Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

employed for purposes which its costliness prohibited before. And Sheffield is in a position to supply all demands.

Other trades are established here which are worthy of note. The right of Leeds and Manchester to monopolise the manufacture of machine tools has been practically disputed. The drawing of steel wire is carried on on an extensive scale, and powder flasks, shot bags, optical instruments, and type, have long been made here. There are trades, too, which though of a very different character, deserve from their long existence and prosperity to be noticed. Such are the button, comb, and hair seating trades, while the manufacture of a celebrated snuff has been carried on for many years. Some additional interest might, perhaps, have been given to this paper by including in it an account of the trades which have failed in their attempts to gain a footing in Sheffield, and by recording how the all-powerful genius of iron has driven away from his domain the softer forms of silks and cotton, and has, as it were in spite, made their last abode a pauper's home. But I have already reached the limits allotted to me, and have also, I fear, sufficiently tasked the patience of this assembly.

THE GAME LAWS.

The Game Laws. By GEORGE HOPE.

THE Game Laws consist of numerous Acts of Parliament, which restrict the killing of certain wild animals, arbitrarily denominated game, to particular seasons and by certain individuals, who must also first obtain a licence from Government to enable them to do so. Partridges, pheasants, muir fowl, ptarmigans, heath fowl, snipes or quails, are termed winged game; and hares and rabbits ground game. Deer, I believe, are also game, unless appropriated by enclosure in a park, when they become property, and the taking of them is punishable as theft. Game at large has never been held as property; and these laws, therefore, are only founded on expediency, or rather the strong will of the governing classes. To mitigate some of the acknowledged evils that flow from them, it has been strongly advocated that the law should declare all game to be property belonging to the owner of the land on which it is found. But it is impossible to hold animals to be property which cannot be identified; and who can tell the difference betwixt one partridge or one hare from another of the same species, as they fly over or run across the country, and which animal may also become the property of half a dozen different people in a few minutes? The law might declare such animals to be property, and punish the taking of them as theft; but this remedy appears to me more likely to confound the sense of right and wrong, and thus weaken the security of all other property, than to attain the object intended. Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on

K K

English Law," observes, "From this root (the Forest Laws) has sprung a bastard slip, known by the name of the Game Laws; both founded upon the same unreasonable notions of permanent property in wild creatures, and both productive of the same tyranny to the commons; but with this difference, that the Forest Laws established only one mighty hunter throughout the land; the Game Laws have established a little Nimrod in every manor." The natural right of every man to hunt and kill wild animals was long maintained in the Roman Law, and was recognised and acted on in the earlier periods of British history. This right was usurped by the feudal barons, and it has continued to the present day to be essentially an arbitrary privilege of the wealthy and aristocratic classes. In the time of Richard the Second it was enacted that no artificer, labourer, priest, or other clerk of small income," shall have or keep from henceforth, any greyhound, hound, or other dog, nor shall use ferrets, nets, &c., to take deer, hares, nor conies, nor other gentlemen's game, upon pain of one year's imprisonment." This law has been repealed, but the same spirit runs through every later enactment; it is at the peril of the lieges if they take or disturb "gentlemen's game." In Scotland the right of killing game seems to have been enjoyed by the whole population up to a comparatively recent period. It was only in 1621 that the first statute in regard to this matter was passed by the Scotch Parliament. With characteristic brevity it simply enacted, "That na man hunt or hawk at any time hereafter, who hath not a plough of land in heritage, under the pain of ane hundred pounds," which sum, being only Scots money, amounts to £8 6s. 8d. sterling. This old statute still remains in full force north of the Tweed, and the penalty quoted-admits of no modification, but is often added to the penalties for trespass and for the want of a licence to crush landless poachers, though no qualification beyond the licence from Government is required in England. The differences betwixt the law as it exists in both countries, and various anomalies common to both, must speedily attract the attention of Parliament. At present almost every newspaper in Scotland is discussing the effect of proposed alterations or modifications for the amendment of these laws, and some, at least, advocate their total abolition. Even a cursory examination of them will show how vindictive, if not ferocious, the penalties are for any infringement of their enactments. Their effect

is also most disastrous on the morals of the labouring class in the rural districts. Within the last twenty years the convictions under them have increased from 5,000 to upwards of 10,000 in England alone. The loss sustained by tenant farmers from the destruction of their crops by game has long been a cause of just complaint; and it is admitted by every competent judge, that high or profitable farming is incompatible with game preserving. I have a strong belief myself that all game laws might be utterly abolished, with great advantage to the whole community; and if a more stringent law of trespass was thought necessary, though no special damage was incurred, a penalty not exceeding 40s. might be recoverable like.

