HC Deb 28 July 1862 vol 168 cc969-71
SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he would move the omission of the definition of the word "game" contained in the clause—namely, hares, pheasants, partridges, eggs of pheasants and partridges, woodcocks, snipe, rabbits, grouse, black or moor game, and eggs of grouse, black or moor game, for the purpose of substituting the definition contained in the present Game Acts. With regard to eggs, they had never before been included in any definition of game; and though in one Game Act there was a special provision relating to the eggs of pheasants and partridges, yet it only sentenced persons taking them to a fine of 5s., whereas the Bill would subject them to a fine of £5 or imprisonment.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "and," in line 13, in order to insert the words "have the same meaning as it is defined to have in the Acts passed, the one in the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter sixty-nine, intituled 'An Act for the move effectual Prevention of Persons going armed by Night for the Destruction of Game,' and the other in the Session of the first and second years of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-two, intituled 'An Act to amend the Laws in England relative to Game,' —instead thereof.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he thought the definition clause better as it stood. Former Acts had included the words "game or rabbits." He admitted that eggs were a new addition. It was not his proposition, but was proposed by another Member, and passed without a word of opposition.

MR. CRAWFORD

said, that a division was taken on the word rabbits. He regretted the result of the decision which had been come to, because the objection was to increasing the law against day poaching; and the opponents of the Bill also objected to woodcocks, snipes, and rabbits being described as game, they not being game.

MR. BARROW

said, he was not sure whether he should not at once move that the House do adjourn; and he thought he should be doing right in taking division after division until the supporters of the Bill could be induced to listen to the arguments against it. He believed stringent laws would not put down poaching. It was because he believed that this Bill was an entire mistake that he was opposed to it. The petitioners all objected to the police being employed in the preservation of game. It was impossible to make game property. There was no one more desirous to put down poaching than he was.

LORD LOVAINE

said, he rose to order. The question they were discussing was, whether conies were to be classed as game.

MR. BARROW

said, then he would speak about rabbits, and he did not think that hon. Gentlemen were wise in endeavouring to make rabbits game. A farmer was quite as much justified in destroying a rabbit as he would be in destroying a rat.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 75: Majority 10.

MR. BUTT

said, he wished to move words to exempt females from being searched under the provisions of this Act.

Amendment proposed, To add at the end of Clause 1 the words "but nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to authorize the searching of the person of any female under any of the provisions herein contained.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he regretted the clause had been struck out which compelled game dealers to keep a register. He thought as the Bill was at first framed it was a very bad one, but it would leave the House in a good shape. He believed it would be impossible to make game property. The Amendment he should oppose, as it would be very easy to employ women to drive a cart containing game; and if they did so, they ought to be made amenable to the law.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 80: Majority 27.

Clause agreed to.