The effect of protecting game by op pressive laws is, perhaps, more inju rious to the morals of the rural popula tion than any other single cause. The gentry of England are distinguished by many good qualities ; but the manner In which many of them uphold their amuse ments at the cost of filling the gaols with their poor neighbours, who acquire those habits which lead to the rain of them selves and families, is a blot on their character which has yet to be wiped otf. With a densely crowded population, thousands of whom are often pressed by hunger, and frequently in a state of the most lamentable poverty, the temptation to kill game is irresistible. It swarms before the labourer as he returns home in the evening from his long day of hard toil. He does not recognize property in game. No man can claim an individual hare or partridge like an ox or a sheep. The latter must be fed at the expense of their owners : but game is fed by no one in particular. This man, then, who probably would not, tbr all his poverty, violate the laws of property in the case of poultry, and who at the bottom recog nizes no greater right of property in a partridge than in a sparrow, sets a snare m the haunts frequented by game near his cottage, and is pounced upon by the keeper. When he comes out of the gaol, often the training school for profligacy— the farmers perhaps dare not employ him lest they should offend the game preservers their landlords. The justice and the rural police look upon the gaol bird with suspicion ; and only at the beer shop, with men of his own stamp and character, does he feel at home. It is hardly necessary to sketch his further progress. In nine cases out of ten, it is from bad to worse : and this because for objects of selfish gratification men have Fiven to a bird or beast of little worth in itself an arbitrary value, and protected it by statutory regulations stricter than are applied to many other things which are recognised as objects of property by all mankind.
The number of persons convicted at assizes and sessions in 1843, for in fractions of the game-laws in England and Wales, was 4,529, of whom 40 were transported. Between 1833 and 1844, there were 41 inquests on game keepers fbund dead, and in 26 cases verdicts of wilful murder were returned. In 1843, out of 201 persons summarily convicted in Bedfordshire, 143 were com mitted ibr poaching, and sentenced to prison for an average period of seven weeks each In the same year, out of 539 persons committed to the county gaol for Buckinghamshire, 169 were for offences against the game-laws. The wives and families of these men must be maintained during the husband's impri sonment; and hence the poor-rates and the county-rates are at the same time increased. Gaols require to be enlarged ; and as poaching leads to other crimes, a more extensive police is required for the protection of property. The time of this force is not a little taken up in preventing, detecting, and apprehending poachers. The game-laws are in this way a heavy burden on the occupiers of land.
The total expenditure which the pre servation of game occasions is probably more onerous than that which is required for the support of the immense mass of pauperism which exists in this country. and the game-laws, are among the greatest hindrances to the improve ment of agriculture. They not only pre vent a gain, but they occasion a loss to the actual aggregate of agricultural products.
Many landowners in their enthusiasm respecting game take means to ensure its preservation which none but tenants in a wretched state of dependence would sub mit to. The tenant is not allowed to use his best skill in the application of his own capital to the land, but is interfered with on account of the game. This game devours the produce of the land, is fattened at the tenant's expense (com pensation for the destructiveness of game being generally futile and decep tive), and the landlord pockets the money which the game thus fed produces in the market. The effect would be far less injurious if the landlord turned a certain proportion of his oxen and sheep to feed with those which belong to his tenants. There are instances where the landlord lets the game on the tenant's land to a third person, and thus gets two rents, one for the land, and another rent for the game after it has been fed by the farmer.
It has often been stated that from three to five hares eat and destroy as much as would keep one sheep. On many farms the number of bares average at least two per acre ; and the destruction by hares alone is often equal to an addi tional rental of 10s. per acre on the whole of the farm there IS, besides, the wqvt“ and destruction caused by rabbits, phea sants, and partridges. On some farms of 500 acres where the game is strictly preserved, but not excessively, the loss caused by hares will often amount to above 200/. The landlord sells the hares at perhaps ls. 6d. each, and pockets 751. This is short-sighted enough, setting aside the bad moral effect of the prac tice. The operations of the poacher, if he escape detection, are in one sense beneficial to the tenant-farmer, for the de struction of the game adds to the farmer's profit; but if the poacher be convicted and sent to gaol, then the support of the man and his family adds to the loss which the game occasions.
Many of the reservations and cove nants in leases in relation to game are fit only for the copyholders of a manor four or five centuries ago. There are many farms on which the tenants are forbidden either to mow wheat or drill turnips. Mowing costs less than reap ing, and the tenant has besides the ad vantage of an extra quantity of straw for the stock and for manure ; but then the ground is left too bare to shelter the partridges, and therefore the scythe must not be used, nor any other instrument which cuts lower than twelve inches. Drilling turnips is now an essential opera tion in all good systems of farming ; but though it gives a much greater weight of roots per acre, it encourages the birds to run, and spoils sport. In some dis tricts, where game is preserved with great strictness, a farmer is not allowed to sow winter tares. To drain land where rab bits are kept would be a waste of pro perty. Legislation cannot produce any improvement in this state of things. It arises from the dependent condition of the great majority of the tenant farmers; and if a law were passed which gave them the right to kill the game on their lands it would be of no advantage to them. The gamekeepers and other retainers of the great and small game-preservers are spies on the tenant, and in the intense competition for farms he dare not contra vene the wishes of his landlord. Public opinion may and does produce some effect on the landlord's exercise of his power, but this is confined to isolated caws.