On the motion of lord Wharncliffe, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that having moved for certain returns, showing the increase of crime within the last few years, and as those returns, in pursuance of their lordships' orders, were now in progress, he should, for the present, postpone delivering his opinion on the subject, especially as he understood that the third reaching of the bill would not be permitted to pass without sonic discussion. The knowledge to be derived from those returns, with respect to the alarming increase of crime of late years in this country, but more particularly in England, as regarded the crimes arising from the practice of poaching, was a subject deserving their most serious consideration, and to which, on the third reading of the bill, he should call their attention.
The House then resolved itself into a committee on the bill.
§ Lord Redesdaleobjected strongly to the first clause, the object of which was to introduce a new system of qualifications for killing game, whereby greater facilities would be afforded for poaching than existed under the present. He had no objection to so much of the bill as rendered the sale of game legal; but he thought it would be advisable to require that every person selling game should I take out a licence for that purpose.
Lord Suffieldbegged to express his dissent from the view which the learned lord took of this subject. The learned lord had talked of qualifications. Now, he contended, that they were not qualifications, but disqualifications, and that they were replete with injustice, as well as mischief.
The Marquis of Londonderryobserved, that the first clause of the bill went to repeal all the laws that had hitherto been enacted on this subject. Now, it was rather strange that, if those laws had been so destructive in their operation as they had been described to be, there should have been no petitions presented against them. Whatever might have been their effect in producing crime, he considered that the present bill was calculated to increase it. He did not disapprove, however, of the principle, that the sale of game ought to be permitted by law. It would be desirable that those who were at the expense of feeding it, should, when a quantity of it was killed, have those around them who might be at liberty to dispose of so much as was given to them. Indeed, one of the greatest pleasures derived from the possession of game was that of making presents of it to friends or tenants. To that part of the bill, therefore, he was perfectly willing to agree. But the clause now before the committee was so replete with experiments (indeed, this was the era of experiments, for we had experiments in free corn, free trade, and a free system of navigation laws), that he felt himself called upon to oppose it, and he trusted that, like other experiments, it would fail.
§ Lord Wharncliffeassured the noble marquis, that he would find himself in a miserable minority in the country, whatever he might here, in his attempt to uphold the present system of qualifications; which were in violation of every notion of common justice. Was it justice that, when game came upon another man's land, and were fed upon it, he was not to have any claim to it? He contended, that the present bill did not give any new rights, but only confirmed those which existed, and quoted lord Coke, and other authorities to show that the old law gave a man a qualified property in the game on his own land.
The Lord Chancellordid not approve of the existing system of qualifications, but, at the same time, he was not prepared 270 to say that he considered the one provided by the present bill a change for the better. He would, however, reserve his opinion upon the general principle of the bill until the third reading. With respect to the decisions of lord Coke, that great authority, like many others, was contradicted in some most important doctrines, and many of his decisions were not law at this day. For himself, he did not believe that the law gave a man an action of trover against a person who killed a pheasant on his land, because it was on his land; notwithstanding the authorities referred to by the noble lord. The great circumstance on which the bill was founded; namely, the increase of crime, was owing to the introduction of battues; and if their lordships did not find some means of destroying these battues, they might as well say that the moon shall not shine, as that there shall not be poachers.
§ The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the present Game -laws were most unjust in their operation. As to the effect apprehended from the bill before the committee, that it would be attended with the destruction of the game, there was just as much reason to apprehend it at present; because any man who now chose to destroy the game, might do so by laying poison in his field, which the law did not prevent him from doing. He considered the whole system of our Game-laws so objectionable, that he would vote for any alteration in them which might be proposed. It was not by law that game was now protected, but by an armed force.
The clause was agreed to, and the House resumed.