Lords Sitting of 24 June 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Parochial Friendly Societies; Lunacy (Scotland); Naval and Victualling Stores; Portsdown Fair Discontinuance; Game Amendment; Bishops in Heathen and Mahomedan Countries.
2a New Zealand; Artillery Ranges.
3a Rifle Volunteer Grounds Act (1860) Amendment; Public Works and Harbours Act Amendment.

NEW ZEALAND BILL.

  [BILL NO. 104.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEin moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that by the Constitution Act, 15 & 16 Vict., c. 72, the colony of new Zealand was divided, for the purposes of Government, into six provinces, but power was given to the General Assembly to subdivide those provinces and to create new provinces, if they should think fit, with the same powers as those possessed by the existing provinces. The General Assembly had thought fit to pass an Act, called The New Provinces Act, 1858, exercising that power. The colonial law officers were of opinion that the powers of the General Assembly had been exceeded. The law officers of the Crown concurred in that opinion, and
  966
  an Imperial Act was passed in the last Session to remedy the error. Subsequently to the Act arriving in the colony there was a change of Government, and the new colonial law officers found, so ill had the New Provinces Act been drawn, that in other matters the powers of the General Assembly had been exceeded. The law officers of the Crown again expressed their opinion that the law officers of the colony were right in their objections; and this Bill was intended to correct those mistakes. The Act of last Session was accordingly repealed, and the New Provinces Act of 1858 confirmed, and fresh provisions were made respecting the establishment of new provinces in New Zealand. If the Bill made any important alteration, it was in giving somewhat increased power to the Governor, in contradistinction to the Chief Superintendents. The power to assent to Bills would he vested in the Governor, and so far, he thought, it would be an improvement on the present state of the law. He only wished that the provision could be carried very much further, because he was convinced, as he had stated in debate last year, that the powers vested in the Superintendents were very prejudicial to the good government of the colony. It was quite impossible to trench upon these powers to any great extent by Imperial legislation, but he lost no opportunity of expressing an earnest hope that the colonists themselves would favour the diminution of the powers of the Superintendents.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  EARL GREYsaid, that this Bill had been described as one of comparatively small importance and as dealing with small and paltry matters. For himself, he regretted that the Government had not ventured to ask the House to cure some larger defects which he believed to exist in New Zealand constitution. The noble Duke had said that they could not remedy defects without withdrawing privileges from the colony. He did not concur in that view. Those privileges were accompanied with duties and responsibilities. When these extensive powers of government were given, it was understood that the colony was to provide for its own internal administration and its own internal defence. The boon which that would have been to this country had not been realized. There was a large British force, some 5,000 or 6,000 men, now in the colony, and not long since the number was considerably larger. Now, whilst

