THE GAME LAWS 169 



It was during this debate that Mr. William Lipscomb first 

 took an active part, and he, with Mr. Clare Sewell Read, 

 Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bart., M.P. (afterwards Viscount 

 St. Aldwyn), Mr. Albert Pell, Mr. James Howard, M.P., Mr. 

 Carrington Smith, and Mr. G. F. Muntz, were the principal 

 workers in this movement for many years. 



A Select Committee on the Game Laws sat during the 

 sessions of 1872-73, among its members being Sir Michael 

 Hicks-Beach, Mr. C. S. Read, Mr. Muntz, and Mr. Pell. Mr. 

 Read gave evidence before the Committee at the request of 

 the Council, expressing the opinion, as adopted by the Council, 

 that hares and rabbits ought to be excluded from the foster- 

 ing operation of the Game Laws ; ' that the evil of excessive 

 preservation of ground game would be satisfactorily remedied 

 by legislation, securing to occupiers the right of disposal of 

 such game ; and that such an alteration of the law should be 

 accompanied by a provision of more summary powers against 

 trespassers. 



On 4th March, 1873, the Council appointed a Committee 

 of nine members to collect and prepare information on com- 

 pensation for unexhausted improvements. The Committee 

 consisted of Sir M. Hicks-Beach, M.P. (Gloucestershire), 

 Mr. G. F. Muntz (Warwickshire), Mr. E. Heneage (afterwards 

 Lord Heneage) (Lincolnshire), Mr. C. S. Read, M.P. (Noifolk), 

 Mr. R. Fowler (Dorset), Mr. Masfen (Staffordshire), Mr. 

 W. C. Little (Cambridgeshire), Mr. J. R. Russon (Worcester- 

 shire), and Mr. W. Lipscomb (Yorkshire). Mr. Muntz was 

 elected as their chairman by the Committee. This Com- 

 mittee presented three reports, dated 4th November, 1873, 

 3rd March, 1874, and 29th May, 1874, and with the last they 

 included long tables showing for sixty-six districts in England 

 what the established custom was in those districts. These 

 reports and schedules have long been out of print, but they 

 have so much historical interest that they deserve to be 

 reprinted. No other copy of the original print is known to 

 exist but the single specimen in the office of the Central 

 Chamber, and requests to be allowed to examine this are 

 still occasionally received from legal firms who have some 



