3. "That it appears to this House, that the practice of drawing such bills of exchange, not duly stamped, with fictitious dates of time and place, accepted by the lords commissioners of the Treasury, and causing the monies raised thereon to be immediately paid into the office of the paymaster of his majesty's forces, is illegal, unconstitutional, and highly injurious to the public credit; and that the chancellor of the exchequer, by the introduction of such practice has brought into disrepute and suspicion the acceptance of his majesty's treasury, and sanctioned a system of fraud and collusion unprecedented in the administration of the finances of this country." The motion was supported by Mr. Grey, Mr. Francis, sir F. Baring, Mr. W. Smith, Mr. M. Robinson, and general Smith. The conduct of the chancellor of the exchequer was defended by Mr. Charles Long, who moved the previous question upon the first resolution. On a division, the numbers were, Yeas, 24; Noes, 109. The second resolution was negatived. On the third resolution, the House, after Mr. Pitt had been heard in place, divided; Yeas, 8: Noes, 108. Debate on Mr. Curwen's Motion for the repeal of the Game Laws.] March 4. Mr. Curwen rose, and addressed the chair as follows:-I now rise, Mr. Speaker, to submit to the House, a motion for the repeal of all the prohibitory statutes relating to Game, and for leave to substitute provisions in their place, for the more effectual preservation and security of the same. I am well aware of the prejudices which every considerable change has to encounter; first, from such as are enemies to all reform, and, secondly, from those who, though no friends to the Game laws, are fearful their abolition would prove the destruction of the game. Before I proceed farther, I must declare, if I conceived any thing in this measure could have such a tendency, or in the smallest degree, render the residence of gentlemen in the country less pleasant, or in any ways interfere with their amusements, I should have thought I did an injury rather than a benefit to the community by my motion; sensible that the residence of gentlemen in the country is a most desirable object, and tends much to the happiness of the bulk of the people, could I suppose, what I was about to offer, would in the smallest degree, inter fere with any inducement to gentlemen's spending their time and fortunes in the country, instead of moving for the repeal of the game laws, I should have contented myself with offering a modification of them. Sir, I protest I have the clearest conviction in my own mind, that, if the House should adopt the proposition, I shal make to them, it will greatly increase the quantity of game, prevent those unfortunate misunderstandings that but too frequently interrupt the peace and harmony of neighbours, and at the same time remove the odium which the present tyranny of the game laws and unjustifiable monopoly occasions, and unite every landholder in the wish to preserve and protect the game. Of so long standing, and so deep-rooted are the sentiments entertained of the injustice and tyranny of the game laws, that it appears impossible to confound them with any of those principles, the alarm of which so powerfully haunts the imaginations of many gentlemen at the present moment. Had I any occasion for stronger proof than what every gentleman's own observation would furnish, as to the general execration in which the game laws have long been held, Imight cite that great constitutional lawyer, sir William Blackstone, who represents their tyranny as little short of the forest laws, and repugnant to every principle of justice.* Sir, it would have been impossible for laws so contradictory to the spirit and principle of the English constitution to have existed at this time of day, had they been carried into general execu. tion; sufficient instances have occurred to keep up the resentment of the country, but not sufficient to call forth the united voice of the nation for their repeal. Sir, it is the boast of Englishmen to hold their liberty as a right, not as a boon. If the laws be such as cannot, ought not to be executed, does it become the legislature to suffer them to remain upon our statute books? A security from oppression that rests upon forbearance, is not a situation under which 1,990 out of 2,000, or even a greater proportion of Englishmen should be suffered to remain. Sir, it was accounted wise policy in former statesmen to attend to the changes which time and circumstances produced, and to alter and adapt the laws, to meet the exigencies of the moment. Our present system seems the very reverse, and, without adverting * Commentaries, Vol. 4, p. 416 to the astonishing revolution of the pub- | others of the right of the crown to the sole property in the game, either as lord of the whole soil or in right of the preroga tive of the crown to all things which have no owner. As generally as this doctrine has been received, I am strongly inclined to the opinion of a late learned and ingenious commentator on sir William Blackstone (I mean professor Christian) who has, I think, with the most complete success, refuted this opinion, and shown clearly the crown had no such right. Lord Coke has delivered himself strongly to the same effect: that the licence of the crown was necessary for the erection of parks and warrens, but that every man might pursue