Lords Sitting of 6 May 1828

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
The Marquis of Salisbury The Marquis of Salisbury moved the order of the day for bringing up the Report of the Committee on the Sale of Game Bill.
The Earl of Malmesburymerely wished to say, that his noble friend who had brought the measure in its original state before their lordships, had brought it forward as a temporary measure,—a bill to continue two years,—to try whether the sale of game would produce any effect on the crime of poaching. Whatever objections he might have had to that bill, he should nevertheless have given his assent to it as an experiment; but since the bill had been first brought forward, an alliance had taken place between his noble friend and another noble lord, in consequence of which the bill had been totally altered. He confessed he could not consider, that facilitating the disposal of game would diminish the crime of poaching. Under the existing law, a person might be seized, and was liable to conviction, for having game in his possession; but under the present act, with all the precaution which his noble friend had used, a man having ten acres of land might sanction any one for having game in his possession. In his opinion, the measure would operate very much to disturb society, and produce litigation. For, in districts where property was divided among a number of tenants, and where each began to be a game-preserver, what would be the result? There would immediately spring up a great deal of jealousy: the farmers would be out at night looking after the game when they ought to be in their beds, and, instead of going on with the plough, they would be running to see who was shooting at what would not be game, but property; for it became a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. With respect to their lordships' tenants, in how different a light would they see their lordships going over their farms to what they did before? They used to be glad to see their lordships amuse themselves, as they always got a share in the amusement: but how different would be the case, when any of their lordships, after having killed ten head of game,

361
sent his gamekeeper to the licensed house, and sold them. The idea created in the mind of the tenant would be, that he was having a new description of rent levied upon him. The bill would, in his opinion, lead to a variety of results of a very pernicious nature, and he entreated their lordships to consider well before they passed it. If his noble friend should fail, as he trusted he would, in bringing up the report, and should afterwards bring forward a temporary measure, it was not his intention to object to it.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he was one of those who sincerely supported the present measure, with the deep conviction that the subject was peculiarly entitled to the attention of their lordships, as affecting the morals of the country from one end to the other. He hoped their lordships were aware, as he was sure they ought to be, that they were dealing with the question at a time when, from some cause or other, there had been an increase of crime, progressively advancing in this country, of a nature most appalling to every man who felt an interest in the religion, morality, and prosperity, of the country; which prosperity depended on the presence of religion and morality. Their lordships were dealing with a measure at a time when, by the returns recently made up in the public offices, it appeared that the amount of committals in England and Wales last year exceeded by one-hundred and seventy the amount of committals in the preceding year; and not only that, but it exceeded, by a third or a fourth, the amount of the committals on the average of six years. He knew that the noble earl, who was much alive to these considerations, was of opinion that the extent of poaching and the system of the Game-laws had no connexion with that state of things. If he looked at the state of the country generally—if he went into the prisons, his noble friend would find, that though all other crimes had increased, the crime of poaching had increased in an infinitely greater proportion than any others. He would refer particularly to the northern part of Wiltshire. In the House of Correction in Devises, he found, in February 1827, that one hundred persons, out of two hundred and twenty-seven, had been committed to that gaol for offences against the Game-laws. He had thought it possible that this might have arisen from accidental circumstances, and he had, therefore, taken the
362
trouble last week to procure an account of the number of persons now in that gaol, and he was able to state that of two hundred and thirty-four persons, one hundred were confined on account of offences against the Game-laws. In proportion to other crimes, there was, within the last two years, an increase of from forty to fifty per cent in crimes under the Game-laws. He found that, in the House of Correction, at Winchester, during the years 1810, 1811 and 1812, the average number of commitments for poaching was twenty, while the average number of commitments for poaching during the last three years, was two hundred and seventy-seven, making an increase of not less than one thousand per cent in the crime of poaching between the two periods. But their lordships would take a very narrow view of the question, if they supposed that a dry detail of the number of persons committed to gaol for poaching during a series of years, gave a correct idea of the whole mischief. It went far beyond this; and was, he believed, the cause of a great increase in other crimes. The business of a poacher furnished the person who followed it with much information. The poacher was gradually taught, by the practice of poaching, how to execute other crimes; he was taught to lose all respect for property; he was inspired with a love of nocturnal adventure; and in his exertions to overreach the law, he was strengthened in that spirit of gaming and adventure which, in every class, was a very great evil, but which, when it prevailed among the lower classes, led to a violation of all their duties. He was able to confirm this by a comparison of two adjacent counties, similar in all respects, except that in one the Game-laws were rigidly enforced, in the other, they were not. In Bedfordshire, containing ninety-three thousand inhabitants, these laws were enforced; in Huntingdon, containing fifty-two thousand three hundred inhabitants, they were not; and their lordships would perhaps expect, that in the former county the number of crimes should not be more than double the number in the latter. He was able, however, to state, from a comparison of three years, that the number of commitments in Bedfordshire under the Game-laws was six times greater, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, than in Huntingdonshire, and there were three times the amount of other crimes. It appeared,