  967
  there was a force of 6,000 British soldiers in New Zealand, he protested against the principle that the Imperial Treasury was to be responsible for the military expenses of New Zealand, and yet the mother country was to have no effective control over the policy which made that expenditure necessary. No one could entertain the smallest doubt that the bloody and costly war which had just been brought to a conclusion in New Zealand was the direct result of the errors of our colonial policy—errors for which he admitted the Secretary of State was very slightly responsible, because, under the existing system, he had not the power to control them. What had occurred proved the absolute necessity, that when the Imperial Legislature retained responsibility, they should retain with it the power to protect both our own interests and the interests of the colony. His noble Friend said truly that the system of elective Superintendents was most mischievous. He believed it was the single instance in the British empire of elective executive officers. Against that provision in the Act of 1852 or 1853 he (Earl Grey) vainly remonstrated at the time, and by its operation the Governor was really deprived of all effective control over the measures of the Executive in the provinces of which he was not himself president. He objected to so imperfect a Bill as this. When there were gross and obvious faults in existing arrangements, which had led to unhappy results, the Government did not fulfil its duty in asking Parliament to remedy only minor and technical defects. It ought to be put to the colonists—"Did they wish for the continued protection of England? If they did, they must concur in the arrangements of the Imperial Government which were necessary for their own safety." He was the last person to propose to withdraw the protection of the Imperial Government from the colonies. He thought they had no right to do so. He was persuaded that at New Zealand or the Cape, where there was a considerable warlike population, the withdrawal of that protection would lead to a dreadful war of extermination, because the settlers themselves would not have strength to impose on the Natives that respect and fear which was necessary in order to govern them. But if it was wrong to withdraw protection, it was equally wrong to place the military power of the empire at the disposal of the colonists, and deprive the State of all means of controlling and
  968
  moderating the policy of the colonial Government.
  THE EARL OF DESARTsaid, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Earl, both as to the propriety of continuing our protection of the colony, and of retaining the means of asserting our authority over it. With reference to a clause which he (the Earl of Desart) had introduced into the Bill of 1852, it was intended to obviate the inconvenience of introducing a new system amongst an almost barbarous people. It was never intended to be a permanent provision; but it spoke well for its expediency that it should have been made the foundation of all subsequent legislation for colonies similarly situated.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, that the tendency of the existing law was to paralyse the central authority. He admitted that the constitution of New Zealand was an anomalous one, and could only attribute the fact of its having worked with so little mischief to the excellent character of the colonists themselves, who were composed of some of the best of our English and Scotch population. They had thus endured a misgovernment which few other of our colonies would have allowed to exist. But, notwithstanding this misgovernment, ho was not prepared to advise Parliament or the Crown to annul the present constitution of New Zealand, without some clear proof on the part of the colonists that they themselves desired it. It was no light thing to trifle with the liberties of our colonies, and to cancel the charter once conferred upon them; nor did he blame his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office for hesitating to take such a step. With regard to the defence of New Zealand, he suggested that it was possible for the Secretary of State to indicate plainly to the Government of New Zealand that he would not advise the Crown again to undertake the defence of the colony, unless such a policy was pursued towards the Natives as was likely to tend to peace.
  LORD LYVEDENagreed that it was necessary to grapple with this question, but the noble Duke was nevertheless quite entitled to bring in a Bill which did not deal with the question, being intended for quite another object. With regard to the defence of the colony, it seemed to him that the fault was the same in every case, The Colonial Office asked the local Government to adopt a certain course; they

  969
  generally refused to comply; then a time came when they asked for troops to defend the colony, and the troops were at once sent. He thought it was quite within the power of the Imperial Government to prescribe terms in such a case, and this was the course which he thought should be followed. This, however, was no reason why their Lordships should hesitate to pass a Bill, the object of which was merely to correct certain technical errors in former legislation. He wished to know from his noble Friend whether he was prepared to lay any further despatches on the table as to the proceedings of Sir George Grey in the colony.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, it was sometimes dangerous to lay papers before Parliament while subjects were still pending and despatches might meanwhile go out again to the colony. Sir George Grey had recommended measures of considerable importance to the Home Government. Some of them had been adopted, others rejected, and others, again, were under consideration. He was willing to lay on the table all such papers as might now be safely produced, and he would undertake to withhold none which might be published without prejudice to the public service. With regard to the Bill under discussion, it did not profess to be one for the better regulation of the Government of New Zealand or for the improvement of the constitution; and unless pressing exigencies arose, or the local Legislature themselves recommended such a course, he should propose no measure for the amendment of the existing constitution. To do so would be to depart altogether from the system introduced respecting the colonies some years ago; a system which, whether right or wrong—and he believed that in the main it had led to beneficial results—should not be altered without further experience of its working, and better reasons for such an alteration than had been hitherto adduced. He had generally found the colonists amenable to reason; and when they showed the temper referred to by the noble Baron (Lord Lyveden), it was generally owing to the authoritative and dictatorial tone assumed towards them by the Home Government. As an illustration of this, he might refer to a recent money Bill on which the inhabitants of one of the colonies set great store. He wrote a despatch, pointing out in temperate and conciliatory language that the Bill involved a breach of faith; and immediately on the
  970
  receipt of that communication the colonial Legislature repealed the measure.
  EARL GREYthought that authority ought to accompany responsibility. This country was put to great expense for military purposes in New Zealand, and therefore ought to have power to call upon the colonists to take steps to make fair and proper laws. If a choice were offered between doing so and the withdrawal of British soldiers from the colony, there could be no doubt as to the decision. He believed that oppression and injustice had been practised towards the natives of New Zealand, and that was a matter upon which this country had a right to express an opinion.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsupposed that his noble Friend did not wish him to utter threats which he did not intend to carry out. The noble Earl had recommended him, if the colonists refused to correct certain faulty parts of their system, and declined to pass a law in accordance with his views, to withdraw all British soldiers from the colony. Judging from past experience, the colonists would refuse to act upon his demand; and if he carried out the threat, the inevitable consequence would be an internecine war between the settlers and the natives, which would excite the horror of the people of this country, and call down their indignation upon the Government which allowed such a state of things to occur.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL No. 96.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
LORD KINNAIRD moved, That the said Report be now received.
THE EARL OF MINTOmoved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed. Their Lordships had not yet had an opportuity of discussing its principle, although the measure was one of great importance, and one that could stand alone. A large party considered that, in consequence of Forbes-Mackenzie's Act, there had been a great improvement in the habits of the people, and that there was much less intoxication. He (the Earl of Minto) believed, that if there was any improvement in that respect, it was among

