not his intention, in that stage of the measure, to argue it on the nature of our external and internal policy, but he could not help observing, that at a moment when the gallant soldiers who had fought the battles of the country were in a great proportion paupers on their parishes, and when British officers were subsisting on a miserable pittance, it was most extraordinary they should be forbidden from following their own disposition to espouse the cause of liberty and independence in another hemisphere, under the penalty and disgrace of transportation for seven years. Sir J. Newport said, the noble lord had stated, that the government of this country had postponed the proposed measure until the mediation between Spain and the South American provinces had terminated. In that assurance he did not concur with the noble lord. He was rather disposed to believe, that ministers had waited until they found that the negotiations of Spain with the United States of America had ended in a cession of territory to the latter. He should not go into the subject then, but feeling as he did, that it was a most important question-a question on which the opinion of the country was more decidedly made up than perhaps on any other political topic, he should give it his opposition in every stage of its progress. Sir W. De Crespigny believed the interests of the country were never more concerned than in the issue of the SouthAmerican cause. Any measure likely to operate against its success was most injudicious; and from information he spoke when he stated, that an armament was now preparing to sail from Spain against Monte Video. The nature of our commercial connexion in that quarter of the world was too important to be overlooked, or hazarded by any injudicious interference. Mr. Martin, of Galway, observed, that he certainly should vote for the bill, and he should do so, even were he in the habit of offering up his earnest prayers day by day and night by night, for the success of the South Americans, and the emancipation of that continent from the thraldom of Spain. But, whatever his opinion as an individual might be, as a member of parliament he was bound to view the question, as it affected the policy and interests of this country. That policy was on all sides admitted to be neutrality. To empower the crown to preserve that neutrality, the legislature must afford it the necessary means. As one of those necessary means then he supported the present bill. To the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke from the other side (sir J. Mackintosh) and to every observation of his, he had listened with profound respect; he had stated, that there already existed numerous disadvantages to restrain persons from engaging in the service of the South Americans without the present measure; that they were subject to be treated as rebels, and could not be claimed as prisoners of war. Knowing, then, that such penalties attached to such a course, was not that House, on the principles of humanity, bound to interpose, and to restrain the subjects of the king from precipitating themselves into situations of peril, where they were deprived of the ordinary rights of war? It was a principle on which the House frequently legislated: it did so when it endeavoured to restrain gambling; it interfered with no liberty of the individual, but the liberty of ruining himself. The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place; and leave was given to bring in the bill. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 14. GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.] Mr. Brand having moved the order of the day for farther considering the report on this bill, Sir John Shelley said, that he could not give his vote for this bill, because the effect of it would be to put guns into the hands of every person, and would sanction the indiscriminate slaughter of game. He did not think that the great landed proprictors would feel all the ill effects of this bill at first; and as the good it was to do was at all events speculative, he thought it much better to leave the law as it now stood. If such a theoretical measure were adopted, the sports of the field, by which the bold and manly qualities of the higher orders of the people were cherished and invigorated, would be entirely annihilated, and the country would indeed dwindle into that which it had been contemptuously asserted by Buonaparté to be a nation of shopkeepers. He would therefore move as an amendment, that the report be taken into farther consideration on that day six months. Sir John Sebright contended, that the principle of the bill must be respected in every country where property was respected. The principle was this-that where a man had property he should have power and control over it. The game laws, as they now stood, were perfectly nugatory; they gave to persons warranted to kill game, powers which no man had a right to possess; they gave to persons so warranted the power of going into a gentleman's plantations and destroying his game; they gave that power for once-if the offence was repeated, then the person was liable to be punished. But for what?