hunting and hawking as matter of pastime and amusement. The statute of the 13th Richard 2nd, confirms the general right, and only narrows the exercise of it to persons possessed of 40s, per annum. and clergymen with benefices of 10l. And this on the ground that servants and others misemployed their time in the pursuit of game. The statute of 11th of Henry the 7th, restrains the killing game on any man's freehold against his consent, under a penalty of 10, which was a very considerable sum at that period. The prohibition of Richard 2nd, continued without alteration till the Ist of James 1st, when they were in, creased to 101. freehold, 30l. leasehold, or 2007. in chattles, sons of esquires, and persons of higher degree. The intermediate laws relate chiefly to restrictions respecting arms, and breathe the same spirit of tyranny and oppression which characterizes every law relative to this subject, the statute of the 11th of Henry 7th excepted, which guards to every freeholder the game upon his own property; by the 22nd and 23d of Charles 2nd the qualifications are advanced to 100/. freehold, and 150l. leasehold, and persons of certain degree; but all qualifications from personal property were omitted. This is a period of our history in which neither sound policy nor a scrupulous attention to the interest or liberty of the subject is to be looked for. In a country whose very existence depends upon commerce, any insidious distinction between the landholder and the commercial interest was unwise and unjust, was even upon the principles of the restrictions themselves; which profess to have in view no other object but the preventing of improper people from mispending their time to the injury of themselves and the public. [ 3 H] Sir, to the subject of prohibitions, I wished its introduction into that country, principally to call the attention of the where, for once taxation was the parent of House. The tyranny and justice of re- liberty, and produced the total abolition straining any individual in the exercise of the game laws. It is singular, that of a right at the arbitrary and unconfined one of the most despotic governments in pleasure of the legislature, can be justi- Europe should have been the first to fied upon no principle, nor defended upon have put an end to a system which had any policy. It is a complete system of been a source of such oppression and monopoly of a few, upon the right of tyranny; while it yet remains a disgrace to three parts of the landed interest. I know that country, which claims a pre-eminence of no particular quality that gives to the in freedom. The right hon. gentleman's possessor of an estate of 100l. a right tax does away all necessity of restrictions, which might not, with as much or more and puts it out of the power of persons propriety be given to one of less value. who might injure themselves and the pubExtent of estates dpends so much upon lic, by mispending their time in pursuit local situation, that a property of 100l. per of game. By the product of this tax, we annum, inay be but a few acres on which no may form some estimate of what proporgame is bred, whilst an estate of half the tion of landed interest has a concern in value in a distant part, may be of conon the preservation and protection of the siderable extent, rear and feed a quantity game. The amount of the tax is little of game; and yet the owner must not more than 40,000l.: after deducting what touch it, under penalties that may be so may be supposed to be paid by gameexercised as to fall little short of his ruin. keepers, there may be 12,000 persons who Sir, if prescription might be pleaded, the take out licences: allow to each of these game was from the earliest period consi- persons an estate of 500l. per annum, and dered as the right of the proprietor of we shall find six millions to be the prothe land, and the first restriction seems to perty that monopolizes the game; just have been directed against persons, who one-fourth of the whole. Sir, though could not follow it without evident ruin I believe this to exceed the real state of to themselves. The law prevents any the fact, it is sufficient for my purpose to man from going upon the property allow double that sum, and suppose the of another; and yet restrains him from interest to be equally divided ; what then, the enjoyment of what is the produce of Sir, must be the consequence, when we it as much as the grain. The impolicy of make it equally the interest of every prothis restriction is only exceeded by its prietor to protect the game? I think I injustice; and nothing could operate more am well-founded in supposing, that the forcibly to defeat the object it has in view, repeal of these laws will amply repay the the preservation of the game. The sportsman by an abundant increase of his harshness and tyranny of these laws in-sport: it may, indeed, call upon him to spire so general a disgust and abhorrence in the minds of all who are subjected to them, that it induces a large proportion of landholders to take every means to to destroy the game. Add to this what is suffered by feeding as well as by the pursuit of the game, and it will cease to surprise gentlemen that the game is so diminished. Sir, from the earliest period of the game laws, statutes have been made to prevent the destruction of eggs. Whilst it is the interest of the farmer to extirpate the