971
those classes that were least affected by public-house legislation—the middle and higher classes. But his great objection to this sort of legislation was this, that whereas he admitted that some little good was done by making it difficult to purchase drink, the evils produced by this system were prodigious. In proportion as the law was carried out with vigour there arose a system of drinking in unlicensed houses, and houses of that kind sprang up, producing evils that it was hardly possible to calculate. The number of convictions was large, and many persons were fined and imprisoned; and he was told that soon after the Act came into effect it was found necessary, in more than one large town, to build a new gaol or a new set of rooms, to contain the additional prisoners. He had other objections to the Bill. Formerly the magistrates had power to mitigate the penalties, but under this Bill they would not have that power. Then, as the Bill now stood, there was no appeal from the decision of the magistrate. Another objection was, that the magistrate would have power to convict on the evidence of a single witness. If they passed this Bill, they would be following up a bad course of legislation, and he hoped that their Lordships would think twice before they agreed to it.
Amendment moved, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Motion, and insert "the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."
LORD KINNAIRDtrusted their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Lord. This measure had been for two Sessions before the other House of Parliament, and had been referred to a Select Committee; it had been carefully considered and approved at county meetings in Scotland, and a great number of petitions had been presented in its favour; and on the Motion for going into Committee in their Lordships' House it had also been fully discussed. The Bill, in fact, merely carried out the recommendations of a Royal Commission, which had been appointed because there were certain restrictions under the existing Act which were deemed to be oppressive. It was proved before the Commission that that Act had wrought great good, and led to a great diminution, of drunkenness in Scotland; and it was now proposed to introduce
972
into that country certain regulations for putting down the illicit sale of spirits which had been tried with advantage in England and Ireland.
LORD WODEHOUSEobserved that the natural effect of the restriction which had been imposed by previous legislation on licensed houses was to encourage the sale of spirits in unlicensed houses. It now appeared that clubs were being formed in Scotland to enable parties to obtain refreshments on Sunday, and he could not help thinking some of the clauses in this Bill were directed against drinking in private houses. The Bill was not framed with the view of providing proper police regulations for public-houses, but to repress what the authors of the Bill considered the crime or sin of drunkenness. He greatly objected to giving to one magistrate the power of imposing penalties; and he also objected to the provisions regarding "shebeens." He should support the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Minto).
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought the speech of his noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) might have been all very well if directed against the principle of the Bill on the second reading; but he hoped their Lordships would not now be induced to retrace their steps and recommit the Bill. The main object of the Bill was to give power to make regulations to put down unlicensed houses. It also proposed to relax the law as it stood under the Forbes-Mackenzie Act, enabling hotel-keepers to provide excisable liquors for balls and parties. It was quite true that they could not make people moral by Act of Parliament, but neither could they make people healthy by Act of Parliament; yet they had passed most important measures for drainage and other sanitary improvements.
EARL GREYthought that the Bill should be recommitted, upon the ground that it instituted new and vexatious proceedings, and therefore required further consideration. Some of the clauses were most extraordinary. Clauses 17 and 18 proposed to suppress unlicensed trafficking in liquors, and then the following clause enacted that it should be considered sufficient proof of selling in an uncertificated house if any person other than the owner and occupier should be found drunk there. So that any person might be convicted who had the misfortune to invite a friend who got drunk to his house, provided any