-not for killing game, but for trespassing. Nor was it a trifling injury to the game of a gentleman, that adventurers had the right of so entering on his plantations, even for the first time. The hon. baronet who last sat down, knew that a trespass of that kind ruined the shooting for the rest of the season. Besides, it should be recollected, as an intolerable grievance, that persons from distant places, whose names could not, in many instances, be learned, were not contented with thus trespassing on private property-trespass he would call it, though the law did not-but they also outraged the feelings of the proprietor if he attempted to protect his property from injury and intrusion. The property of men of moderate fortune should be equally protected with that of those rich and influencial men, who procured laws to punish offences which their monopoly created. Copyhold holders of land could have no game, unless by having a qualified keeper; and was it to be tolerated that such distinction should be still continued? There was no difficulty in selling game, however contrary to law, so inefficiently did it operate. Why, then, should it be longer continued? The feelings of the people were hostile to the principle of the game laws; and laws opposed to the common sense of justice and of right should not be continued. Poor men were imprisoned for killing game; and though convicted, as if of crime, their neighbours and the country still held them wholly innocent. He valued the possession of game, and had as much of it as most men; but he would still contend, that with the increase of game poaching increased, and that the whole system was only protected by force of arms. He should therefore be ashamed to stand up in his place and support a system, so demoralising and so destructive in its consequences. The present should not be taken up as a sporting question. It was well worthy of the consideration of his majesty's ministers, and if its evils were not removed, a great portion of the people would gradually degenerate into gangs of banditti [Loud cheers]. Mr. Long Wellesley also supported the bill, and maintained that those gentlemen to whom the kingdom was most indebted as magistrates, did not reside in the country only because they could enjoy the diversion of shooting, but because they delighted in making themselves useful as well as in the amusements of rural retirement. There was no danger that the English gentry would forsake their properties, because their neighbours as well as themselves had a right to shoot. The existing laws were both absurd and odious; at least, absurd and odious in many of their provisions; and the object of the measure before the House was to repeal what was objectionable, while it retained all that could be of advantage. No man enjoyed fox-hunting more than himself; he pursued it with the utmost ardour; but it was undeniable that that very ardour was the occasion of the destruction of much valuable property belonging to those who could ill afford the loss. The effect of this bill would be, to make game a marketable commodity, and it was ridiculous to argue that it would thereby become scarce. Were there not plenty of rabbits and wild fowl in the country, although every poulterer might buy and sell them in any quantity? One third of the property of this country was in the hands of persons who had no means of obtaining game but by purchase; and while this was the case, all laws prohibiting the sale were vain, and could only lead to the practice of poaching. Poaching, as was well known, was the parent of all crimes. Would they, then, by the continuance of a system which necessarily led to poaching, place the poor of this country in a state of degradation still lower than they were now in? Mr. E. Douglas contended, that the question was not whether there were evils under the present system, but whether those evils would not be increased by the present bill. It was well known what a number of disputes arose at present, from attempts to decoy game from one property to another. But the present bill would produce twenty persons desirous of preserving game in place of one; and a person ; would be more anxious to preserve | thirty-three; in 1817 sixty-one; and in game in proportion as his property was 1818 eighty. He particularly called the small. He thought game ought to be attention of the House to the growing left in those hands in which it could be and enormous increase of the four last with most safety placed. This was the years. Notwithstanding all he had heard, only way of preventing those irregular he thought none would be tempted to habits which attended a people of sports- purchase game from the poacher, but men. The present bill would give to the those who were equally disposed to rob a yeomanry of this country the habits and hen-roost. An hon. gentleman had talked character of sportsmen; and would take of the desperate character of poachers: from them that respectful submission and he would remind his hon. friend, that some manly dependence on the laws, which at years ago, when the ancient sanguinary present characterized them. With respect enactments against it were in full force, to poaching, he could not see how the deer-stealing was thought of, by the peobill would put a stop to it. It was said ple of the country, more as a matter of that it would diminish the profits of the good sport than of serious crime; it was poacher, and reduce him to abandon that viewed by them in the same light as pursuit; but profit had comparatively little poaching, under the same laws, was now. to do with the motives which determined The ancient law, however, was altered a poacher to prefer that pursuit to all deer was permitted to be sold; and the others; it was the indolence of his life, consequence was, that persons were now and the daring and adventurous character as little liable to steal a deer as to steal a of the pursuit which were its great attrac- sheep. The gentlemen of England would tions to him. But the diminution of profit not, surely, think of leaving their estates, would be counterbalanced by the greater because their