH
thought these poachers ought not to be allowed to have it all their own way. Not long ago a brutal and premeditated murder was committed in his county by one of them, and the man was condemned to death; but the Home Secretary, for reasons with, which persons living in the neighbourhood were not acquainted, remitted the sentence.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that as the hon. and gallant Member had charged him with remitting a sentence of capital punishment pronounced on a man who—the hon. and gallant Member stated on his own authority—had committed a most premeditated murder, he begged to tell him that the report of the Judge who presided at the trial, with that impartiality which usually distinguished our judicial bench, led to a very different opinion as to the premeditation of the crime.

§ MR. GARNETT
thought that the retention of the words in the clause would make the Bill quite contemptible. It would be absurd to sanction a provision which would enable night poachers to defy the police by merely deferring to bring home their spoil till half-past 8 o'clock in the morning. He denied that gamekeepers, as a rule, were unpopular characters in the county. A near relative of his, who was a moderate preserver of 715 game, some years ago gave up the practice in order to prevent conflicts with poachers; but, before a year had expired, his tenants came to him and begged him to restore the gamekeepers, because their farms were subject to the intrusion of these daring marauders. His relative complied with that request. The supporters of this Bill did not desire to turn the police into gamekeepers; all they desired was to put a stop to the murderous attacks which were so frequently made by gangs of armed men upon honest servants who were only in the discharge of the service they owed to their masters. As to game not being property, his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had clearly stated enough on that point. He did not think the remark of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) with reference to present circumstances was at all justifiable. He sympathized with the brave and heroic men who were now suffering severe distress in his own county; but he looked upon this as a most wise, proper, and even merciful measure, which the House ought to pass. He hoped that some legislation on the subject would take place before the close of the Session.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
emphatically protested against the undue haste with which legislation of this kind was being pressed. The observations of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down were a proof of the inconsiderate haste with which this measure was sought to be forced on.

§ MR. STANILAND
said, that the Home Secretary having dissented very strongly to the omission of the words which he had proposed to leave out, although not convinced by the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, yet, in deference to his wishes, he begged to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. HENLEY
said, that a recent unhappy transaction in his county having been alluded to in the course of the discussion, he felt it incumbent on him to state, after having paid considerable attention to the evidence given in the case, and to the representations made to the Home Secretary, that he was satisfied the right hon. Baronet could not have done otherwise than recommend a remission of the sentence of death under the circumstances. Not many years before the converse of that case occurred, when an unfortunate man, while trespassing, was 716 shot by a gamekeeper, who, however, was not capitally punished.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley). He believed the Bill was calculated to bring on conflicts between poachers and the police. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite showed more enthusiasm upon this question than if it had really been one of national importance. The serried ranks of the Opposition on this occasion must produce a profound impression on the country. ["Divide!"] A friend of his had remarked that questions about the game laws drove country gentlemen mad. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite were only wasting time, for they would not succeed in silencing him. They represented the monopolists of the country, they were the representatives of the dirty acres. When a question arose affecting the interests of their fellow-countrymen, these partridge-slayers — ["Question!" "Divide!"]

§ MR. W. EWART
interposed to intreat a hearing for the hon. Member for Brighton.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
suggested that the hon. Gentleman was hardly in order in discussing the general question when there was a specific Motion before the Committee.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
asked, whether hon. Members opposite were in order when they interrupted him in so unseemly a manner. The supporters of this game-preserving Bill would have to answer to the people. Was it thought that because the Government had turned its back upon reform the people had become indifferent to having their interests fully represented in Parliament? Hon. Members opposite would repent of what they were doing. ["Oh, oh!"] Their unseemly interruptions would go forth to the country. He stood there not the nominee of any great landlord but the representative of an independent constituency. ["Order!"]

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
rose to order. The hon. Member for Brighton was not discussing the question before them, but simply making a hustings speech.

THE CHAIRMAN
hoped the hon. Member would confine himself to the Question.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, the irregularity came from the opposite side. He had told them some unpleasant truths— 717 which he defied them to controvert. ["Order!"] He was not discussing the provisions of the measure. The Amendment was proposed to be withdrawn, and he trusted the same fate awaited the Bill. He could not believe that in the middle of the nineteenth century such a Bill could be seriously brought forward, and that a deliberate attempt would be made to force it through the House. At a time when the people of this country were famishing for want of bread he thought that a Parliament which reverted to the feudal and antiquated notions about the Game Laws had better return as soon as possible to its constituencies. [The hon. Member spoke throughout amid much interruption.]

