Lords Sitting of 9 May 1825

Game Laws Amendment Bill.
Lord Dacre,in moving the second reading of this bill, said that its expediency was so apparent from an inspection of the present game laws, as well as the notoriety of facts, that it would be a waste of their lordships' time to go into any minute inquiry upon the subject. The evil consequences of the present law were fully evinced in its effects upon the habits and morals of the agricultural population; indeed, it was impossible that any question could come before the House which more deeply involved the happiness, nay, the very existence of that class of people. Game was originally the property of the proprietor of the land; and if, in subsequentages, the legislature took it from him, it now behoved their lordships to restore it to its former owner. The noble lord then quoted several decisions of lord Coke, lord Kenyon, and other authorities, to prove that game was formerly considered the property of the owner of the soil: and observed upon the various legislative enactments by which the law on this subject was changed. These enactments excluded all small proprietors and owners of personal property from the enjoyment of game. This exclusion worked a double injustice towards the small landed proprietor; for, whilst it shut him out from the enjoyment of game, it authorised the large proprietor, who was his neighbour, to accumulate such a number of hares and other animals, as to threaten his crops with destruction. If the present bill passed, it would be followed by such mutual arrangements between the large and small proprietors, as would have the effect of completely checking the depre-
450
dations of poachers, which the present system was calculated to encourage. Where there were forty millions of:personal property in the kingdom, how could their lordships say that not one of the owners of this was to be allowed to possess property in a single hare? The noble lord animadverted upon the pernicious effects of the present laws upon the morals of the agricultural population, observing, that a large majority of the trials with which the sessions were now occupied for several days, instead of a few hours, as formerly, were for crimes emanating from the game laws. It was by them that the system of poaching was created, and to that was to be attributed the great increase of crime in the country. The only remedy for the evil would .be an enactment making game the property of the owner of the land; and allowing the sale of game subject to certain regulations; which regulations would be matter for consideration in the committee. In cases of leases for lives, he would recommend the game to be made the property of the lessee. But this and various minor details would be more fitly discussed in the committee. Something must be done to remove the evils of the present system, and he considered the present measure, with some slight amendments which might be made in it, the best that could be adopted for that purpose. It was one which, he repeated, was of vital importance to the habits, the morals, the happiness, and the very existence of the agricultural population.
The Earl of Westmorlandopposed the motion. When a measure like this, affecting the rights and privileges of so many of the king's subjects was proposed, it required, he said, very serious consideration. The preservation of game, in a country so highly cultivated as ours was, was an object of high importance. If the noble lord proceeded with the measure, he would find himself involved in much contradiction and absurdity. It was introduced under the pretext of supporting popular rights: but whoever examined the bill, would find it to be the most despotic act that ever was framed; and that, in fact, its principles were the same as those from which the horrors of the French Revolution were partly drawn. Its tendency was to benefit men of extensive landed property, and to deprive all other classes of every species of rural amusement. It went to declare game, feræ naturæ, to be private property. It

