appeared to be a doubt amongst some members, as to whether the words of the resolution were sufficiently comprehensive, the wisest course would be to adjourn the debate.

The debate was accordingly adjourned till Friday.

MUTINY BILL-FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.] The House having gone into a committee on this bill,

Mr. Hume proposed, as a clause to be added to the bill, that it should be unlaw ful to inflict corporal punishment, by stripes or lashes, upon any soldier or noncommissioned officer.

Sir J. Sebright opposed the clause, convinced, as he was, that the power to inflict corporal punishment ought not to be discontinued in the army.

punishment. It was no degradation. He had known men die at the head of their regiments, who had at one time been subjected to the punishment of flogging.

Mr. G. Lamb declared himself a convert to the opinion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, not from the arguments used on his side of the House, but from those urged by the gallant officers who opposed the abolition of flogging. Nobody could persuade him, that the tying a man up to the halberds, and flogging him in the presence of his fellows, was not a degradation.

Colonel Wood contended, that this punishment was indispensable in the militia.

Mr. W. Smith said, that as he had used his best endeavours to save criminals from this degrading punishment, he could never give his consent to have it inflicted

The committee divided: for the clause 16; against it 57: majority 41.

Mr. Hobhouse supported the clause. Lord Barnard was averse to the inflic-on British soldiers. tion of corporal punishments; but, from an experience of eleven years in the army, he felt bound to declare, that, in his opinion, it would be unsafe to try the experiment suggested.

Mr. Bernal wished a committee to be appointed, for the purpose of inquiring into the practicability of dispensing with the infliction of corporal punishment in the army.

Sir H. Vivian trusted, if a committee were appointed, that it would be a committee of practical men, and expressed his opinion of the necessity of corporal punishment to maintain a proper degree of discipline among our troops.

Mr. R. Gordon said, that these punishments were admitted by their advocates to be evils, though they contended that they were necessary evils. He should be glad to see the necessity removed, and some better system substituted for the present defective one.

Mr. R. Martin denied that the infliction of flogging in the army was not a revolting cruelty.

Lord Palmerston defended the system of corporal punishment in the army, and contended that, from the classes from amongst which the British army was composed, it was impossible to preserve discipline but by some coercive measures. He denied that any abuses of the power could be proved.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Tuesday, February 27. GAME LAWS.] Lord Wharncliffe having presented a petition from the magistrates of Bury St. Edmund's, praying for a revision of the Game Laws, observed, that in pursuance of the notice he had given, it now became his duty to call the attention of their lordships to this subject. His lordship proceeded to state the grounds on which he thought the present Game-laws ought to be altered. He trusted that his motives would not be mistaken, nor the object he had in view over-rated. Their lordships had doubtless heard of those desperate conflicts which frequently took place in consequence of the attempts of poachers to obtain possession of game, and must wish to do away with such a state of things. Unfortunately, there must now be many persons in the country who had become habituated to this system of depredation and plunder; for it had been carried on for a great number of years. long as the persons who had been brought up in such habits existed, it could not be expected that poaching would entirely cease; but he hoped and believed, that a change in the present laws-a change which would go along with the common sense and feelings of the people, and which would induce them to say, "this is

So

General Duff said, that it was as easy to chain the north wind as to manage British soldiers without the aid of corporal | right,"-would greatly tend to remedy the

681

evil, and would speedily diminish the
number of those who lived by unlawful
plunder. He hoped it would not be thought
presumptuous in him to submit a proposi-
tion on the Game-laws to their lordships,
so soon after he had had the honour of
being called to that House by his majesty's
favour. The subject, however, was one to
which his attention had been directed for
many years. He had frequently adverted
to the subject in the other House of par-
liament, and that House had, on his
motion, passed a bill to amend the Game-
laws, which was sent up to their lord-
ships, but which did not receive their
sanction. Being now a member of their
lordships' branch of the legislature, he
proposed to bring the subject under their
consideration. He did not expect to be
able to remove all the evils, or even the
greater part of them, which sprang from
the Game-laws, but with those laws no
man was satisfied. All parties and all
ranks condemned them; and the question
was, could these laws be so amended as to
give satisfaction to the great mass of the
people? He was aware that the task was
a difficult one; but not so difficult, he
thought, as to induce him not to encounter
it. He was himself a country gentleman,
fond of the sports of the field, and wished
on no account to do any thing to injure or
destroy them. No man was more sensible
than he was of the advantages of country
gentlemen residing on their estates; but
if that advantage were to be purchased at
the expense of retaining all the gross evils
of the present Game-laws, he should say
it would be too dearly purchased. He was
happy to say that when he looked at the
system of the Game-laws, he found that
in order to amend them, nothing more
would be necessary to be done than for
their lordships to return back to the state
of those laws at an early period, before
they had been altered by modern legisla-
tive enactments. For himself he would
say, that he was no reformer, but he could
not shut his eyes to errors which were the
growth of time. He would look to the
principle on which their lordships' ances-
tors had founded the Game-laws, and
keeping that principle always in view,
would endeavour to discover how far, con-
sistently with that principle, they could
be amended. And here he must observe,
that nothing in his opinion did so much
harm as an erroneous dictum laid down in
a book which was generally popular.