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR
said, he should have no objection to meet the hon. Member on any hustings in England. Anything more unfair, unjust, or unjustifiable than the hon. Member's remarks towards the hon. Gentlemen who sat around him he had never heard. He was satisfied there was no body of men more anxious than his hon. Friends to consider the wants of the people.

§ MR. KNIGHTLEY
did not think it necessary to defend the country gentlemen of England, but he must object to the Amendment being withdrawn.

§ MAJOR EDWARDS
only wished the hon. Member for Brighton could command his temper on these occasions, as he would thereby facilitate the business of the House. He denied altogether the assertion that the working classes throughout the country were opposed to such a measure as this, for poaching did not increase in proportion to the number of people out of work. It was a gross insult and a libel on the character of the honest and industrious English workman to assume that he had any sympathy or connection with the marauders against whom this legislation was directed. They were not the parties to which the Bill pointed, but a dissipated ruffianly class, who, too idle to work, lived from year to year by plundering their neighbours; and this class were always very numerous in towns in the neighbourhood of which large preserves existed. He could mention many towns in Yorkshire where gangs of poachers, all of them known to the police, went out at night with the avowed object of bringing home in the morning cart-loads of game from the neighbouring preserves, and setting the police and all authority at defiance. He (Major Edwards) had been 718 a preserver of game for more than a quarter of a century, and during that period serious encounters between his keepers and gangs of these ruffians had taken place. Only last year an instance of the kind resulted very seriously, and one of the party, who was left for dead, had not yet recovered. This was but one instance of a hundred that might be mentioned. A practice which prevailed extensively on the Yorkshire moors was for gangs of thirty men or more, with blackened faces, to go out at night with a net 600 yards long and six feet high, and, if unmolested, they would clear the moors of game for miles; and two years ago a net of this description was taken. He did not wish the rural police to assist the gamekeepers, or to interfere in any way with the preservation of game. They ought merely to possess the power exercised by the metropolitan police—to stop suspected persons on the highway at night, and make them account for the property they had in their possession. If game was to be considered property, those who were interested in its preservation had a right to complain of the law as it now stood. For these reasons he gave his support to the Bill.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
proposed to insert in the first clause, line 11, after the word "between," the words "the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the beginning of the first hour before sunrise."

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, he could not accede to this Amendment, which would defeat the Amendment previously agreed to.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
thought the Committee, by agreeing to an Amendment inconsistent with the title and preamble of the Bill, had exceded the order of reference, and he therefore begged to move that the Chairman now report progress.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman laboured under a misapprehension. The Amendment made 719 was one within the competence of the Committee.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
trusted, after that intimation from the Chair, that the motion for reporting progress would not be pressed. It was better to fight the Bill by legitimate weapons.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, that this measure was grossly unjust, and quite opposed to the modern spirit of legislation. It would lead to the most unjust interference by the police in searching the people, who were, in fact, to be placed absolutely at their mercy. He called attention to the fact that little by little attempts were being made—first, by the shipowners, to follow little bits of rope and yarn; next, by the iron trade of Birmingham, to follow little bits of things to the marine store dealer's, and summarily search the premises. This year the Government had introduced a measure giving a summary power of searching for things stolen out of the store depôts; and subsequently the same power was given to search summarily for obscene prints. All those attempts were departures from the ordinary process of law by means of summons and conviction. He would propose an Amendment which, he thought, would tend to bring this Bill more into accordance with the ordinary principles of law. The Bill was intended to meet the particular evil of bands of men entering upon lands, taking game, and then upon regaining the high road being free from all question as to their proceedings. That was a great evil, but there was no connection between the provisions of the Bill and that evil. As the Bill stood, any person, at any time of the day or night, going along a highway, might be suspected of the unlawful possession of game, and be stopped and searched by the police. He should move as an Amendment that the police have power to search any person "coming from any land where he shall have been unlawfully in search or pursuit of game," adopting the expression of the present Game Laws.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
expressed his satisfaction at the tone and temper in which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets tad introduced his Amendment. The 720 hon. Member had cited several instances in which the House had granted power to search persons suspected of being in unlawful possession of the property of others. The machinery of the Bill was thus adapted to the prevention of poaching, on the same principles as other acts for the repression of theft. But he (Mr. Newdegate) was afraid, that if the Amendment were carried in its present form, it would defeat the object of the Bill, because it would interpose almost insuperable difficulties in the way of proving that persons were coming from lands on which they had been unlawfully in search of game. It was perfectly true that the Metropolitan Police were not permitted to use the power of arresting persons in possession of game under suspicious circumstances, as they did arrest those suspected of the unlawful possession of other property; but he knew this fact, that the existence of the power of search by those policemen did interpose an effectual check upon poaching within the area of their operations, and he had not the slightest doubt whatever that the mere fact of a poacher knowing that any person suspected of having been on lands in pursuit of game might be searched would tend to prevent poaching. What this Bill aimed at was the prevention of large batches of game being taken to railway stations and sent up to London as a mere system of traffic by gangs of poachers. He fully admitted that there seemed to be a difficulty with respect to game being property; but nobody denied that after the animal was dead it became property, and he did not know why a policeman should not have as much right to search a suspected poacher to see whether he had got any game on him, as to search a man suspected of carrying off a few pieces of old iron. This was a Bill directed against poaching, and to require proof of a man having been in search of game unlawfully upon some particular land, would impose an insuperable bar to the operation of the Bill, and would tend virtually to defeat it altogether. Unless they did something to check the outrages which were continually occurring, the state of things would soon be such as to justify the House of Lords in asking them to carry a Bill of a still more stringent character. Poaching was carried on now too often from no love of sporting whatever, but simply for purposes of traffic; whereas the old-fashioned 721 poacher was at least as much of a sportsman as a robber. Believing that the Amendment, in the terms now proposed, would render the Bill utterly nugatory, he should vote against it, but he hoped that it would be withdrawn and re-considered, and that the object would be effected by better language.

