MOTION FOR A RETURN. (Hansard, 4 March 1873)

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,
in moving for a Return bearing upon the supply of Game as food, said, he had been induced to do so in consequence of the public interest manifested in the question of the Game Laws during the Recess. It had been said by some that the effect of the Game Laws was to limit the production of a supply of food adequate to the necessities of the population. There could be no doubt that the price of food in this country had risen immensely within the last two years. Butchers' meat had gone up about 2d. per pound, and the price of other articles of food had increased in the same ratio. Among the accusations made against the Game Laws was, that they had been the cause of this increase of price. It was said also that the Game Laws had descended from the feudal times, and bore the character of those days, and ought no longer to be allowed to exist. Now, as for the first accusation, he thought that if the Returns he was about to ask for were granted, they would show it to be unfounded; and as to the second, he did not know that it was a very severe accusation against the Game Laws to say that they had come down from feudal times, because the Common Law of this country was even more ancient than those days. This was an objection which was scarcely worth being met by argument. But there was something more plausible in the statement that game destroyed a certain quantity of food which might have been made available for the support of the people. Adopting the principle which seemed to have guided Mr. Sumner when he was considering the Indirect Alabama Claims, some of the opponents of the Game Laws calculated that, as in a given time a hare would destroy what would have fed a sheep, the loss of human food so caused by the hare must be estimated by not only the loss of one sheep but all the descendants of one sheep. Now, in respect of game, he was for the right thing in the right place. Of course there would be a great loss of human food generally if large tracts of land suitable for tillage were kept as preserves for hares and rabbits. But to show their Lordships the character of some of the speeches made against the Game Laws, he would refer to what 1279 was stated to the Home Secretary on the occasion of the reception of a deputation. Mr. M'Ara, one of the deputation, said the Game Laws interfered with the food production of the country, and that If the land now used for game preserving were brought into cultivation, the supply of food would be one-fourth more than at present. When such statements as these were made, it should be seen whether anything was yielded in the way of compensation, and he had therefore determined to move for these Returns. Moreover, having read during the Recess that Resolutions were passed by excited public meetings—of such a character, however, that they might be said to consume their own smoke—he determined to see for himself. Rabbits had been solemnly condemned and excommunicated as vermin; but the persons who pronounced the condemnation and excommunication did not, perhaps, know that with many thousands of the people of this country rabbits were a staple food. Now, no licence was required for selling rabbits or hares. He had walked down High Street, Marylebone, sometimes on a Saturday evening, and it appeared to him that on these occasions it was a street of rabbits. With large numbers of the people either rabbits or hares were a favourite Sunday dinner. This was so in London, and in the other great cities, and he would quote returns to show it was so in ironworks and collieries. Leadenhall Market, received 1,500 cases of rabbits, each case containing 100 rabbits, every week from Ostend. He might observe that the fact of such a supply of foreign rabbits to our London dealers showed that the English supply was insufficient. From Birmingham he had been unable to obtain returns, but a gentleman who had an estate in Somerset had been applied to by a dealer from that town for 10,000 rabbits a-week. The alacrity with which as a rule dealers had furnished him with returns—some of them having even volunteered them—showed they felt that if the Game Laws were destroyed their business would be destroyed with them. In Wolverhampton Market 3,000 rabbits were consumed or sold weekly. The year's supply was worth about £5,000, that of other game being £1,500 annually. In Nottingham 2,000 rabbits were sold and consumed weekly, those who purchased them being princi- 1280 pally working people. In Newbury, the population being between 6,000 and 7,000, the value of the game sold was about £200 a-year. The round numbers of the game brought into Southampton from the 12th of August, 1871, to the same date in 1872, were—rabbits, 90,000; hares, 36,000; pheasants, 18,000; partridges, 27,000; grouse, 18,000; wild ducks, 18,000—total, 207,000. In Bristol there were sold by the licensed dealers from the 1st of September to the 1st of April last—grouse, 1,180; partridges, 4,108; pheasants, 4,473; black game, 93; teal, 651; snipe, 1,200; wild ducks, 1,264; plovers, 939; woodcocks, 451; widgeons, 198; hares, 2,191; rabbits, 39,471—total, 54,119. The returns from licensed dealers did not give anything like the total supply of game brought into the market as food. His attention had been called by competent authority to the fact that in towns and villages thousands of wild fowl and rabbits were sold by the shopkeepers and others who were not licensed to deal in game, but to whom the working