Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

securities an ample supply for his own amusement, and, by the transfer of the sale of game from the nightly thief to the fair dealer at whose expence it is reared, gradually reclaiming the former to the pursuits of regular industry, and the care of their families, and (allowing time for the change of inveterate habits) seeing a lasting peace established on his property between the rival armies of gamekeepers and poachers-and, above all, resting his own recreation and amusement upon a solid foundation of love and affection, of good order and morality, among his neighbours and dependents,

Finally, with reference to the interests of the landed proprietor, there is one position which appears to me quite conclusive. The supply of game in the market is at present equal to the demand, and is never likely to exceed it; an alteration of the law would not materially increase the demand ;-under both systems therefore the quantity sent to market would be nearly the same, and under the amended system a quantity at least equal to the present would be left upon the land,

[ocr errors]

It follows then as the total result of these positions, that with respect to the quantity sold from the land or retained upon it, an alteration of system would produce but little difference; the principal alteration effected would be in the mode in which the transfer is made it would be taken out of the hands of the rogue and put into those of the honest man; a corrupting, clandestine and disgraceful traffic would be replaced by a fair and open trade. It would be a solecism indeed in politics, if any but the rogues could be losers by such a change, or if the present loss should turn out otherwise than an ultimate gain even to the rogues, both in a moral and pecuniary point of view.

But it has been said, that this scheme for making game a saleable property, is nothing else but a project for increasing the profits of the landed proprietor at the expense of the amusements of the rest of the community. Now this I venture to deny.

The proprietor may now prevent any man from coming upon his land to take game, and does in fact prevent those whose object is merely amusement. It is only the nocturnal depredator whom under the present system he cannot effectually repress. And surely as against him, it is more equitable that whatever trifling profit may accrue from the sale of game, should be enjoyed by

him at whose expense the article is produced and maintained, than by him who has no title to it whatever but theft and robbery. Then as to the probable profits upon game, it is quite idle to suppose that the value of game will ever so far exceed the value of corn, as to induce cultivators to sacrifice the last for the sake of the first. The tendency of wild animals to multiply will, as at present, produce under reasonable protection a moderate number on the land; and the alteration contended for, would at once give to the owner a fair remuneration for the expense of rearing them and nothing more, and would afford to the rest of society a resource of honest and healthy recreation.

This brings under our notice the second party whose interests are involved in this question—namely, the residents in towns, and commercial or monied men without land, who wish occasionally to indulge in the recreation of sporting, and who I decidedly think ought to be qualified to do so. At present, without the permission of the landed proprietor, which he is not often willing to` grant, they cannot enjoy the recreation, and even with permission they transgress the law by carrying a gun. But under an amended system the land-owner or his tenant (if not restricted) might, for a moderate pecuniary consideration, (less than the risk now incurred in taking a day's sport,) permit the townsman to take his recreation and carry off the produce of his amusement. And surely this would be a much more satisfactory footing for all the parties concerned.

There is however still a third party concerned, namely, the small landed proprietor with just what the Game Laws style a qualification to sport, who, having not sufficient land of his own to afford him recreation, trespasses upon that of his neighbours, and is only amenable to a circuitous process for the remedy of the owner. This person would certainly be curtailed in his amusements by any direct protection afforded to game as property, and would be placed upon the same footing with the townsman or monied capitalist. But give me leave to ask, is it not perfectly reasonable that he should be so placed? Unless he can show that the possession of a specific sort of property gives him an equitable title to invade the property of others, there can be but one answer to this question. In fact the privilege he enjoys is a mere remnant

of feudality, which even upon feudal principles is rendered obsolete by the diminution in the value of money.

I have so fully discussed the interests of the purchasers and consumers of game in my two former letters, that it is unnecessary to add any thing here upon that part of the question.

And now, my dear Sir, give me leave to ask if the supporters of the present system have one reasonable motive either of public or private interest for the course they are pursuing? Will they not at length admit that the enormous and admitted evils of the Game Laws are a perfectly gratuitous addition to the vice and misery of their country; and that a perseverance in support of them may justly fall under the same imputation which was affixed by one of our old writers to the character of a common swearer-namely, that "he is one who sells the Devil the best pennyworth that he meets with anywhere, and, like the Indians that part with gold for glass beads, endangers his conscience for the lightest trifles imaginable." Nay, the supporter of the Game Laws appears open to a deeper reproach than this; for he endangers the consciences of others, without even getting a glass bead in return; while gold both allegorical and substantial would reward his accession to a more reasonable system.

[ocr errors]

COPY

OF A

LETTER

TO THE

RT. HON. WILLIAM STURGES BOURNE,

CHAIRMAN OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS APPOINTED FOR THE CONSIDERATION

OF THE

POOR LAWS;

FROM

T. P. COURTENAY, ESQ. M. P.

A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE.

NEVER PUBLISHED.

NO. XXII.

Pam.

VOL. XJ.

2 B

« VorigeDoorgaan »