§ MR. PAULL
said, that the Amendment would make the Act inoperative, as it would be easy for a man who had been unlawfully upon any land to give over the spoils upon the high road to a confederate who had not been upon the land, and the latter could pass the police with impunity.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
suggested that the police should have power to search any person "whom they may have good cause to suspect of coming from any land," &c.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
retorted on the landowners that it was they who made the preservation of game a mere matter of traffic, and he defied them to deny it. [Colonel DICKSON: I deny it.] He would repeat that they were animated by a mere commercial spirit, and came to that House to ask special legislation in their favour. Whatever the present remnant of the House might choose to do, he was quite sure that the Commons of England would give a very different decision on the Bill. He warned them that the rapid increase of the population and the higher cultivation of the land would soon make the preservation of game impossible; and he told them, that if they wished to indulge in sport, they ought to go abroad to other countries in their yachts, and not trouble the people of England by passing these iniquitous Game Laws. The present so-called "sport" was to get twenty or thirty hon. Gentlemen together, go down into the country, and enter the woods, followed by a cart. The slaughter then commenced; and as soon as the cart was filled, it was packed off to the railway station, and the game sold to the London poulterers. Such a proceeding did not deserve to be called by the name of sport; on the contrary, it was as much a commercial matter as any other mode of dealing with the produce of the land was. ["Oh, oh!"]

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, he was willing to accept the Amendment, with an alteration to the effect that any person might be apprehended who was suspected of having game in his posses- 722 sion, coming from lands where he had been unlawfully in pursuit of game, or any person acting in combination with such person.

§ SIR DAVID DUNDAS
protested against the word "combination," which was new to the English law, and had not been defined by the Courts, being used in an Act of Parliament; and he pointed out that it might possibly be used to include game-dealers and others living hundreds of miles away from the locality.

§ MR. PEACOCKE
said, he had suggested the words; but possibly others might be found to meet the case of a man having taken game upon land handing over that game to a comrade upon the high road.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, as the principle of his Amendment appeared to be assented to, there could be no difficulty in adding words to prevent the law being defeated by such artifices as had been suggested. The hon. Baronet had better consider the point and introduce any appropriate words upon the Report.

MR. HENLEY
also hoped that no words would be used about the construction of which there would be hereafter any difficulty; and he suggested, that as the object of the Amendment was to limit the operation of the Bill, and as the principle of that Amendment was accepted, perhaps the better way would be to consider what would be the proper words to be used, and introduce them on bringing up the Report.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
agreed to consider the point before the Report.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought, that as the Bill had been so much altered, and there was such doubt about its scope, the best plan would be to report progress.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
said, there was no doubt as to the scope of the Bill, but only as to the technical language in which the clause should be framed.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, that inasmuch as no opportunity would be given to Members to speak more than once on bringing up the Report, it would be impossible that any discussion of the words proposed could take place. The fact was that hon. Gentlemen were both ashamed and afraid to take the honest course, and say they wanted to make game property, because they knew there would be an immediate outcry. If game were made property, all the incidents of property, including the law of larceny, would attach to it, and there would be no necessity to go on 723 defining words step by step. He believed, that if they went on introducing words which had not received judicial definition, the judges would declare it to be unworkable, and it would remain on the statute-book mere brutum fulmen. He was so strongly convinced of the impropriety of leaving words to be inserted on the Report that he should renew his Motion to report progress.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that the words proposed by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ayrton) would limit beneficially the operation of the clause, and seemed to be generally acceptable to the Committee. He therefore saw no reason why the discussion should be adjourned. The precise words might be considered and proposed by the hon. Baronet on the bringing up of the Report.