game, which can be done that with impunity in defiance of any thing tyranny can devise, it is in vain to hope it will not be done. Sir, I cannot but lament that when a right hon. gentleman selected game as an object of taxation, the idea of which I am inclined to think he borrowed from Russia, that he had not accompanied it with the same measures which attend lay out something of what he now pays for the guarding of game, for the permission to shoot on the property of others. The strictest preservation of his own will no longer be considered as odious and oppressive. A worthy friend of mine has long practised a mode of protecting the game, which has answered every purpose, that is, by the payment of so much for every head of game, to the person onwhose estate the game is killed. A conduct so liberal has interested every farmer in the protection of the game: and the gentle. man enjoys his sport with the good wishes of the people, who, so far from envying him his amusements, concur as far as they can to promote them. Contrast this with the conduct of those who, by the terror of the laws, endeavour to protect the game. The odium and ill-will defeat the purpose, and never fail, in the long run, to dis gust those who attempt it.-The next point, tion to which, in every instance, they are in is that clause which empowers one magis- direct opposition. What I have farther trate to grant warrants to search houses to state to the House is matter of mere of persons suspected of having dogs, nets, regulation and policy: should the House &c. on belief of the intention to use the adopt my proposition, and restore to same. How it was possible at any period every land-holder the game upon his prosince this country sat up a claim to liber- perty, would it be consistent to prescribe ty, that such an enactment should pass to him the way in which he should enjoy this House is matter of astonishment. it? The game being once under the proA law more tyrannical and oppressive, tection of every proprietor of land, cannever was devised; except by a subse- not be invaded without increased risks. quent statute, which extends this power And yet, Sir, in a country opulent as this, to game keepers, who may seize any dog persons of a certain situation, not advertor net, and enter any house they may ing to the eonsequences, will hold out suspect; a power, perhaps, not often used temptations by giving extravagant prices from prudential reasons, as the other me- for game. Persons will be induced to run thod puts it in the power of persons to all risks. Would it not, therefore, be better exercise the tyranny without risk. Sir, to let game come openly and freely to marto put a case by no means extreme: sup ket? The price would be so reduced, posing the lord mayor of London should as of itself to destroy the temptation to by accident be found upon the manor of poaching, and the risk of detection a strict preserver of game, though able to considerably increased. For pass this contribute millions to a loan, if not pos- law, and it will be no longer difficult to con- . sessed of a 100l. per annum in land, his vict the poacher. The nature of the dog might be seized with impunity and crime will be changed, and what was conhanged before his face. Vain is the sidered as only an attack upon the pasboast that every man's house is his castle; time and monopoly of a few, will be an it may be violated upon suspicion of any offence again every individual. Is it just, unfeeling instrument of this despotism. to suffer laws to exist which we are ourSir, it once fell to my lot to be obliged selves the cause of tempting men to to grant a warrant upon this statute, and break? It is high time, after above 700 though no proof of usage was attempted, years of oppression to put an end to laws the dog being of a prohibited species was which have never, during the course of taken from the proprietor and hanged. I that period, been considered by the nation. have no words that can convey the detesta- without execration and abhorrence. Not tion I feel for this act. The other enact- more than 40,000 persons in the kingdom ments for punishing the killing of game, are exempted from their tyranny.-My are mild indeed to those now in force. first view of this subject inclined me to By the 5th of Ann, the law professes the stop here, and leave every man to defend punishment to be no more than 5., or his property by an action at law; but a three months imprisonment; but by the farther consideration of the subject showmode it leaves to the option of the prose- ed me I should have done little for that cutor to recover this penalty, it amounts part of the community for whose right I to imprisonment for life. Thus, offences am contending. An action in the hands that have no shade of distinction are, ac- of men of property is a ready and efficacording to the more or less feeling of the cious remedy; but totally out of their prosecutor, punished by 57. recovered be- power to wield without bringing ruin upon fore a magistrate, or swelled to 60l. or themselves. Fortunately for me, without 70%. by a prosecution in the courts of introducing any thing new, an adequate Westminster. What can be more unjust and complete remedy presented itself in than to leave to the party injured the na- the statute of the 11th of Henry 7th. What ture of the punishment he chooses to in- I shall now offer to