Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

i

ʼn most of his sentiments on the subject; | but thought the motion was not calculated to obtain the object in view. He did not approve of repealing the statutes, without substituting others of a salutary nature in their room.

Mr. Windham said, that being no sportsman, he had no interest in the game laws, as they touched the mere butchery of partridges. He was, however, no friend to the spirit of those laws, and to a general inquiry into them he would have no objection. Though even on an inquiry he would wish for more time to see what they should substitute for those parts they might prune away. The objections he had ever heard made to those laws were, that they were an invidious code-a system made for one class alone, and for the protection of amusement. These considerations produced a feeling which induced people to consider a breach of those laws by no means equally criminal as a violation of others. The consequence was, that men were more apt to break them, and that habit led them to violate others; the practice of poaching insensibly led to crimes, which were greatly injurious to the public, and often fatal to the trans gressors themselves. Perhaps there was no effectual means of preventing poaching but by repealing the game laws; but it was to be first well considered, whether the repeal would remedy the evils complained of without going farther. If a penalty was annexed, men would still act on the same feelings, and be as unwilling to enforce it. If no penalty was annexed, the question was, whether it would not go to extinguish the whole game of the country. Perhaps that would be no great evil; but the observation of his hon. friend (Mr. Francis) was an important point of consideration, namely, the propriety of preserving an inducement to men of fortune to make their estates in the country their places of residence; and this single circumstance might instruct gentlemen, who were fond of changing laws, in how many unforeseen collateral points society might be affected by a change, in its direct view, simple and salutary. He wished that no sudden or sweeping change should be adopted. On the point of invasion of rights, he could not agree with what had been stated as an encroachment. The simple fact of establishing qualifications in this instance was no more an encroachment on right, than many other institutions and qualifications to which no man would

think of objecting. Indeed, there were very few institutions that were not necessarily clogged with qualifications of one kind or other. The objection, on the score of right therefore was mere fanciful, imaginary language; for supposing, as in the case of game, a property, which without restraining laws, could not be preserved-there then was a right to make provisions, or else the object would be lost. The general interest warranted the particular privation of right. In the case of air or water, of which there can be no fear of extinction, no laws were necessary; and therefore to make them property would be wrong; but if the object was subject to extinction, it must be guarded by laws, taking care that the right parted with, and the penalty did not exceed the value of the object preserved. With regard to the other principle laid down, that it was a violation of the rights of those wealthy men, who, from the nature of their property were excluded from the use of game, he had the same objection; he had often heard it, and always thought it a weak objection; as well might it be said that strength gave a right to wealth, as that wealth gave a right to use game. He wished for a modification of the game laws, but upon all general principles he felt a very great repugnance to accede to any sudden change in any ancient system.

Mr. Fox said, he hoped that no effectual opposition would be made to the motion of his hon. friend which was only for leave tobring in a bill, hereafter to be discussed. He sliould not offend the right hon. gentleman who spoke last by saying any thing upon the doctrine of natural rights. But although, on the principle of property it might.not be absolutely unjust to make a distinction between the qualification to kill game and any other qualification, yet, on the principle of congruity and of policy, the game laws were indefensible, for by them, it appeared, that a great number of the most opulent part of the people of this country were not permitted to enjoy the luxury of sporting with game. This was obviously incongruous; it would be so in any state, and therefore improper, but much more so in that state under which we had the happiness to live. So much for the consistency of these laws. Was it not true that these laws were ineffectual? That they were almost universally broken? That there was no place whatever where game was not, or might not be purchased,