363
therefore, that other crimes increased as the crime of poaching increased. He begged leave to state one fact which threw great light on the instrumentality of poaching in leading to other crimes. In a county of England there was, sometime ago, a great inundation of false money, which had suddenly got into circulation. An active magistrate, who had communicated the fact to him, undertook to investigate its source, and he found that it all proceeded from strangers, who had gone down from London, and who were coiners, and who, on arriving in that neighbourhood, had, as their first step, inquired into the character of all the poachers, and when they had found out this, they immediately applied to them to put the bad money into circulation, which they accordingly did; so that the money which the strangers could not of themselves put into circulation was put into circulation by the poachers. This was a proof of the manner in which one species of crime was dovetailed into another. He might multiply instances of this kind to infinity, proving in the clearest manner that poaching ought not to be considered by itself, but also in regard to its consequences. As to the clauses introduced by the noble baron, they had unquestionably made it a very different bill, and gave it substantially a new character; but of these clauses his opinion differed very much from that of his noble friend. He should pay the noble baron a bad compliment were he to say that the bill wanted nothing to make it complete; but he was sure that it wanted no perfection which great assiduity and extensive information could give it; and in his opinion, as far as it went, it was good, and went to the root of the evil. The great fault of the present system was, that there were but very few persons interested in upholding it, while the great bulk of the community was interested in opposing it; and it afforded a great temptation to poaching by enhancing the price of game. The measure of the noble baron met, he thought, both these evils; on the one hand, it gave a check to poaching, by facilitating the sale of game; and on the other, it interested all the farmers of the country in checking poaching: it introduced, if he might so speak, the great bulk of the community into the garrison, and gave them an interest in defending it. At present no poacher, not even when found in the woods, could be seized with-
364
out the greatest trouble; and it was found that there was an emulation not to support the law, but to render it inoperative. The whole peasantry of the country were opposed to the system. Juries would not convict under it; and not only juries, but judges, found a leaning in favour of the criminal. Such a state of things could not be suffered to exist: it was a disgrace to the country, and reminded him of what an eloquent orator had said of another country, and of another state of things: "they had made penalty and crime run a race together, and each had grown weaker in the conflict, till at last penalty had not been able to keep pace, and the fugitive had turned round on his breathless pursuer." In that state the law could only be enforced by bringing public opinion round, and by making a large and respectable body of men interested in enforcing the law, by founding it on a principle of property, and not upon any ancient rights, which were rendered odious to the community; upon that principle of property which was recognized by all, and which prompted a man to defend, not only that which was his own, but that which belonged to others. That was the principle upon which the present bill came recommended to their lordships; and, as far as it went, he gave it his cordial assent.
Lord Goderichcontended that, whether they passed the bill or not, it would be impossible to prevent the sale of game; and in proof of his argument, he referred to the evidence of a man before the committee, from which it appeared that that individual had sold nineteen thousand head of game in one year alone. The question was, then, whether or not it was fit to maintain a law which could not be enforced. The only effect of so doing would be, to destroy all respect for the laws generally, but more especially for the laws connected with this subject. With respect to the clauses proposed by his noble friend (lord Wharncliffe), he thought they would tend to diminish the crime of poaching, and facilitate the detection of crime when it was committed, by giving a greater number of persons an interest in the preservation of the game. His noble friend near him (lord Malmesbury) was mistaken in attributing the increase of poaching to the operation of those causes to which he ascribed the depression of agricultural property. The persons who were most frequently engaged in the offence of poaching

365
in the northern parts of England, were not agricultural labourers out of employment, but manufacturers, who were earning at the same time 18 s. or 20 s. a week, and who went out in bodies of fifteen or twenty. The moral mischiefs which this crime engendered were so extensive, that it had become absolutely necessary to adopt some measures for getting rid of this crying evil. There was no man more attached to the sport of shooting than he was, or more anxious to preserve it. But he was quite satisfied that the measure of his noble friend would not interfere with it; and even if it did, it was the duty of parliament to do something to put down so prolific a source of crime.
The House divided; Contents 54; Not-contests 29. Majority 25.