973
person would swear that the place was reputed to be a "shebeen." Could there be a more extraordinary enactment? Another was still worse. Clause 20 enacted, that if one credible witness swore that ho had reasonable ground for believing that liquors were trafficked in in a particular house, a single justice might issue a warrant to search the place; and if a quantity of spirits exceeding one gallon was found in it, the occupier was to be deemed a dealer in liquor. There was no investigation—the mere fact of finding the liquor and the evidence of one witness that he had reason to believe that a traffic in liquor was going on was sufficient. Now, supposing such a thing as that there was one justice in Argyll who was not very scrupulous, and somebody went before him, and said, "I believe trafficking in spirits is carried on in Inverary Castle;" the justice might issue a search warrant, and if more than a gallon of spirits were found there, it could be seized, his castle would be deemed a "shebeen," and his noble Friend would be convicted as a dealer in liquor. Some of the most mischievous powers of the Bill were given into the hands of one magistrate. He could not concur in the passing of the Bill with such a clause.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHhoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. So far from the Bill coming upon them by surprise, it had been before Parliament in two Sessions, and been discussed in every county meeting in Scotland, and at all those meetings an opinion favourable to its principle was pronounced. It was no mere fanciful or theoretical measure, but was founded on the Report of a Royal Commission, consisting of very able men, and presided over by Sir George Clerk. The Bill introduced no new law in Scotland, because at present, by the common law of that country, it was illegal to traffic in anything whatever on Sunday; and it was only by a decision of the Court of Session, in 1832, that persons were relieved from the penalties which attached to any violation of that law. The Sunday clause was drawn up, he believed, by the Board of Inland Revenue, while the shebeen clause was copied, but with considerable modifications, from the Irish Shebeen Act.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:
974
—Contents 68; Not-Contents 22: Majority 46.

CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L, Chancellor.)

Hardinge, V.

Hutchinson V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Manchester, D.

Marlborough, D.

Lichfield, Bp.

Newcastle, D.

Oxford, Bp.

Richmond, D.

Worcester, Bp.

Bath, M.

Bagot, L.

Bristol, M.

Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

Amherst, E.

Castlemaine, L.

Bantry, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Cloncurry, L.

Belmore, E.

Colchester, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Cathcart, E.

Conyers, L.

Coventry, E.

Delamere, L.

De La Warr, E.

Digby, L.

Derby, E.

Egerton, L.

Desart, E.

Feversham, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.)

Foley, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.)

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Lilford, L.

Granville, E.

Northwick, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Polwarth, L.

Harrington, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Lonsdale, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Redesdale, L.

Mayo, E.

Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)[Teller.]

Rosslyn, E.

Russell, E.

Sheffield, L. (E. Sheffield.)

Selkirk, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Shrewsbury, E.

Stanhope, E.

Southampton, L.

Vane, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.) [Teller.]

De Vesci, V.

Tredegar, L.

Doneraile, V.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cleveland, D.

Abinger, L.

Aveland, L.

Airlie, E.

Belper, L.

Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Clarendon, E.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

Cowper, E.

De Grey, E.

Lyveden, L.

Grey, E.

Overstone, L.

Minto, E.[Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Stratheden, L.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Lifford, V.

Taunton, L.

Wodehouse, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative. The original Motion agreed to; the Amendments reported accordingly; Amendment moved and negatived; Amendments made; Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended [Bill 122].