contrary to these laws? What was the that the laws should remain as they are, use of laws to prohibit the sale of game? be totally repealed, and nothing else, or As long as rich men wanted game, poor that game be made private property, he men would procure game. Was not that should certainly say, "make game prithe result of the game laws. Did not that vate property.' If, however, he was call for a repeal of the game laws? He compelled to choose between two queswould not say that he would never agree tions, whether these laws should remain to a proposition that made that criminal as they were, or be totally repealed, and by law which was not morally considered nothing else, he should have no difficulty criminal; yet it was certainly clear that in saying, that they should be all repealed that law was best kept which declared that without any thing being substituted in to be criminal, which the general feeling their stead. The greater part of these and sentiment of mankind regarded as laws were so arbitrary, the principle which morally criminal. That law would thrive. ran through them all was so impregnated It would be generally obeyed. It always with tyranny, that they were entirely had been, it always would be, otherwise unfit to exist as laws in a free state. with a law which prohibited that which Such was their principle. The practice was not considered to involve any moral arising out of them was equally liable to guilt, and therefore it was to be altered and objection; for the penalties sued for must avoided, and always would be altered and be solicited by parties who were generally avoided, as much as possible, by every too much affected by animosity to the wise legislature.-The question here was, party against which they sued. Nor was whether the good (if there was any) it always quite a clear case that the mawhich was gained by these game laws, gistrate who pronounced the conviction was so much as to overbalance the evil was strictly impartial. The whole of the they were the cause of? It was urged system was, in fact, a mass of insufferable that gentlemen should have great induce- tyranny, which no gentleman had ever ments to live in the country. Certainly ventured to defend in a direct way. If they should; it was proper and benefi- gentlemen thought proper to assert that cial; men of high situation in life and of the game laws tended to protect the large fortunes, were, undoubtedly, fit ob. game, he would answer them directly, jects of the attention of the legislature in that they did no such thing. He would every point of view. He was willing to ask any person conversant with the subgrant that care should be taken to pro-ject, whether, in point of fact, where game tect them in the enjoyment even of their was preserved, it was not from the law of amusements. Be it so. It was, however, property, and not from the game laws? his opinion, that the repeal of the game He was sure it was owing to the law of laws would not tend to the diminution of property, solely, that game was prethat object; and that ought to go a great served. Where had game been well preway, towards the repeal of those laws. served, except where the holder of the He could not say, like his hon. friend, land was the proprietor of it, and had that he was quite impartial on the sub- the right by law to kill game? Had it ject, because certainly he indulged in the been so where the holder of the land was amusements of sporting as much as his not the proprietor, and had not the leisure would allow. So did the hon. right to kill game?-He would say again, gentleman who made the present motion. that the preservation of the game was That could not render either of them, entirely owing to the proprietors of land, from the part they took in this case, the and not to the game laws, and therefore more liable to distrust by those who it was the principle of property which wanted to protect the game. With re- protected the game. He spoke confispect to the game laws, his opinion was, dently upon this subject, and he was glad that there might easily be found a much he spoke in the hearing of many who better system than they were for the pro- knew the matter better than he did. But tection of the game, supposing the House what was the proposition of his hon. to have nothing else in view upon the friend? Only that a penalty of 51. be imsubject. He thought that the better way posed on a person who should, after nowould be for the House to adopt the idea tice, trespass on the land of another, and of an hon. gentleman, and make game kill game there. He thought that game private property. If he was bound to should be made private property. That take his choice out of three cases, either was his opinion. He knew that the pre

judices of men were a long time in wearing out, and that was a point that was much to be considered, and great care to be taken of it; for would it be an easy thing to make the public regard game in a field, in the same light as any other property? To conquer that prejudice would require time, and the House might consider of that hereafter. The question, however, here was, whether the House would not agree to bring in a bill, to repeal laws which no man in the House defended in principle? Why not agree, then, to the introduction of the bill, and when it went into a committee, propose some substitutions for the laws? But although this was his opinion, yet the question, he was willing to confess, was not so pressing or so urgent that the House should not take time to consider That the game laws were really mischievous and created crimes; that they increased the number of offenders against themselves, and thereby in creased the number of persons who were ready to commit other crimes, could not possibly admit of any doubt. He should hope, therefore, that the bill would be permitted to be brought in and would pass. He was perfectly sure, that the game laws were not good for the preservation of game. It seemed to be agreed that they were bad for that purpose: they could, therefore, be kept only (if they were to be kept) for the sake of the invidious distinction which they established.

it.

Mr. Ryder opposed the motion, on the ground that without allowing opportunity for due discussion, it went to repeal an ancient system of laws, without proposing any substitutes. Respect to our ancestors demanded more deliberation, than at once to abolish a system established and long acted upon.

Mr. Grey was much obliged to his hon. friend for submitting the motion to the House. The length of time during which the nation had groaned under such vexatious and tyrannical institutions, was with him a reason why they should exist no longer, and he wished Mr. Curwen to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the game laws.

