§ 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 10l. 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.