GAME LAWS, &c.—NIGHT POACHING.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  LORD BERNERSrose to inquire if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to bring in any measure this Session to suppress the Evils of Night Poaching. He should on another occasion go into this question, but meanwhile he would remind their Lordships of the present prevalence of these offences and their great increase during the last year. He held in his hand a report of the number of poachers known to reside in the county of Leicester. The number was 927, of whom 144 had been convicted of felony, 54 had been charged with felony, and 525 had been previously convicted of poaching. By other returns from various counties it appeared that in the four months of the year from October 1st, 1860, to February 1st, 1861, there were twenty-nine murderous attacks upon keepers, 198 persons being concerned in those attacks; and in the three months from the 1st of October, 1861, to January, 1862, there were no fewer than 188 murderous attacks on keepers, 456 persons being engaged in them. Possibly these figures might not be quite correct; but at any rate, if they were even approximately correct, they showed a great increase in the prevalence of these crimes. It was against the privileges of this House to bring any arms into the House, but he had taken the liberty of putting in the robing-room two implements taken from poachers a short time since which would show how effective they were for the taking of game as well as for the destruction of life.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he was not able to give the noble Lord any other answer than that he had given a few nights ago, that it was not the intention of the Government to bring in a measure this Session for the suppression of night poaching, or for giving greater power to the police than they at present possessed with regard to poaching. He thought it was undesirable that the police should be made use of in the preservation of game, and it would be quite impossible that they should be so employed as to prevent attacks of this kind. With regard to the statistics which had been quoted by the noble Lord, it did not appear that persons engaged in poaching were habitually guilty of other crimes; for from a Return published by the other House he found that out of the whole number of persons convicted of
  976
  felony in England and Wales only one per cent had been previously convicted of offences against the game laws. This did not appear to coincide with the figures quoted by the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had listened with great regret to the answer of the noble Earl, and he assured the Government that this was not a question simply regarding the support or maintenance of the game laws, but that it was intimately connected with the peace of the rural districts and the amount of crime there. He could speak from his own experience on this point, having been obliged this year to prosecute to conviction three persons for murderous attacks upon his keepers. The weapons used were stones and pitchforks, and gangs of fourteen or fifteen persons were engaged in these attacks. One of the keepers was left for dead on the ground, and one of the poachers actually returned and stabbed him with a pitchfork as he was lying, in order to make his death more certain. The keeper, however, recovered from these dreadful injuries; but, he believed, the man who stabbed him was not ultimately convicted. The noble Earl said it was very undesirable that the police in counties should be mixed up with the preservation of game. Now, he did not wish that the police should be called upon to assist in the preservation of game, but he spoke with a knowledge of the facts when he said that in his own neighbourhood there were six or seven well-known and well-organized gangs of men, who had plenty of honest employment if they wished as colliers and labourers—they were not driven to poaching by necessity—but who preferred to collect in gangs of from six up to twenty men, armed with pitchforks and other weapons, and engage in night poaching. These men were well known to the police, who, if you mentioned one of their names, could tell you all his companions. They were often seen by the police with nets and with weapons, going out to engage in poaching. No possible doubt could exist as to their intentions, and the arms with which they were supplied showed that they were prepared to do something more than merely take game, and that they were also ready to take away life, if necessary, in the pursuit of game. In the morning they were again met by the police, laden with the produce of their night's toil. In one case which he had heard of, the poachers even had a

  977
  donkey cart, filled with rabbits, and they robbed an old woman's orchard of apples, with which they covered the rabbits in order to conceal them. The police saw these men going out night after night and returning morning after morning; yet, as the law now stood, or as the law was now interpreted, the police had no power to stop these men, and there were no means of preventing the forcible taking of game except by the use of corresponding force on the part of the keepers. It was lamentable that if a person wished to do that which the law authorized him to do—keep game upon his estate—he could do so by no other means than by maintaining in his employ a large armed force at the risk of nightly encounters and loss of life. Now, if the simple course recommended by his noble Friend were adopted—if the rural police were empowered to do what the metropolitan police now did — stop persons on the high road who were in possession of goods, of whatever description, which were believed to have been unlawfully obtained, and compel the persons so stopped to account satisfactorily for the possession of these goods, he ventured to say that, with the knowledge which the police had of all the persons connected with this trade — persons who carried it on as a regular trade, and who were in no distress whatever—nine-tenths of the poaching by armed gangs would be put a stop to. What was of more importance, also, was that the risk of constant encounters between armed bodies and those who were defending the property of their employers would be avoided. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) had alluded to the small number of poachers who had been convicted of other offences. He was not aware whence the noble Earl derived his information; but he was quite certain that throughout the country the general belief was, that persons who once took to poaching as a habit would not stop at poaching; and if they could not find game, the next thing they did was to steal poultry, and next break into houses. He believed that a vast number of petty robberies were committed by persons who in the first instance had connected themselves with these gangs; and he was satisfied that the measure which was in force in the metropolitan districts would, if extended to the rural districts, have a beneficial result upon the peace of the country—this being, as he said, of much greater importance than the preservation of any
  978
  amount of game. Not one in a hundred of the poachers throughout the country was driven to it by distress; but the men taken up for poaching were mostly idle and drunken persons, who wore not fit objects for the public commiseration that was often bestowed upon them. The prevalence of gangs of this description had been attributed to over-preservation. He (the Earl of Derby) differed so far from that statement, that he felt satisfied that it was where preservation was only half carried out that poaching chiefly prevailed; and therefore persons who largely preserved, and had a large force of keepers, ran the risk of exposing their men to serious injury and loss of life, whereas persons who preserved only moderately gave encouragement to poachers to come upon their grounds. He felt sure that before long Her Majesty's Government would be called upon to provide a remedy for evils which had now become intolerable. The noble Earl would not deny that Her Majesty's Government had received the strongest representations from those most interested in the peace of the country—the heads of the constabulary and the rural police—not only as to the extent of the evil, but as to its connection with other crimes and irregularities in districts where poaching prevailed.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYneed not say that he agreed in every word which had fallen from his noble Friend; and it was with the wish that this conviction should be forced upon their Lordships' attention by evidence that he now asked the question of which he had given notice, whether his noble Friend had any objection to the production of the Correspondence on the subject of Night Poaching that had taken place between the Secretary to the Home Department and the chief constables of counties in England? He understood that the chief constables had made a communication which was of great value; and he did not despair that the Government would sooner or later improve the law with respect to the preservation of game, by giving to the police in the county the same powers that they possessed in the metropolitan districts. His noble Friend opposite had said he did not think it desirable that the game laws should be carried out by the police hand-in-hand with the keepers, and in that he (the Earl of Malmesbury) perfectly agreed. But the police ought to have the same power that