other debts, besides compensation for any damage, even the carrying off of hares and pheasants by wilful trespassers.

But I appear here as representing the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. I propose simply to advocate the resolutions agreed to by that body; and to show that these laws ought to be modified and amended, so as at least to render them more in harmony with justice and right feeling. There can be no reason for a qualification Act being in force in Scotland, when none is required in England. In the latter country a tenant has full right to the game on his land, unless he voluntarily divests himself of it in his agreement with the landlord; but in Scotland a tenant cannot hunt or kill game, without the special authority of his landlord, however long his lease may be, even though it was renewable for ever. It is even matter of doubt, if the owner of an entailed estate can legally grant a lease of the game for a term beyond his own life. On the other hand, proprietors and all authorised by them may hunt and kill game at pleasure in the fields and enclosures occupied by a tenant. Doubtless a landlord has full right to make his own terms in parting with his land, provided he can get people to agree to them; but to let land first to grow crops, and then, it may be, to let the right of consuming these crops, or to retain it for himself, is, to say the least of it, unwise on the part of the agricultural tenant, and not very creditable on the part of the proprietor. In Scotland tenants are invariably assured that the game will be kept down, so as to prevent all injury to crops, and I willingly admit this promise is generally kept by the great majority of landowners. Still there are numerous instances of great losses to tenants, particularly where hares and rabbits are preserved. It is true many tenants bind themselves to refrain from seeking all redress for losses from game, however much their crops may be destroyed. It is exceedingly foolish, but it is more so in appearance than reality, as game damages are found to cost more in recovery, even when successful, than the amount claimed. That is to say, if the landlord litigates the case, as he has it in his power to do, and generally does. If the suit is commenced before the Sheriffs, it can be taken to the higher courts; but even if begun before the Lord Ordinary in Scotland, it can be carried to the Outer House, and then the Inner, and, finally, to the House of Lords. The expense and anxiety of this course of action makes it wisdom on the part of the tenant to submit to the first loss, and endeavour, as speedily as possible, to get quit of the farm. Were actions for game damages to be final before the Sheriff or paid magistrate, justice would be more easily attainable, and landlords would then become more chary of increasing game to an unreasonable amount. But besides the actual damage done by game, it is the cause of more jealousy and quarrels betwixt landlord and tenant than all other causes put together. I was lately shown a letter written by a proprietor to one of his tenants, dated only last month, and of which I took a copy, as a curious specimen of the light in which some proprietors view their tenants, and the insolent conduct they sometimes, unconsciously, use towards them.