Mr. Wilberforce said, that the system of the game laws had long been held by him in the utmost abhorrence. Sooner than let them remain in their present state, he would readily vote, even for their unqualified abolition. But in ap

[ocr errors]

plying a remedy, the House must have some regard to long existing prejudices. He should prefer submitting the subject to the consideration of a committee; but if it came to a question, he would give his vote in favour of the motion.

Mr. Jenkinson, although he considered the game laws in an objectionable point of view, was averse to any alteration in a system so long established, especially at a time, when every deviation from legal custom ought scrupulously to be guarded against. He did not see what advantage could be derived from making game private property, as the same temptation to poachers as now existed would still continue. Unless it was proved to him that grievances existed under the present code, he should oppose any change taking place in them; and even if abuses could be pointed out, he would not vote for a repeal of the present regulations, unless he found a practical and specific remedy proposed for them. He admitted that the principle of the laws was somewhat oppressive, but he believed that they had been followed up in practice with as much lenity as such a system was capable of admiting. Wishing, therefore, that the game should not only be preserved, but be preserved expressly for gentlemen, that their inducements to residence in the country might not be diminished; and being conscious that the objects in view could only be accomplished by a total abolition, in order to get rid of the question, he would move," That the House do now adjourn."

The question being put, "That the House do now adjourn," the House divided:

[blocks in formation]

ordered to be read a second time on the 29th of April.

April 29. The order of the day being read for the second reading of the bill,

Mr. Curwen said, that the general and leading principle of the bill he conceived no gentleman would dispute, viz. that of every land holder having the privilege of killing game on his own ground. This would, in a great degree, prevent the practice of poaching, which led to the commission of greater crimes, and be, at the same time, the best method that could be devised of preserving the game. He then moved, "That the bill be now read a second time."

Captain Berkeley said, that when a bill was proposed to abolish the whole system of the existing game laws, he expected it would have contained some grounds on which the propriety of such a measure could be fairly discussed. The essence of it seemed to be comprehended in the clause that allowed land-holders to kill game on their own grounds; and that was followed by a clause which would destroy the whole, as it would arm every cottager, who had a cabbage garden of half a rood, with a right to pursue game into gentlemen's grounds, on pretence that he had started the game on his own premises. This would occasion the utmost confusion, by taking away the privileges of landed property, and reducing all distinctions that usually resulted from it. One clause reserved the right of the lords of the manor, &c. but while the bill extended the privilege of killing game to every landholder, and allowed him to pursue game where he thought proper, after he had started it, he did not think that the lord of the manor would find any account in having a game-keeper for the protection of his game, or that he would at all be able to preserve it. Another clause allowed any person to stop those whom they found carrying a gun for the destruction of game between sun-set aud sun-rise, and to take the gun from him. This was followed by a clause, that provided, if any resistance was made, the person attempting to apprehend the person transgressing, should be entitled to repel force by force, should he meet with resistance, and even to maim, kill, &c. A clause followed which indicated that it was framed rather to the West of the Isle of Man. It was, that the person who thought himself aggrieved by being thus hurt, maimed

or killed, should be allowed to seek redress at the quarter sessions. He appealed to the House, whether the bill was such as could be sent to a committee, and he would therefore move, to leave out the word "now," and to add the words upon this day three months."

64

Sir Richard Sutton thought that much contention among individuals, and great destruction to the game, would arise from a permission to every landholder to kill game on his own grounds, and to pursue it after it was started. The little proprietor would lay snares round every hedge, and as property was often intersected, it would be impossible for a man to pursue game without danger of exposing himself to a law-suit. He stated, that in Germany, there were three classes of game subject to particular regulations. He never heard that arrangements like those proposed existed in any other country. In these times of democratical doctrines, he did not hesitate to utter the aristocratical opinion that the game laws of this country were founded on good principles, and secured to the landed proprietors that superiority of privilege and of enjoyment which they could best exercise without injuring themselves, or interfering with any other pursuits. They likewise afforded to country gentlemen an inducement to live in the country; which was no mean object. He wished, however, that game should be brought openly to market, and exposed to sale. It was well known that rich merchants and citizens, who had no game of their own, were extremely desirous of this luxury, and fell upon means of obtaining it. He was of opinion, that those who were properly qualified should be at liberty to sell what they killed, and in this way the market would be supplied. With regard to poaching, he would increase the penalties to which the offence was liable, and put a stop to a violation of the law that was attended with such pernicious consequences.

