§44 



THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



that neitber haivs, labbits, nor fro3t couH injure it. Many 

 thousanils of pouuila had no doubt been lost during the last 

 season through the neglect of that practice. If he had to 

 pronounce an opinion on Mr. Corbet's paper aa a whole, he 

 should say that it was too-highly coloured. They all knew 

 that there were cases iu whicli young landlords, actuated by 

 a spirit of rivalry, preserved an enortaous quantity of game, in 

 order to have one day's shooting in the year ; but that was a 

 juvenile folly, and was not to be taken as a specimen of 

 the whole. He believed it was quite possible for a man to 

 keep a good head of game, aud yet be on the best terms 

 with his neighbours. Some years ago he himself had the 

 shooting of a farm of nearly one thousand acres, about a 

 dozen miles from London, and his neighbours very kindly 

 placed at his disposal one thousand more. What course 

 did he pursue ? In the first placs he took care that all his 

 neighbours should have plenty of the game which he kdled ; 

 he took care that they should have the option of having a 

 pleasant day with him. Then, there being a very large 

 quantity of rabbits, he used before the harvest to leave it to 

 competent persons— men who enjoyed the confidence of their 

 neighbours— to say what damage had been done, and 

 the result was that he never paid more than £16 10s. in one 

 year. Had he pursued a contrary course; had l;e refused to 

 allow his neighbours to participate in the shooting, and shown 

 a determination to avoid making compensation for damage, 

 he would not have received such manifestations of kind- 

 ness as he did. He believed that the ill-feeling with regard 

 to the preservation of game arose from want of a due regar4 

 for other people's interests, and the grand point was to act in 

 such a laanner as not justly to excite feelings of that kind. 

 Gamekeepers, of whom Mr, Corbet had drawn such a gloomy 

 future, took their cue in a great degree from their employers. 

 (A. voice — "Not altogether.") Well, he did not say al- 

 together; but they had to consider that question in a broad 

 aud national point of view. He thought there had been an 

 improvement of late yearns as regarded game. There were, he 

 knew, certain districts which had been called " game districts " 

 — such districts, for example, as Suffolk, where at one time 

 it was customary for the landlords to stipulate in leases that 

 the tenant should not plough within a certain number of yards 

 of the fence, lest he should disturb the game. But even in 

 such districts as those a great improvement had been taking 

 place, aud there was now by no means the extraordinary 

 amount of damage done that there was formerly. One proof 

 of this was to be found in the fact that woods were rapidly 

 disappearing, proprietors deeming it better to let their land at 

 25s. an acre to au improving tenant, than to preserve a large 

 quantity of game. There were districts iu his own part of 

 the country where it was now difficult to find a cover to put a 

 fox into (laughter). He quite agreed with Mr. Corb:t as 

 regarded the evils of excess in game preserving ; but on the 

 other hand, allowance must be made for people's hobbies, and 

 the hobby of game preserving might be ridden without the 

 injury either to the interests or the feelings of farmers, which 

 had beeu so powerfully described that evening. He also con- 

 curred with Mr. Corbet that it was a great mistake for land- 

 owners to allow their gamekeepers to have the rabbits as a 

 perquisite, that being a direct premium to them to encourage 

 vermin. On the other hand, he would suggest to tenants 

 that they should take care to well guano the land in the imme- 

 diate vicinity of the park or preserve The animals would not 

 go so far afield for a sweet bite if they could get it near bome. 

 In conclusion, he trusted that that discussion would tend to 

 bring aboi-.t a better state of things as regarded the preserva- 

 tion of game, and that the remarks of the introducer would 

 make a proper impression on that class of persons who grati- 

 fied their own wishes, without at all regardiog the interests 

 and feelings cf their fellow-creatures. 



Mr. Parkinson, Jun., (Notts) naiil, as regarded the accu- 

 mulation of vermin of which Mr. Corbet spoke, he would re- 

 fer, byway of illustrntion, to an estate in Nottinghamshire. 