game might probably be facility of concealment which he would lessened. He thought the game laws unobtain. It was thought game would be just and improper, and he should therefore better preserved when many were inter- give his hearty approbation to the bill of ested in it; but there was an old proverb, his hon. friend. that what was every body's duty was nobody's duty; and game would be more effectually preserved by one active gamekeeper, than by a number of other persons who had a variety of occupations to attend to. On every view of the injurious effects of the bill, he felt bound to oppose it. The happiness and morality of the people was the first thing to be considered; but he thought both would decidedly be risked by the adoption of the proposed measure. The Marquis of Tavistock could not allow this question to go to a division, without giving his cordial assent to the principle of the bill. He really could not see what there was objectionable in that principle. It was impossible for gentlemen to disguise from themselves, that the present game laws were an intolerable grievance. That the increase of poaching had been their only effect, he held in his hand some returns, which, if the House would permit him to read, would strongly demonstrate. They were returns of the number of committals in Bedford, the small county which he had the honour to represent, for offences against the game laws during the last ten years. In 1809, there were four; in 1810 two; in 1811 four; in 1812 five; in 1813 five; in 1814 thirteen; in 1815 twenty-four; in 1816 Mr. George Bankes rose, he said, with great hesitation to express his opinion on this bill. It must have occurred to every one, that it was from its nature impossible to put game under the same ascertained regulations and laws as other property. The honourable gentleman discussed the policy of the bill, which he thought not merely questionable, but in direct opposition to the interests of those whom they were called upon to protect: in particular, adverting to some of the clauses against the extreme severity of which he protested, he observed, that an hon. member who had most considered the subject, and was remarkable for his general character of humanity and feeling, had confessed, that if they erased those clauses, although thus severe, he could not carry his object into execution. If this bill passed into a law, all the enjoyment of sporting would be considerably cramped and diminished; its effect would be, that at no distant period game would become incredibly scarce; and one consequence of thus distinctly recognizing it as private property would be, that the clergy would claim their tithes upon it. Certainly they would claim every tenth pheasant and partridge. Strenuously as he opposed this bill, however, if the principle of it could be so modified as to promote cordiality and good-will between the farmer and the landlord, it should not want his support. He His hon. friend had contended that the prevalence of poaching was a reason for altering the law; but he must express his surprise at the quarter from which this argument proceeded. Was the practice of vice any reason for abolishing its punishment; and were not all offences against positive law to be regarded as criminal? If this bill were to pass, the work of poaching would go on, till, at the end of Mr. Wilberforce said, that whatever might be the views which he had taken of the subject, he had been satisfied of one thing that his hon. young friend who had just sat down, had exhibited very great sagacity and much talent in the way in which he had considered the ques-about four or five years, all the game. tion. He only wished that he had spoken would be destroyed, and the poacher be in a better cause. It was a well-known then induced to commit hardier crimes process of persuasion which the mind em- for his support. As to what had been said ployed with itself, to shut itself against about the general law of Europe, he would all the arguments on one side of a ques- take leave to say, that that general law tion, and to receive all those on the other was founded on the Roman law, by which side. His hon. friend had quite over- no property was recognized in animals of looked the fact, that there were in this a wild or unclaimable nature. In the year country a very great number of persons 1793, when new doctrines about the rights who would have game on their tables, by of man began to be promulgated, the some means or other; therefore they must French legislature passed a decree aboeither provide those persons with the lishing seignoral jurisdictions, manorial means of obtaining that game, or they rights, &c. To celebrate this event, Te must leave the public exposed to the Deum was ordered to be sung, and the operation of all the crime and guilt by monarch was invited to assist at its perwhich it was at present procured. formance. The words of the new law well remembered that Dr. Franklin could were these:-" The right of taking and not, it was said, look upon sugar without destroying game is free to all men on reflecting on the blood, the cruelty, and their own territories." The present bill the anguish by which it was prepared, would establish the same principle; but and with which its preparation was accom-with this difference in its applicationpanied; now the same idea struck him, and he thought must strike every person, at the sight of game on the tables of those, who were, by consuming it, encouraging, perhaps unconsciously, the criminal practices of the poacher. It was manifest to him, that with the increasing wealth of the country, there must be an increased temptation