Mr. Buxton thought, that every man should be equally entitled to enjoy what was upon his property; and, though no friend to equality in general, here he thought it was proper. As to the laws of Germany, God forbid that they should ever be introduced in this country! If all landholders had a right to kill game, the market would be better supplied. With regard to the latter part of the bill, he did not think it liable to the ridicule

[ocr errors]

thrown upon it. If people came at night to kill game, means should be taken to prevent them from disturbing their neighbours by pursuing game at improper hours. There were many exceptionable parts in the bill, but he was friendly to its general principle.

Mr. For said, that he was a very warm friend to the principle of this measure, though some of the clauses of the bill might be thought exceptionable. He wished to abstain from general arguments; he hoped, however, the House would consider what the hon. baronet had advanced with regard to the German laws, as totally inapplicable to the question. What, he asked, was there in the British code to resemble in the least the laws of Germany? He was surprised to hear any thing like the introduction of them into this kingdom. The arguments, however, of the hon. baronet, as far as they were right, most assuredly went to the funda mental repeal of the game laws. He said, that in Germany (and he recommended the same regulation to be adopted here), game could be bought and sold at the public market by those who were qualified. How then did the matter stand? The lord of the manor might employ a game-keeper to kill his game; but the lord of the manor must sell it. He was firmly persuaded, that to give the landholder his just right over the game on the grounds which he occupied, would be the best means of preserving the game. The land-holder had an indisputable right to the game on his ground, and much more so, assuredly, than the man who obtains a fictitious right to kill game, by taking out his qualification. With regard to poaching, he confessed he was no friend to it, but he would not go so far as the worthy baronet, and say, that he would have no mercy for poachers. But, if the worthy baronet entertained such an idea of the criminality of a poacher, a person whose situation might be some alleviation of his guilt, what did he say to those by whom he was employed? Were they not, in a moral point of view, equally, if not more culpable in inciting him to the violation of the laws of his country? He never could look upon the breach of the laws with more horror, as far as related to the poor, than he did with respect to the rich, who in many instances, conceived that they were free from guilt, as long as they escaped with impunity. When gentlemen called for vengeance against these [VOL. XXXII.]

unfortunate men, he could not look upon those with complacency who trafficked for boroughs, and purchased seats in the House of Commons. He could not persecute the poor poacher with indignant rage, without manifesting his detestation at the conduct of many of his superiors. To prevent the evil, the remedy, he maintained, was in the principle of the bill; for he insisted that, conformably to the doctrine of the most eminent writers on the criminal jurisprudence of this country, the game laws were not only ineffectual, but disgraceful to the nation. It was shocking that a penal law should exist which was daily broken, and with out the possibility of being enforced. And what was the consequence? The consequence was obvious; it increased the number of persons acting against law, who were, from their bad habits, the more liable to fall into other offences. Take away, therefore, the corner stone of these crimes, the temptation to the private sale of game; for in proportion as the laws were infringed with impunity, so did crimes invariably increase. This law so often broken, added considerably to the melancholy catalogue of criminals. If he were asked, would he repeal the game laws without any substitution? he would answer, certainly, rather than they should exist, without any amendment. But the substitute was provided by the bill, by making game private property. A reciprocal desire to oblige prevailed throughout this country between the tenant and landlord; and if the present bill, properly amended, was passed, gentlemen would not find themselves more restrained than they were at present in their amusement. He again pressed the House, if the preservation of game was its object, to give the land-holder an interest in its protection, and he called on the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Windham), whether in the great sporting county where he occasionally resided, it was usual for farmers to warn gentlemen off their grounds? The reverse, he believed, was the fact. Thus was the game, he insisted, diminished in consequence of the acts passed by our ancestors for its protection, as the farmers were indifferent as to the persons by whom it was destroyed. He would vote for the second reading of the bill, which might be amended in the committee, and lie over to another session.

Mr. Pitt said, that a considerable difference of opinion seemed to prevail both [31]

« ZurückWeiter »