Now, in the "Commentaries" of Black-
stone,-a book which was the most popular
of any on the laws of England, a dictum
was laid down on the subject of game
which he must beg leave to say was at
variance with the common law of the land.
That author stated the animals pursued as
game to be feræ naturæ, and that being
so, they belonged to nobody but the king.
Now, he would contend against this dictum.
Such was not the law, and never was the
law of England. The king never possessed
such a power as that attributed to him by
Blackstone. Every man had full and com-
plete power over the game on his own
land, and the true principle of English law
with respect to such property was-cujus
est solum, ejus est usque ad cœlum, atque
ad inferos. Not a partridge or a hare upon
any man's estate belonged to the king.
The first principle to be set out with in
amending the Game-laws was, that ac-
cording to the common law every man
had the right to do what he liked with his
own land, and therefore was the owner
of the game upon it. Such was always
held to be the case, till a comparatively
late period, when the Game-laws were
altered-an alteration which had produced
a change disgraceful to the country. The
first great alteration was made in the time
of Charles the 2nd, by acts of the 22nd
and 23rd of that king's reign. The quali-
fications which had been established for
killing game were of the most absurd and
inconsistent nature. He knew that a great
number of persons were of opinion, that
the present state of the law on this point
was the means of preserving game, and
though willing to allow game to be sold,
they would not consent to alter the quali-
fications. But he must say, that if their
lordships allowed the sale of game, and
continued the present qualifications, they
would not only do no good, but would
make the law worse than it now was.
What were the present qualifications to
kill game. He would mention some of
them to their lordships. A man must be
possessed of land to the value of 100%. a-
year if a freeholder, or of 1507. if a lease-
holder, or must be the eldest son of an
esquire, or of some person of higher degree.
Now, with respect to the first qualification,
that of 1007. a-year, it was easy to under-
stand why it had been enacted. It was,
doubtless, supposed, that a man who pos-
sessed an estate of 1001. a-year, would
have land enough to sport upon; but the

law upon this subject stood. He would wish to prevent any person from sporting on another man's land without his leave, and would make it lawful for any person to warn any one so sporting, off the ground. By the alterations he should propose, the owners of land would have complete power to prevent any one from trespassing on their grounds. A main object which he had in view was, to do away with the present qualifications. In justice and honesty, every person ought to know another person's land, and ought not to pass the hedge which divided his own from that of his neighbour's property. He would say that no man should trespass upon another person's land, either for the purpose of sporting under the protection of qualifications, or with the object of theft or gain. Should any person so trespass, he would propose that it should be lawful for the person who owned the grounds, or any body appointed by him, to go to the trespasser,

reason of other qualifications and disqualifications was not so apparent. He was now addressing the great landholders of this country; and all the noble lords around him were not, perhaps, aware, that every time a Scotch or Irish peer went out to sport in this country, he was liable to a penalty of 51. if he did not possess freehold or leasehold property in England of the required value. According to the law, the second son of a man of property was not qualified to shoot on his father's grounds. The elder son was qualified, but all the rest were disqualified. There were some classes who acquired the right of shooting through others who could not shoot. Certain persons, propagated shooters, for they might have sons who were officers, and were therefore qualified, though the law would not allow them such right. He would mention to their lordships an instance of hardship which might every day occur in the administration of the Game-laws. A person of great pro-demand his name, and warn him to go off perty, who resided in the country, but was the property; and if that demand should possessed of no land, wished to amuse not be complied with, the proprietor should himself by shooting. He went out with have power to take him immediately before his gun, and the next day had an informa- a magistrate, and if any resistance should tion lodged against him, which was fol- take place he hoped some considerable lowed with a conviction, and the payment punishment would be enacted against the of the penalty of 51. Among the other offender. This was a way by which, he inconsistencies of the law, he would again thought, property would be much better advert to the circumstance of the second protected than by the trumpery laws that son of a man of property not being quali- now existed. Every one would thus have fied. If a second son was seen sporting a complete power of preventing any person on his father's grounds, the gamekeeper trespassing on his grounds, and a summary of a neighbouring estate might lodge an power too, by being enabled to take the information against him; but the game-offender forthwith before a magistrate, inkeeper could not seize his gun or prevent him from shooting, because he could not come over the hedge without leave. If he did, he would be guilty of a trespass. If, however, an unqualified person went on shooting, the law afforded but a very remote remedy. All that could be done was some three months after to prosecute him at some assizes. The prosecutor must then take his chance of an action at law, on which he would perhaps lose the day, and have to sustain a considerable expense; whereas the unqualified sportsman, if convicted, would only have to pay his own costs. Under the act of the 5th of queen Anne, a man might go on sporting all day if he gave his name. If he was afterwards found, he was only liable to conviction in the penalty of 51., and perhaps he might never be found. All these circumstances showed the confused state in which the

