Lords Sitting of 11 June 1824

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL
Earl Grosvenor,in moving the second reading of his bill, for legalising the pur-
1200
chase and sale of Game, made a few observations on the present state of the laws, and stated his reasons for not touching, in this measure, the question of the property in game. It was not to be denied that, at the present moment, the gaols were crowded with offenders against the game laws, and on this account it was material to adopt, without delay, some law which should remedy that grievance. This was his principal reason for not following the suggestion of several noble friends to defer the subject until the next session. Another fact not to be disputed was, that game, as the law now stood, was notoriously sold by fraud or evasion; and it was important to put an end to this demoralising system. The temptation to poaching would be less after the passing of this bill, inasmuch as it would render game so cheap by increasing the supply, as to make it not worth the poacher's while to follow his nefarious pursuit. Deer stealing had been terminated by a similar course of proceedings, and few poets, however hungry, would now find it answer their purpose to run the hazard once incurred by our greatest dramatist.
The Lord Chancellorcontended, that no good could be accomplished by an attempt to pass this bill hastily during the present session. With regard to the property in game, in law it belonged to no man until it was reduced into possession. If game were, in fact, property, it might be bought and sold; for buying and selling was an incident of property. He admitted the great evil of poaching; but it would not be decreased by making it legal for the poacher to sell the game he had stolen, and which could not be identified. The gaols could be relieved in no way but by laying the property at so high a value as to hang the offender, or at so low a value as to transport him. Such was the mercy this bill was calculated to afford. Until he (the lord chancellor) was qualified, he had unquestionably been a poacher; and, since he had been qualified, he had been little capable of following game from field to field, over bush and brake, as he had been represented to do, without fatigue, He saw no sufficient reason for passing this measure in haste on the 11th of June, when he knew that others, after five months consideration had not been able to make up their minds upon its difficulties.
Lord Dacresaid, he was friendly to this or any similar measure, not for the sake

1201
of the game, but for the amelioration of the lower orders of our agricultural population. The commitments for infractions of the game laws had gone on increasing to a most alarming degree; and it was a matter of necessity that something should be done. He contended, with all humility, that game was property. The great evil was the want of a moral feeling in the minds of the lower orders upon the subject of game, which he feared the bare rendering the sale of game legal would not create. If the noble lord would originate another measure, so framed as to raise that moral feeling, it would be a greater amendment of the criminal code, than any of the speculative improvements of modern times.
Lord Calthorpesupported the bill, as it appeared calculated to produce much good, tending, as it did, to diminish the mass of outrage, fraud, and violence, which at present prevailed. The change of the law was more gradual than had been contemplated by the measure which had been introduced in the other House of parliament; and it did not therefore follow, because that measure had never reached their lordships House, that the present bill would be objected to. Under all the circumstances he did not think that their lordships should delay the attempt to rescue the agricultural population from a state in which evil was in a manner forced upon them.
The Duke of Richmondopposed the bill. If it were to pass he did not see the possibility of ever convicting a poacher.
The Marquis of Salisburywould not oppose the bill in its present stage, though, unless great alterations were made in it, he should feel it his duty to do so on a future occasion.
The Earl of Carnarvonargued, that the property in game ought, in reason and justice, to belong to the occupier of the soil; as it was maintained at his expense, so it ought to exist for his advantage. The test of demoralization on a people was not merely the number of petty punishments inflicted. His lordship recommended, that the further consideration of the subject should be postponed to a future session; though, if a division were pressed, he should vote for the bill.
Earl Grosvenorexpressed his intention, after what had fallen from his noble friends, of not pressing the bill pertinaciously on their lordships.
The bill was then negatived without a division.