classes principally applied in consequence of such shopkeepers generally selling a little cheaper than the game dealers. The Board of Trade Returns on the subject of the importation of game did not seem to be very accurate, any more than they had recently been said to be on the subject of the exportation of horses; but there did appear to have been an increase of 217,542 in the number of game, rabbits included, imported in 1872, as compared with the year 1871. This and the return of the number of rabbits imported by Mr. Brooks and other London dealers showed that our indigenous game did not satisfy the home demand. In the face of those facts, how could Parliament refuse to protect by law the indigenous game, and, at the same time, permit unlimited importation? He ought, perhaps, to have mentioned that Ostend rabbits weighed about 4 lbs. each, and sold at 7d. per lb. A gentleman had written to him stating that he had often to pass through that part of London of which Leadenhall Market was the centre, and he saw dressed game advertised not only in the windows of the larger eating-houses, but of late in those of a meaner character. The announcements ran in some such terms as "Roast hare, 6d.; jugged hare and jelly, 7d." This showed that the poorer persons em- 1281 ployed in the City were able to obtain game as food when the supply was plentiful. To show the value of hare and rabbit skins as articles of manufacture, he would read to their Lordships an extract of a letter he had received from Leeding and Co., in Borough High Street— The number of hare and rabbit skins we manufactured last year was close upon two millions. These were nearly all English skins. Foreign skins do not make such good fur as the English and Scotch. We buy the skins principally from poulterers, marine store dealers, and hawkers. We have been making an estimate of the number of skins collected in the course of a year, and we believe we are under the mark when we say that the skins manufactured in this country and exported abroad during one year are not less than 30,000,000. Now, if we take that number of hares and rabbits and an average weight of 2½ lb. each, it will produce about 33,500 tons of food. If we take the value of them at ls. each, it will amount to £1,500,000. He thought he had stated enough to show of what value, as food and as supplying an article of manufacture, those animals were which some persons denounced as useless and mischievous vermin which ought to be destroyed. If the Game Laws were abolished tomorrow throe consequences would follow the abolition. First, there must be a trespass law. In 1841 Sir Robert Peel said he was not prepared to defend the Game Laws in the abstract; but if the country desired their abolition, it must be borne in mind that Parliament would have to pass a very stringent Trespass Act, unless it was prepared to see the country, by day and by night, overrun by bands of armed marauders. The second consequence of the abolition would be a re-valuation of farms, which would probably send up the rents of tenant-farmers very considerably, and not be a very agreeable consequence to them. The third consequence would be an increase of rural constabulary to the number of from 10,000 to 15,000 men; because those persons who were at present employed for the protection of game protected other property also. He would say no more on the subject, but would move for a Return of the numbers of Game, Wild Fowl, and Hares and Rabbits sold by the Licensed Game Dealers in England, Wales, and Scotland during the year 1872, and also the numbers of the same imported and exported into and 1282 from the United Kingdom during that year.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, he highly appreciated the rabbit for culinary purposes; but he could not agree with those who said that they were useful in plantations. He was far from denying that in some parts hares and rabbits were valuable articles of food; but he should entirely dissent from his noble Friend if he thought that the general preservation of rabbits throughout the country would tend to increase the aggregate amount of food available for human subsistence. With regard to the Motion, he had made inquiries of the Inland Revenue and the Custom House, and he found that the latter would not be able to give Returns of the exports and imports of rabbits, because, as no duty was paid upon them, they were not included among the entries. The Inland Revenue did not think there would be any great difficulty in obtaining Returns from the London gamedealers, whose books were kept very carefully; but it was very doubtful whether the country dealers would be able to supply the same accurate information. The noble Earl, however, seemed to have had some success in procuring this information, and it was impossible to get Returns from hawkers and general shopkeepers. The Inland Revenue were willing to attempt to get approximate Returns, if those would satisfy his noble Friend.

§ THE EARL OF COURTOWN
suggested that the word "Ireland" should be inserted in the Motion.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
would inquire as to whether such returns could be obtained from Ireland.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
said, his noble Friend the Secretary of State had misunderstood him in supposing he advocated a general preservation of rabbits irrespective of the character of the country. He wished rabbits to be preserved where they were the right thing in the right place, and not where they interfered with tillage.