stead of being sent to seek for the distant remedy of an action for damages, the chances of which were, after all, against him.-Having stated his mind upon that part of the question, he should proceed to the other parts of the question. The lord of the manor should have a right to the whole of the game upon his soil. The principle upon which this went was, to do away with the qualifications, but to guard against trespass. He thought it should be considered whether, when a power was given for a protection of game, a power should not also be given for the sale of game. He saw no reason why a person who was allowed a property in game should not be allowed to sell it. The law which prevented qualified persons from selling game was of recent date. An early statute of Henry 7th prohibited the selling of game; but the statute of the 28th of Geo. 2nd quali

fied that principle, and was the first statute | injustice in the first bill he should have that imposed a penalty upon the selling of the honour of laying upon their lordships' game; but its operation was against the table.-Another part of the subject reperson who sold the game, leaving the per- lated to those persons who went out in the son who took it untouched. The 58th of night for the purpose of poaching. Every Geo. 3rd put the buyer and the seller upon one who had read the papers for the last the same footing. He proposed to sweep three months, and knew the state of the away those statutes. The state of society country, must have seen with horror the in this country had altered considerably conflicts which had taken place in consince those acts had passed, which im- sequence of that practice. It happened, posed a penalty on the selling of game. too, that the compassion of the people of Whatever laws their lordships might make, this country was not excited for the unlet them not be deceived. However tightly fortunate gamekeeper, but for the poachers. they might endeavour to draw the cord, The language held upon such occasions game would be sold as long as there were was, that the laws were unjust and severe. rich people to buy. Riches would ulti- This was not a right state of things, and mately triumph; and it would be absurd the only way to put an end to the practice to say to the rich alderman in London, of poaching was by giving a right state of "you shall not have game." Let game feeling to the public mind. That would be bought and sold; but he was well go to break the habit of going out at night, aware that at that moment, and under for the purpose of depredations of this sort. present circumstances, it was possible that If a man once went out at night, if he did a free and open market might have the not get a partridge or a pheasant, he would effect, for some years, to increase the not return without a sheep. He intended crime of poaching. He would, therefore, to bring in a bill for the purpose of punishrestrict the operation of this principle of ing persons who should go out at night, and free purchase and sale, until the market to repeal the 57th Geo. 3rd on that subject. should get into a regular state of supply. The penalties ofthat existing severe act were, He should therefore propose, that the bill that every person who should be found in a should contain a clause empowering magis- wood or enclosure, armed with a gun, for trates to license persons, until such time as the purpose of destroying game, should be that power might be dispensed with; for liable to be tried for felony, and, upon conhe thought it the best and wisest plan to viction, to be transported. That was a open the door only by degrees. As he most severe act, and, in many recent cases, had stated before, he had great reason to the punishment had been thought to be of hope that the legalizing the purchase and so severe a nature that juries had been sale of game would go a great way to put unwilling to perform their duty. That an end to the crime of poaching. But he would not be the case if the law were would ask of their lordships to consider altered. It might be very necessary when well how much they would increase the a person should be so inveterate in crime, injury of the present laws, if they should and so decidedly unfit to remain in this confine the power of selling game to the country, to send him to another. But it person possessing a certain amount of was rather too severe a punishment for the property if it were allowed to an in- first offence; when, by proper means the dividual who possessed an hundred acres of offender would probably mend. His proland, or 1007. a year, to kill game and go position was, that a man for the first to the market and sell it, while his neigh- offence should be liable to be carried bebour, who possessed only ninety nine acres fore a magistrate, and, upon conviction, be of land, or 997. a year, should be prevented. sent to the House of correction and put to Not only the great landlords, but the hard labour for three months, and at the small proprietors of land, should have the end of that period to find good sureties privilege of selling game. If a person had for a year. For the second offence, the an estate of three hundred acres, two offender should be sent to prison for six hundred of which were mortgaged, he months, and find sureties for a still longer would then just have sufficient to qualify period; and for the third offence be liable, him, but would have the power of shooting upon conviction, to be transported. Further over the whole estate; while another person than that he was even willing to go, and who had ten acres less would be disquali- to say that if any person should assault the fied. He would endeavour to correct that gamekeepers, whether upon the first, second