THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE 



281 



to trace these efiFccts to their end, but I cannot stop yet. I 

 would next inquire, what are the results of a deficient corn 

 crop ? Not only are you deprived of your fair returns from 

 this branch of your produce, but the amount of straw is aho 

 lessened ; consequently you have not the quantity to convert into 

 manure to return to your laud a^ain, which you ought to have, 

 and your future crops must suffer. Some may say one good arises 

 from a light crop of barley, which is, that your clover and grasses 

 do better. In some measure this may be true ; but, remember, 

 before you reap much benefit from this crop you have to pass 

 through a winter ; and I would inquire what is your experience 

 of the effect of incessant close feeding through a winter on a 

 cloT!r crop ? I venture to assert that no crop, whether sain- 

 foin, red clover, or any other description of clover, is proof 

 against the continual feeding of a larjje stock of hares and 

 rabbits, and that consequently the destruction of your clover 

 crop is as certain as that of your corn crop. Your laud, in its 

 turn, comes to wheat, and tliis being an autumu-iown crop 

 gives a long period, at a time when food is scarce, for game to 

 feed on it. And here, too, as you well know, if too closely fed, 

 its destruction is certain ; and if not really killed, is so checked 

 by repeated bleeding, that it will not grow until a late period 

 in the spring ; and the consequence is that you get scarcely 

 any ecru in your straw, and, what little you have, of most in- 

 ferior quality. Rabbits, as you are aware, feed on and keep 

 down a certain breadth, whereby the injury is perceptible at a 

 glance; whereas hares cut roads in all directions thrjugh corn, 

 leaving those roads completely covered with ears cf corn ; and 

 therefore, unless a close inspection is made, it would almost 

 pass unobserved, but although the damsge is less apparent, it 

 is, I beheve, greater in amount. You are aware, gentlemen, 

 thiit all I undertook to do was merely to launch the subject 

 for you, in order that the various members may have an op- 

 portunity to express their opinions, and I think what I have 

 said is suflScient for that purpose, as well as to show that the 

 actual destruction by hares and rabbits is very' considerable. 

 But it is not to this alone that I attribute the deficiency on 

 our home produce. Consider the many thousands of acres of 

 useful land at this time made available for nothing but for the 

 preservation of game. Look, again, at the additional thou- 

 sands which, although not actually incumbered and forming 

 preserves, are but very imperfectly cultivated from their con- 

 tiguity to game preserves. Consider, then, the increased 

 amount which may be grown were all these lands well culti- 

 vated and none of the produce consumed, and say whether 

 you do not think that England may be made to feed her own 

 population ? Next, then, as to the effects of this destruction. 

 To the individual who suffers the direct loss it is most ruinous. 

 No consideration of rent can compensate for it, and I believe 

 it would not be difficult to trace to this cause the ruin of many 

 a man of capital. There is a maxim, not uufrequently quoted, 

 that " The man who makes two blades grow where only one grew 

 heretofore, isabenefactorto his country." May it not with equal 

 truth be said that he who imposes an obstacle to the full deve- 

 lopment of the resources of our soil is an enemy to his country ? 

 It appears to me that there can be no more genuine source of 

 national wealth than the produce of our soil, particularly as it 

 furnishes the chief necessaries of life ; and whether the food 

 for our population be raised on our own soil, or whether a large 

 proportion be purchased in foreign countries, at a cost of many 

 millions sterling p^r annum, is a question of no small amount 

 to the country at large. I think the farmers of England may 

 say — " Allow us fair scope for the application of our capital, 

 our skill, and our energies, and you shall have little occasion 

 to go to foreign shores for human food." Are we, then, to 

 curtail the rights of our aristocracy to their sports ? I would 

 be the last man to make such a proposition, and I am quite 

 sure there are none among you who would not be pleased to 

 show your landlord and his friends a fair amount of sport ; 

 and I think this could be done without the present system of 

 game preserviug, and at a much less cost to the landlord. I 

 should hope there is enough of principle among the agricul- 

 turists of the present day, to entitle them to a little confidence 

 from the owners ; and I would say, make every tenant keeper 

 over his own farm ; give him at least an unrestricted right to 

 kill rabbits and hares, and you shall find an equal, if not an 

 increased amount of legitimate and fair sport ; for every far- 

 mer would feel a pride in showing his landlord and his friends 

 good sport; he would take an interest in the preservation of 

 game, whilst he would have it in his power to protect himself 

 from the injuries of the rabbits and hares. He would 



overlook a little damage done by hares rather than not have 

 enough of them to afford a fair amount of sport. We all 

 know the difference between a voluntary and a compulsory loss; 

 and whilst a man would bear cheerfully with the one, he would 

 feel the other to be a gross injustice. Give a man an interest 

 in the game, and he at once feels responsible for its preserva- 

 tion, and becomes as jealous over it as over his own stock, lie 

 would discountenance poaching, and thereby prevent breaches 

 of the law, which sometimes lead to more serious crime. 