 On that estate, which was highly prestrved, and which be- 

 longed to Lord Chesterfield, it was no uncommon thing for 

 the rats to take a row of wheat the whole length of the 

 field; and the damage caused by rats, in consequence of 

 the preservation of game, was almost equal to that which 

 was done by the hares themselves. Another illustration 

 of the same kind was afforded in the same county. Some 

 time after the Laiigar estate of the late Lovd Howe 



was purchased by Mr. Wright, having known it pre- 

 viously, he was surprised at the improved vegetation in two 

 or three of the grass fields ; and on his enquiring the rea- 

 son, the reply given was that the ground formerlj' was 

 poisoned by hares and rabbits. Mr. Mechi had recom- 

 mended the application of a large quantity of guano to 

 the land adjacent to woods. He had seen that experiment 

 tried, and what was the result? The damage done by the 

 animals was at a distance, and the acre near their home was 

 comparatively neglected. He was too good a sportsman to 

 wish to see all game destroyed, but he must say that when 

 preservation was carried on without proper consideration for 

 others, it became a fearful evil. 



Mr. J. A. NocKOLDs (Stanstead, Essex) said, as a 

 land agent he had always advocated the destruction of rab- 

 bits by the farmers after the 2nd ot February, and until 

 pheasants and partridges had begun to lay (A voice : "All 

 the mischief is done then). On most estates where thve 

 were leases under his supervision, farmers had a right to 

 kill rabbits at all seasons of the year. He could not help 

 remai'king that wherever he had sten farmers placed in the 

 position of owners of the soil as regarded game, he had 

 found them most strenuous preservers. When a person was 

 observed riding with the hounds over young seeds or wheat, 

 the reply to the question " Who is he ?" it is almost sure 

 to be, " It is Mr. So-and-so riding over his own farm" 

 (laughter). He thought that, wherever shooting was let, the 

 first offer should be made to the occupiers. That was a 

 principle which he had always advocated. 



Mr. CoPBLAND (London) had witnessed the evil effects 

 which arose from the practice of letting gamekeepers have 

 rabbits as their perquisite. Under such a state of things, 

 the gamekeeper, of course, took care to keep up a good stock 

 of rabbits ; and there was continual quarrelling between him 

 and the farmer. He agreed with Mr. Corbet that it was ab- 

 solutely necessary for the farmers to make a determined stand 

 against the proposed alterations of the game-law. It would 

 operate very inconveniently. For example, a farmer might 

 take out a licence to kill rabbits ; hut that would not be 

 enough, for every labourer whom he employed to track or fer- 

 ret rabbits must have a licence too. That appeared to him a 

 most important consideration with reference to the impending 

 change. 



Mr. G. H. Kamsay (Newcast!e-on-Tyne) said, while ad- 

 mitting that thtir friend Mr. Corbet had treated the subject 

 in a very attractive manner, he must declare that, in his 

 opinion, his argument fell short of his language. Farmers 

 had the laws of the country to guide and protect them, in re- 

 lation to the preservation of game. Formerly, a man with 

 £100 a year might shoot with impunity ; but the game-laws 

 had recently been niodified, and made laws cf trespass. 

 No man could now come upon their land, trespass on their 

 corn, their turnips, or anything else, without being amenable 

 to the law ; and he would ask farmers whether they wished 

 that law to be abolished. The farmer took his farm knowing 

 that there was a certain quaniity of game upon it. If the 

 landlord increased the quantity, the tenant would have a right 

 to complain, and the landlord would be liable to pay damage ; 

 otherwise, the matter was one rf fair bargain and arrangement 

 between the two. All those figurative arguments on the sub- 

 ject went, in fact, for nothing. The late Mr. Pusey remarked 

 that three or four hares ate as much as a cheep. He seemed 

 to forget that the hares themselves were eaten ; that what 

 they consumed was not all thrown away. As to hares and 

 rabbits being poisonous to the land, why, they all knew that, 

 if different animals ate the same kind of vegetable food, whe- 

 ther they were hares or what not, the quality of the manure 

 must be similar. Mr. Corbet had quoted the opinion 

 of Mr. Gray, who had always been a warm advocate of the 

 farming interest. That gentleman did not, iu the speech 

 which was referred to, say a wor.l about trespass : his remarks 

 had reference to the propriety of making tenants the offer of the 

 game. If a farmer came to him (Mr. Ramsay), as a magistrate, 

 and complained of trespass, he was bound to administer the 

 law. The grand point was for farmers to take care that they 

 made a fair and reasonable bargain with the owners of .the 

 estate, [t was useless to abuse the poor gamekeepers, who 

 were set to perform a certain duty ; you might just as well abuse 

 the policeman. The matter was osie of bargain between Und, 