451
took from the lord of the manor the rights he now possessed; and gave him such as he ought not to possess. What privileges it granted to the small proprietor were quite useless, because he could not pursue game beyond the limits of his own property. It was true, he might set snares on his land; but no more. Their lordships should consider, in the next place, how it interfered with rural amusements, such as hunting, shooting, or hawking. The game might be pursued from a man's own lands into those of another; but then, if the person pursuing it could not prove it to he the very same he had started, he might be seized, and taken before a magistrate. The measure would have the effect of turning every large proprietor of game into a poulterer, and every sportsman into a robber. He was not disposed to deny the great evil arising from poaching; and should be as ready as any man to concur in such measures as might be likely to lessen the mischief. The present, however, was not, as it appeared to him, a measure of that description. It could never have the effect of impressing on the minds of the people that animals feræ naturæ, were private property, or that the same moral guilt attached to the stealing of game as to that of any other article. Hitherto he had always thought that the game laws were considered as tending, in a great degree, to preserve the peace of the country, by taking it out of the power of all classes of the people to possess arms. They made it impossible for a general arming to take place, if a disposition prevailed to disturb the peace of the country. By this bill every man might possess arms. He admitted that the bill of rights allowed this privilege to all his majesty's subjects; but then it was a privilege of which they had no inducement to avail themselves very generally. That would not be the case, if the present bill should pass into a law. For these reasons, he would move, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months. He did so, not that he approved of the present system, but that he thought the proposed one would be most tyrannical and unjust.
The Earl of Malmesburyobjected to the expressions, "unjust, impolitic, and unprincipled," as too severe, when applied to an existing law which had been so long in operation. He never remembered the alteration now proposed, to have been taken up by the great statesmen in
452
the course of his parliamentary experience. He should oppose the motion, though on a different ground from that of the noble earl who spoke last. He considered that the game laws, as they now stood, formed a strong inducement to the landed proprietors to reside, for a considerable part of the year, on their estates. This he looked upon as so great and important an advantage, that he should be very unwilling to incur the risk of losing it for a contingent good.
The Earl of Darnleysupported the bill. The system of poaching was he said, carried to so great an extent, that some measure was necessary to correct it; and though, perhaps, the bill before the House was not the most perfect, yet it was calculated to do away with a large portion of the evils of the present system. As to the observation, that the present laws were calculated to act as an inducement to country gentlemen to reside on their estates, he must say that they would have the same inducement under the proposed law; for the fact of game being made property could not hinder gentlemen from preserving it less than they did before. He should, therefore, give his cordial support to the bill.
Lord Calthorpeexpressed himself favourable to the principle of the bill. If it had no other effect than that of legalizing the sale of game, it would be productive of the most important benefits to the country; for he believed that the greatest and most fruitful source of the evils flowing from the existing laws was to be found in the prohibition of the sale of game. On these grounds he would support the bill; and he conceived it would be a peculiarly invidious act to reject it. Notwithstanding that it had been said, that any measure like this passed in the other House would be thrown out in this, he was satisfied that their lordships would consider that they were not sitting there as land-holders merely, but that other considerations and other duties ought to influence them in deciding upon this most important question.
Lord Suffieldcontended, that the present system of the game laws was prolific of crime. He denied that the bill under consideration tended to the establishment of a new description of property. The game was at present the property of the owner of the soil. No statute had ever declared to the contrary. It had always been held so; and all that had been done

453
was, to enact regulations respecting it. He was astonished to hear some noble lords require further evidence with respect to the nefarious traffic that was carried on under the present law. Was not the thing manifest? Was it not notorious, that in that traffic multitudes were embarked, induced by the temptation which the bill before their lordships, if it did not entirely remove, would very considerably diminish? With respect to the injury that was apprehended to the field sports of the higher orders, in consequence of this bill, he believed the fear to be visionary. Of this he was quite sure, that they would retain their fair share of amusement, and that society at large would be much less demoralized. What bad been the case with respect to venison? Why, that since it had been made saleable the practice of stealing it had been discontinued. There were three principles with reference to the subject of game which, in his opinion, it was due to the country to establish; first, that a man had a right to kill what was on his own property; secondly, that he had a right to allow others to kill what was on his own property; and thirdly, that the possessor of personal property had a right to employ that property in the purchase of game. It had been said, that, in the event of passing the bill; many landlords would experience great loss. The compensation would be easy. Should their tenants be permitted to kill game, they must of course pay more for their land, as it would be more valuable. Being persuaded that the measure was pregnant with advantages to the country, he trusted their lordships would agree to the second reading of the bill.
The House divided on the Amendment:—Contents 38; Not-contents 23; Majority 15. The bill was consequently lost.The House divided on the Amendment:—Contents 38; Not-contents 23; Majority 15. The bill was consequently lost.