§ SIR DAVID DUNDAS
said, he considered it most important to the honour of the House that they should be cautious in the words they employed in this Act, especially when they considered that they were imposing a new duty upon policemen of a most arduous kind. They must take care, above all other things, that if a policeman was to be directed to seize a man and summarily search him, the law should be on that policeman's side. He protested against their inserting words in the clause the legal meaning of which they really did not understand.

§ MR. ONSLOW
thought that no additional protection was required for the preservation of game.

MR. HENLEY
said, it would be easy, after the words were brought up on the Report, for any hon. Member to move that the Bill be re-committed.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
, said, that the law subjected a man to action in case of trespass in pursuit of game, and to specific penalties for shooting without a licence; but in no other sense was the possession of game an offence known to the law.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
suggested the substitution of the words "having in his possession any game unlawfully obtained."

§ MR. AYRTON
asked, whether the proposal was a serious one. Fish was a very large phrase, extending from a sprat to a whale; and if the clause were thus amended, a man might be taken up by the police if he had only a red herring in his pocket.

§ MR. BASS
maintained that the words were appropriate to the Bill. The House had devoted a large portion of its time to measures having for their object the protection of fish, and these words would help to carry out that object. The streams in his neighbourhood were poached in just the same way as the game preserves; and if a man were met with wet nets and a ton of fish in his possession, there was now no remedy against him. As the feeling of the House, however, was against the Amendment, he would withdraw it.

§ Mr. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
objected to the power which was given to a policeman to stop a man because he had a gun in his possession, and moved to leave out the words "gun, part of gun."

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
reminded the Committee that there must be a reasonable suspicion in the policeman's mind that the gun was being carried for the purpose of poaching.

§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMID
suggested that a Volunteer coming home from drill might be brought under the clause.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, he certainly would if he had been engaged in poaching. He thought that no danger would arise from giving this power to the police.

§ SIR DAVID DUNDAS
thought it a very dangerous power to give to a policeman to seize any person carrying a gun.

MR. HENLEY
said, that in consequence of the alterations that had been made this clause would work very differently from what was intended in the first instance. According to the clause as it stood, any man passing along the road with a gun on his shoulder was liable to have it taken from him, because the policeman might suspect that it had been, or was going to be (there was no limitation as to time), used for poaching; and now that the operation of the Bill was to be extended 725 to the day-time, it became a sort of Arms Act. As the hon. Baronet had assented to the extension of the operation of the Bill to the day-time, he was bound to keep its other provisions within some reasonable limit.

§ MR. AYRTON
thought it ought to be understood that the police should have no power to search, except such persons as they had reason to believe had been engaged in poaching.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
suggested that this would be made clear by the repetition of the words "coming from lands where he has been in search of game." The whole ought to be governed by the suspicion of having been engaged in the act of poaching. Without some such security the proposition would be beyond all reason.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought it was useless to say that there was no fear that the police, acting under the control of the justices—among whom there was, undoubtedly, a great feeling in favour of the preservation of game—would never use their powers in an improper manner. This feeling was one of the causes which lay at the root of the opposition to the Bill. He strongly objected to the words which it was proposed to leave out, for it was carrying the principle of searching for property to searching for instruments for attacking that property.

§ MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY
said, his objection to the words was that to give policemen the power of taking away men's guns was nothing less than offering a premium on murder. In the constituency which he represented (Stafford) he knew of several men—capital electioneered, but determined poachers—who might be persuaded to give up the dead game, but never would give up their arms without a struggle. On behalf, therefore, of the public, as well as in the interest of the constabulary, he objected to such a power being included in the Bill, which he must say was a suspicious measure, and distasteful to a large portion of the House.

§ SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON
said, the best answer he could give the hon. Member was to refer him to the report of the chief of the Staffordshire constabulary, who stated that, with two exceptions, no resistance had been offered to the police by the persons whom they had searched on the road for implements of poaching.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, that as the hon. Baronet had alluded to this report, 726 he wished to state what had taken place. A distinguished County Court Judge—Sir Walter Riddell—had written to him officially some time ago, stating that several actions had been brought before him in the county court against policemen for searching men on the high road. He said it was painful to him to have repeatedly to explain to the police that they were committing an illegal act; but it appeared that a mutual assurance society had been formed, and that they still continued to violate the law. He had forwarded this communication to the chief of the Staffordshire constabulary, who, without entering into any explanation, had informed him that he had given orders to discontinue the practice.