HL Deb 12 May 1828 vol 19 cc595-6

The marquis of Salisbury moved the third reading of this bill.

The Earl of Winchelsea

said, it had been contended, that the crime of poaching would be diminished by legalizing the sale of game. He, however, still entertained the opinion which he held last year, that such a measure would have a contrary effect. He was convinced, that the greater the facility which was given for the disposal of property stolen, the more would that property be stolen. He could not agree in the opinion that the great increase of crime was owing to the game-laws, because it would be found that crime had increased in those districts where there were no game-preserves, in the same proportion as in those where there were. Such was the case in the county in which he resided. He objected to the qualifications, because they would give the power to every individual possessing twenty acres of land, without the slightest reference to the value, to transfer the right of killing game. Such a system was calculated to encourage the crime of poaching. He thought the measure was at once the most aristocratical and democratical that had ever been introduced into parliament. It took great care of the large, and it gave a boon to the small, landholders; but the interests of the great body of the country gentlemen were entirely overlooked. By the new qualification, a new class of sportsmen would be introduced into the country, and the advantages now possessed by the middling classes of country gentlemen would be diminished. He was afraid it might induce them to desert the country, which would occasion much of the money now spent in it, to be spent elsewhere. He should therefore move "that the bill be read a third time this day three months."

The Earl of Darnley

thought the principle upon which the bill was framed was the right one. He could not agree with his noble friend, that making game saleable, would increase poaching, any more than that the taking the duty off tobacco would increase smuggling. The present law was violated, not only by persons of low condition, but by titled gentlemen, and he put it as an argumentum ad verecundiam, whether such a state of things ought to be allowed to exist. He thought that the bill would put an end to the sympathy of the public for a poacher, even in cases where murder had been committed.

The House divided: For the original motion, Present 48; Proxies 21–69. For the amendment, Present; 43 Proxies, 19–62. Majority 7. The bill was accordingly read a third time.