GAME LAWS—NIGHT POACHING PREVENTION BILL.—
Lord Wharncliffe Lord Wharncliffe moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Night Poaching Prevention Bill. The House having accordingly gone into the committee, the noble lord said, he would shortly state what were the objects of this bill, and what the alterations which it proposed to make in the existing law. Their lordships were aware, that under the act, commonly called Mr. Bankes's act, any persons found armed at night in certain enclosures or game-preserves, for the purpose of killing game, were liable to be sent before a jury, and if convicted, to be transported for seven years, or suffer such other punishment, short of that, as the court might think fit. Now, great difficulties existed in the way of conviction under that act. Juries were unwilling to subject a man to be transported merely because he was found armed, when he had not killed any game; and thus, from the severity of the punishment, the offender escaped conviction. Now, he thought it wrong that a first offence of this description should subject a man to the same punishment as if he were proved to be an old offender. He therefore proposed, that when a person was detected committing this offence, provided he were not in company with more than a certain number, he should be taken before a magistrate, and for the first offence be sent to prison for three months, and ordered to find sureties in a moderate sum for his good behaviour for a year; for the second offence, to be imprisoned for six months,
366
and to find sureties for two years; and for the third, to be liable to be transported. He knew that the notion of finding securities for good behaviour was not considered likely to check this crime in the south of England; but from experience he could say, that he knew of nothing more likely to produce that effect in the north of England. Young men, when they found that by committing a repetition of this offence, they placed their relatives or friends in jeopardy, were naturally deterred from so doing. With respect to a conviction a third time, the juries, upon perceiving that the offenders were hardened in crime, would not have the reluctance which they now felt to finding them guilty; well knowing that such persons, when they went out at night, would not stop at committing other crimes. He also proposed that, even in the case of a first offence, if the party had used fire arms to prevent apprehension, he should be rendered liable to transportation; and lastly, be would make it felony in a party to go out accompanied by a certain number, say three, or five. Some distinction ought certainly to be made between persons who went out singly, and those who went out in gangs. Every person who read the evidence given before the committee must see to what a dreadful extent these practices had gone. He had no wish to press the bill at present, as he was anxious first to have the advice of certain learned persons as to the advantages which it was calculated to produce.
The Marquis of Salisburyagreed that a man ought not to suffer as great a punishment for a first offence as for a repetition of it; but then he thought that his noble friend had gone into the opposite extreme; He should prefer, that, instead of three months, the first offence should be punished with six months imprisonment and hard labour; and the second with twelve months. The third he should leave as it was, namely, rendering the offender liable to transportation.
The Earl of Carnarvonwas favourable to the principle of taking security, in preference to extending the term of imprisonment; and he also thought that a great deal of good might be done by allowing poachers the option, under given circumstances, of volunteering into the army, instead of undergoing punishment. Many a man, who was an idle or dissolute labourer, under different control would

367
make a valuable soldier. As for the proposition on the subject of going out in gangs, he thought it ought not to extend to men going out two together; because in most cases, they went out two and two, for the greater convenience of taking the birds, and not for the purpose of resistance. Where more than two went, he thought the object of mutual protection might be presumed; but to make the law too severe, would be only making a dead letter of it.
Lord Tenterdenthought that three was the number which should constitute a gang: three was the number which the law held necessary to constitute a riot. He was opposed to the clause for allowing the poacher an option how he would be tried. It would be better, he thought, to leave the word "poaching" out of the bill altogether. The words "destroying game," included all that was necessary.
Lord. Wharncliffeagreed to give up the clause as to the option, and the word "poaching," if the noble lord desired it; but he differed from the noble marquis entirely upon the subject of the duration of the imprisonment. It was certainly the policy of the law to mark its disposition to punish the offence of the poacher at first lightly, and to increase its severity as his habits of crime became confirmed.
The clause for making the imprisonment for the first offence three months was then put and carried. On the clause fixing the amount of sureties to be demanded,
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that he thought the offender himself in 10 l. and two sureties in 5l. each was too little. The amount ought to be doubled. As it stood, a man would find his colleagues ready to enter into the surety; and such sureties were nearly nominal, from the difficulty of levying in cases of forfeiture.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that by a law recently passed, the levy in such cases was made easier; and he fixed the security low purposely, in order to enable the poorer people to obtain it.
The several clauses were agreed to. After which the House went again into a Committee on the Penryn Disfranchisement bill; in which several witnesses were examined.