to commit this offence. The House should recollect also, that in legislating on this subject, they might be considered as contending for their own interests, and against the interests of the community. He sincerely hoped that some change would be made in the present system of game laws, a change that would permit the fair indulgence of hospitality, and be less injurious to the practice of morality. Mr. Henry Bankes complained, that the principal points in his son's argument had been overlooked, or left unanswered, in the speech of his hon. friend. The operation of the bill now before the House would be to increase poaching in a tenfold degree. He could see nothing in the provision respecting licenses that would in the slightest degree tend to repress it. that whereas the French legislators provided that it should be allowed to the peasantry to take game by any means except fire-arms, the hon. gentleman had provided that fire-arms should be the only means of pursuing the occupation. The bill, he was confident, would be productive of the most dangerous consequences, although it was a sufficient ground for opposing it, that it introduced, without any prospect of advantage, a material alteration of the existing law. Mr. Marryatt, Mr. Scarlett, and a new member (lord Clifton), rose together. Mr. Marryatt had first caught the Speaker's eye, but there was a general cry for the new member. A member suggested, that it was a matter of courtesy that a new member should be first heard. The Speaker observed, that the hon. gentleman was mistaken as to the practice of the House. In the first session of a parliament every member was a new member. Mr. Marryatt then proceeded amidst loud coughing, and cries of "Question," so that we could only collect that he supported the bill. Lord Clifton said, he was of opinion, that the thanks of the House and the Mr. Scarlett said, that at that late hour he should not trouble the House at much length; but he thought it his duty briefly to state the grounds on which he should support the bill. They were all agreed that poaching was one of the greatest evils with which the country could be afflicted, and that it ought to be suppressed by all possible means. If he thought the present bill tended to encourage that in the slightest degree, he should certainly oppose it; but because he believed that the effect of it would be directly the reverse, he should support it. The measure went to give the tenant of the land some interest in the preservation of the game, which he considered to be the best means of putting an end to poaching. All his experience on the subject showed him, that the tenant was at present an enemy to the preservation of the game on the land he occupied, because both the animals themselves, and the pursuit of them by strangers, injured his own crops and marred his labours. It was no profit to him, but, on the contrary, a continual source of annoyance and damage; accordingly, he rather winked at poaching than exerted himself to suppress it. It had come within his own knowledge that farmers, when wages were low, partly paid their labourers by allowing them to poach on their land at night. By the measure proposed, every tenant on a gentleman's estate would be made a game keeper. The game was, in effect, by this bill, made the property of the owner of the soil; as it vested the property in the occupier, with a power to the landlord to make an exception of it in the lease. The indifference of the people as to obeying or enforcing obedience to the existing game laws, proceeded from the opinion that it was common property: with this impression on his mind, the poor man felt that it The Marquis of Titchfield thought the was as just to impose penalties on the congame laws, as they now stood, were no- sumption of water or air as on the taking thing less than an oppression of the of poor game: he thought that what was the for the convenience and comfort of the property of all was the peculiar property rich. He trusted those statutes would of none, and consequently looked on the not long hold out against the increasing game laws with no sort of respect. liberality of the times. He fully con- if game was once made property, the peocurred with the principle of the bill then ple of England would look on it with the before the House; but there was one same eyes as on every other species of clause in it to which he had a decided ob- property. He did not mean to say that jection-it was that which went to legalise he did not think some parts of the bill the sale of game. If this clause were al- objectionable; but whatever there was of tered, he would support the bill; but, as that description might be removed in the he understood it was considered essentially committee. The principle of the bill was necessary, he felt himself bound to sup-most excellent. He took it to be thisport the amendment. General Grosvenor said, that this was a bill, not so much to amend the game laws, as to make game of the constitution. He was astonished that certain gentlemen on the other side had kept their seats so long, instead of rising to give their opinions on this measure. This was any thing but a game bill, or a moral bill-it was a bill of a most dangerous tendency, as it went to put arms into the hands of all classes of people in the country. Such a measure ought to be looked to with great jealousy, and he was surprised not to have heard the opinions of his majesty's grave and learned counsel upon it. If this bill were carried, it would be necessary to keep up an additional force of 12,000 men, to provide against the danger to which it would subject the country. But |