  979
  they had now with regard to fisheries under the Salmon Fisheries Act which passed last year. That Act was now carried out by the agency of the police. There was no difference in principle between the preservation of fish and the preservation of game—both matters came under the same category; and therefore he did not think it was a good argument to say that the police should not interfere in the way proposed by his noble Friend behind him (Lord Berners), when they had been ordered to do so in the preservation of English fisheries.
  LORD DELAMEREdesired to draw their Lordships' attention to the fact that there were 270 new cases of poaching in the books of the Cheshire constabulary. Surely this was a case which required an immediate remedy. The law was broken, not by individuals for individual purposes, but by organized gangs, who subsisted by poaching, and this led to murderous conflicts. A remarkable document had been presented to the Government in the shape of a memorial, signed by twenty-eight chief constables of counties; and it was hard to over estimate the amount of collateral crime and misery which resulted from the infraction of the game laws. Of the crime the report could speak; but of the misery, alas! no report existed; but there was no noble Lord, no landowner, who did not know the amount of wretchedness which arose from this single cause. Not only were the poachers themselves a miserable body of men, but they often involved their unfortunate wives and children in the results of their crimes. The daily infraction of law was admitted, and surely the Legislature was bound either to repeal the law or to take such means as would render that law effective. One course was to give power to compel people who had game in their possession to show that they came honestly by it; and another was to compel persons who dealt in game to keep books, like dealers in marine stores. These regulations would make the trade of poaching more risky and less profitable, and in that proportion diminish crime.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that there was no objection to produce the Correspondence asked for by the noble Earl. The figures he had quoted were taken from a Return that had been made to the House of Commons. The Government had no intention of opposing the introduction of the Bill referred to by the noble Lord (Lord Berners).
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY, accordingly moved an Address for—
  "Copy of a Memorial addressed to the Secretary of State in December 1861, by the Chief Constables of Twenty-eight Counties in England and Wales, on the Subject of the Game Laws: And also,
  "Copy of the Report of the Chief Constable of Huntingdonshire to the last Court of Quarter Sessions held for that County on the Subject of the Game Laws."
  Motion agreed to.

  GAME AMENDMENT BILL.

    BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
    LORD BERNERS presented "A Bill further to amend the laws in England relative to Game."
    Bill read 1a [Bill 123].

  EAST GLOUCESTERSHIRE RAILWAY BILL. — CONTEMPT OF THIS HOUSE.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDrose to bring under their Lordships' notice a case of contempt of their Lordships' House. It had been proved, before the Select Committee on the East Gloucestershire Railway Bill, that two persons, named Isaacs and Preston, had obtained a great number of signatures to a Petition against the proposed railway by telling the individuals, whose signatures they sought, that the Petition was in favour of the railway. Those two persons were placed in the witness-box and examined, when their conduct was such as to leave little doubt on the minds of the Committee that neither of them was speaking the truth, and that they had procured signatures by the false pretence which he had described. The evidence taken by the Committee had been printed, in order to be laid before their Lordships, and he would therefore now move that the two persons whom he had named be ordered to attend at the Bar of their Lordships' House on Thursday next.
  Ordered,
  That William Isaacs, Clerk to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltenham, do attend at the Bar of this House on Thursday next, at Four o'Clock, in reference to their Conduct with regard to the Signatures to the Petition of Barbara Robinson and others, of Cheltenham, presented on the 22nd of May last, praying to be heard by Counsel against the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill."
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.