In this letter the landlord complains that the son of the tenant "had been seen shooting rabbits, and without the slightest excuse in the way of their damaging your crops. Some time previously my keeper and gardener met your son and another person nearhaving a greyhound, with a loose rope round his neck; of course it is not difficult to conjecture what was intended. You are yourself, I believe, aware of an incident where your son and, I believe, two other persons, were distinctly seen to course several hares. Whether this was on my ground or that adjoining I am uncertain; however, I fancy it is very doubtful whether the proprietor's permission was given to such a proceeding." Finally he "hopes he may have been misinformed, but does not think having him for a tenant a subject for congratulation." Now, there is not one word about game in this tenant's lease. Rabbits are by law game and not game; but they are not game to the tenant in this case, and he could shoot or trap them as he chose. The landlord, in fact, admits this, though he seems to think the rabbits should have first damaged the tenant's crops. I would ask what did they live and multiply on but the tenant's crops? They could not be there at all without damaging them. Then the boy seen with the greyhound and the rope round its neck (a boy under 9 years of age) on the public road-why, he was simply taking home the animal, that had strayed from a neighbouring farm, the same where the coursing took place. This story of the coursing is a beautiful illustration of the sort of tales carried by gamekeepers to their masters, and of the credulity of the latter; the keepers had seen "distinctly" this tenant's son and two other persons course several hares, but were unable to say whether it was on this farm or that, though it was on an estate where the tenant had leave to course and where the boy went by invitation. Mark also the view the landlord takes of what he styles "such a proceeding" (the coursing of hares by a tenant). "I fancy it is very doubtful whether the proprietor's permission was given." The arrogance of this letter will be more apparent when I tell you that this tenant has spent several thousand pounds (not a penny of it made by farming) in bringing into cultivation some 200 acres by trenching, liming, draining, and fencing with stone walls what was previously a barren heath. He was under no obligation to do so, and it is doubtful whether he will recover the whole of his capital; but one thing is certain, he will, at the close of his lease, return the farm to the landlord worth a great increase of rent, the effect of these permanent improvements effected by him with his own capital. Few tenants care about shooting or hunting; I believe not one in ten would use the privilege if they had it; and I have come to this conclusion from my knowledge of those who have, or have had, the sporting on their farms. But there is one thing they do dislike, and that is being watched and challenged for herd-boys firing guns and sheep-dogs frightening hares. I will say further, tenants are glad to see their landlords sporting on their farms, provided the game is only sufficient for fair sport, and that it is not preserved for a single

day's murderous slaughter, as is now the fashion, and the produce sent to the poulterer, to the diminution of that produce which should have been sent to the butcher. Partridges, even when numerous, do comparatively little harm to crops. Pheasants are very destructive, but they are confined to particular localities, where they are reared under hencoops and fed by the hand when young. They are excellent birds on the table, but I cannot see the sport of shooting such large half tame animals. Cultivated land in the neighbourhood of preserves, should be in the owner's own hand; but if farmers do hire land in such situations, they know what they may expect. Sometimes preserves adjoin the farms of other proprietors, and I have known some hard cases, where the tenants' crops were greatly injured year after year by game reared on adjoining properties, and the tenants refused all redress. But hares and rabbits are the great causes of complaint; they increase rapidly, if simply let alone. On many farms Swedish turnips cannot be left on the ground during winter without great loss, as the hares break the skin of bulb after bulb, which renders them liable to be easily destroyed by frost. It is often impossible to lift them in the autumn without poaching the land in wet weather, and even if they could be removed they are worth much more to consume by sheep in spring on the land where they grew.

A perusal of the evidence given before Mr. Bright's committee on the Game Laws cannot fail to prove the difficulties farmers have frequently to contend with in regard to game, and the damage done to their crops by hares in particular. The evidence of the late Mr. Pusey, Sir Harry Verney, and Lord Hatherton, is most conclusive on these points. I will only quote a few words from Lord Hatherton's evidence-"I soon found, as a farmer desirous of introducing among my tenantry and into the neighbourhood a better system of cultivation, that it was utterly hopeless to do so, unless I completely destroyed the hares; for the attempt merely to reduce them was useless, for a good season repaired their number to suck an extent, that I found there was no effectual cure but destruction;" and again, "hares will travel miles to the nearest field of Swede turnips" a statement which I can personally corroborate. I have even counted 100 hares on a young grass field on a spring morning, not half a dozen of which remained on the farm during the day, but retreated to their cover fully two miles off. No one who farms land extensively, or who takes a practical interest in agriculture, will continue long to consider hares game, or anything else but a nuisance. The Marquis of Tweeddale is well known throughout the kingdom as a most enlightened practical agriculturist. I do not know a single person who makes his bread by farming, whose reputation for skill in agriculture stands so high as his lordship's does in East Lothian, or who has done so much to promote a profitable system of farming. Now his lordship preserves partridges and pheasants for sport to his friends, but hares are not permitted to consume either his own crops or those of his tenants. Lord Tweeddale also sets a noble

« ПредишнаНапред »