134] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



it, would have no means of ob- 

 taining it. He did not see the 

 force of this objection. Game 

 not found in the market would be 

 sent to town as gifts, and the 

 tables of the rich might be as 

 amply supplied as before. The 

 value of this privilege depended 

 on a prohibition to sell, either on 

 the part of the proprietors, or on 

 those who might invade their 

 rights. It had been said that this 

 bill enforced severe penalties, and 

 might lead to oppression. This 

 was not the case. It merely 

 enacted penalties against the 

 higher ranks for the purpose of 

 removing temptation from the 

 lower. His bill, by prohibiting 

 the purchase of game, would 

 protect this helpless class of 

 persons. 



The hon. gentleman concluded 

 by moving the second reading of 

 the bill. 



Mr. Curxven rose and said. 

 The bill now before the House, if 

 passed into a law, I am thorough- 

 ly convinced would be found 

 ineffectual for accomplishing its 

 object, since the quahfied pur- 

 chasers of game are beyond the 

 reach of legislative enactment. 

 The design of this bill is doubtless 

 to protect game ; but how wOuld 

 it act ? The additional difficulties 

 intended to be thrown in the way 

 of purchasing game would operate, 

 if at all, to enhance its price, and 

 ultimately to become a premium 

 to the poacher. It might, indeed, 

 swell the number of victims in 

 that catalogue, byt not one would 

 be found of the description against 

 whom the bill is levelled. The 

 cure of this evil will require a 

 very different remedy. I would 

 intreat the Hoivse to pause before 



it is prevailed on to take any 

 step calculated to extend more 

 widely the crime and wretchedness 

 produced by the laws in question. 

 The legal criminality and fatal 

 consequences which spring from 

 these offences call loudly for pre- 

 vention. Does any one suppose 

 that poaching can be suppressed 

 while the game laws remain as 

 they are ? I hope the period is 

 not far distant when the legisla- 

 ture will be induced to go 

 seriously into their revision. I 

 am no enemy to the preservation 

 of game ; for whatever c^n con- 

 tribute to induce gentlemen to 

 reside in the country is an object 

 of national importance. Were 

 game to be made property, and 

 protected by moderate penalties, 

 the destruction of it would be 

 considered in a very different 

 point of light. It is hopeless to 

 look for obedience to laws which, 

 by a great proportion of the 

 higher orders, as well as by the 

 whole of the subordinate ranks in 

 society, are regarded as oppres- 

 sive, tyrannical, and unjust. 

 Public opinion holds the game 

 laws in detestation. Those only 

 who resort to their protection are 

 friendly to them ; attempts to 

 enforce themrigorously are always 

 attended with general disappro- 

 bation and odium. To judge 

 fixirly of this question, it behoves 

 the legislature to take into its 

 consideration the changes which 

 have taken place not only in the 

 country, but in its national cha- 

 racter. The game laws originated 

 when there existed only one 

 source of affluent property. The 

 monopoly of game, while this 

 state of tilings continued, WTis 

 little felt as a grievance, and 



there 