 No man has the same influence with the labourer as the 

 master, and no man so likely to know his habits and character; 

 and who can doubt that when a man is suffering severe losses 

 by game, and dares not defend himself against them, nor in 

 any degree participate in the sport of destroying it, he will 

 sometimes shut his eyes to acts of poaching, and that, too, 

 without feeling that he is really countenancing a breach of the 

 law ? Gentlemen, 1 feel I have occupied a full share of your 

 time, although I have but feebly and imperfectly discharged 

 the duty I undertook. Having been bred a practical fanner, 

 ray education and early associations have not fitted me either 

 for an author or an orator ; but of this you may rest assured, 

 that the little expeiience I have gained by my intercourne with 

 the world is ever at your service, for I feel that we are linked 

 together by bonds of no common order, our object being not 

 our individual benefit, but the common good of all. When I 

 have heard the remarks of the members present, and should I 

 find their views accord with mine, I shall be prepared to sub- 

 mit a resolution to the meeting. 



Mr. DoWDEN said, al'.hough he agreed with Mr. Richards' 

 arguments, he was happy to say he did not suffer from an ex- 

 cess of the game nuisance at the present time. The evil had 

 been put down to a great extent, as he was at liberty to kill 

 hares, rabbits, &c., on his farm. He, however, remembered 

 the time when he could have shot one hundred and fifty couple 

 of rabbits in one day. This species of game he regarded as 

 more destructive than any other ; as, wherever they assembled 

 in numbers, they poisoned the soil, and ruined everything 

 that came after them. 



The Chairman (Mr. H. Fookes) could not agree with Mr. 

 Richards as to the loss inflicted by the preservation of game 

 in England. No doubt, however, rabbits did a great deal of 

 mischief to the crops and herbage. He considered that the 

 furmer was a better preserver of game than the gamekeeper; 

 for the privilege to shoot gave him as much interest in pre- 

 serving it as any other man. He had not much confidence in 

 gamekeepers generally, though there might be some respect- 

 able men amongst them. 



A conversation took place respecting the means adopted to 

 snare rabbits by traps, so as not to hazard the lives of other 

 game. The Chairman expressed an opinion that this sine qua 

 non was altogether delusive, and said that the same trap which 

 caught rabbits could snare all other game. 



Mr. Richards, in reply, said he thought more members 

 of the club would have expressed their opinions upon the sub- 

 ject. With regard to the Chairman's comment on his remark 

 as to the quantity of produce consumed in England by game, 

 he would reply that the damage done in this county was leas 

 than in any other. In other counties the damage was infinitely 

 greater ; the game being more strictly preserved. In many 

 instances also it was deemed disrespectful for a tenant to make 

 complaint to his landlord against a gamekeeper, and the con- 

 sequence was that there were no greater poachers anywlieie 

 than gamekeepers. Mr. Richards then submitted the follow- 

 ing resolution to the approval of the club: Resolved— " That 

 it is the opinion of this club, that the manner in which game 

 is preserved in some districts is most objectionable, inasmuch 

 as it impedes the advancement of agriculture, subjects the 

 tenant farmer to serious losse3 and inconvenience, and in many 

 cases is the cause of disagreement and ill-feeling between land- 

 lord and tenant. And whilst we do not wish a repeal of the 

 game laws, or in any way to infringe the rights of property, 

 we consider that if tenants were allowed the right of sporting 

 over their own farms, to the extent of killing liares and rabbitu, 

 they would insure to the landlord an equal amount of sport 

 to that which he now enjoys, and in most cases the chief 

 cause of complaint would be removed." 



The Chairman said he fully coincided with the re- 

 solution, and on being put to the meeting, it was carried 

 nnaninioualy. 



Mr. Rout. Eookes moved, and Mr. Dale seconded, a 

 vote of thanks to Mr. Richards. 