the House as a subflict? bad in all cases; but terrible indeed stitute for the laws I propose to repeal is when it extends to the imprisonment of the renewal of that act with certain moa subject for life. Too many have found difications. First, I propose that any their way into our prisons from the op. person who shall kill any kind of game pressive nature of these laws. It is high after a notice verbal or in writing from time they should be erased from our sta- the tenant or any person entitled to the tute books, nor longer be suffered to in-game, shall be subject to a penalty of 51. sult the first principles of our constitu- for every head of game so killed, to be paid on conviction, or committed for one month to the house of correction for the first offence, and six months for every subsequent one. Simple as this plan is, it would answer every purpose. It is not one of the least beneficial effects likely to follow the plan I propose, that it will put an end to the frequent disagreements that are occasioned by game, and leave every person to pursue his sports without mofestation. I move, Sir, "that the acts of 22nd and 23rd of Charles 2nd; the 1st of James 1st; the 4th and 5th of William and Mary; the 5th and 9th of Ann; and the 28th of George 2nd be read."-The same being accordingly read, Mr. Curwen next moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the said Acts, or such parts thereof to be particularly specified, as relate to the Preservation of Game, and for substituting other Provi sions in lieu thereof." Mr. Buxton said, that the game laws ought not to exist in this country, but he could not entirely agree with the hon. gentleman, as to the mode to be adopted for the repeal of them. His idea was to make game private property. Every gentleman must be aware, that it was the right of every individual to protect his property; and game appeared to him part of the growth of, and belonging to the landed property of this country. He wished the hon. gentleman had gone a little higher in his history of the game laws. If he had, he would have found, that before the Norman Conquest, game was private property, and that it was recognized as such by the Roman law, which provided, that no man has a right to kill game on the land of another without his permission. Every law which did not equally affect the rich and the poor, could not be considered as a just law; and, in this view, he reprobated the game laws; for it was notorious, that a poor man was oftener fined 51. for killing a partridge than a rich man twenty shillings for killing a hare. He would be understood, however, as not wishing to increase the penalty, but merely to equalize the operations of the law. He would not make it felony to kill game, for that would be worse than the law stood at present; but he would make it a misdemeanor. By the decisions of courts of justice the right of the lord of the manor was weak enough, and there was no occasion to diminish it; it had been decided, that he had no right to kill on any other ground than his own, more than any other qualified person, except in the case of a free warren. If the bill were brought in, he should wish it to be printed and the discussion of it to stand over to another session. Mr. Francis said, he had no scruple to confess that he was not much acquainted with the subject, but as he considered it of great importance, he begged leave to make a few observations; and if he was not so well qualified as others to speak, perhaps from having no interest to support, he might not be the less impartial. He could not conceive how the hon. gentleman who spoke last could entertain an idea of making game private property, and not make the penalty attending on an infringement of the law, the same that he would make a penalty for the violation of any other kind of property. There was one principle which the legislature ought always to keep in view in their deliberations, and which he rose principally for the purpose of stating. Though no sportsman himself, he wished that the game should be preserved for the sake of sportsmen. To discourage poachers therefore was certainly important. The reason why he was particularly desirous for the preservation of game was, that while the capital presented so many attractions as it did at present to country gentlemen, and while it was at the same time of so much consequence to the country that they should reside for some time on their estates, he was anxious that the country should present as many attractions as possible, to render a return to their rural residence desirable. He hoped therefore, as shooting was a favourite amusement with many gentlemen, that his hon. friend who made the motion would provide that their sport should not be interrupted. He was induced to mention this in consequence of its having been suggested to him, that if his hon. friend's plan were carried into effect, that property would be so dispersed and interspersed, that there would be no sporting at all. Mr. Henniker Major thought, that the consideration of the game laws had better be referred to a committee of the whole House. Mr. Jolliffe could not consentto the destruction of the whole fabric of the game laws, unless some specific remedy was substituted in its place. He thought the total ruin of the game would be the result of so improvident a measure. Mr. Powys agreed with the hon. mover |