OPENING OF PARLIAMENT.

225

On the 8th of February the legislative session was opened, and Mr. Cobden called the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that on former occasions, when the agricultural districts were in a state of distress, the circumstance was usually adverted to in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session; on the present occasion it was not. Mr. Bright followed in a powerful speech. His contrast between protected Buckinghamshire and unprotected Lancashire was masterly, and his pictures of the agricultural labourer and the straits of the tenant farmer, all caused by Protection, had a telling effect.

The second metropolitan meeting for the year was held in Covent Garden, on the 19th of February, and so crowded was the building that hundreds of persons were unable to gain admittance. Mr. Bright was one of the speakers.

CHAPTER XXI.

OPPOSITION TO THE GAME AND CORN LAWS.

Mr. Bright's Committee to inquire into the Game Laws-Mr. Cobden and the Distress-Mr.

Bright and the Tenant Farmers of Hertfordshire-The Anti-Corn-Law Bazaar in London -The Distress at Hereford and Newton-Mr. Bright at Sunderland assisting Col. Thomp- son at an Election Contest.

Ε

OR many years Mr. Bright had devoted considerable attention

to the Game Laws, and, in moving in the House of Commons,

on the 27th of February, for a Select Committee to inquire

into them, he delivered a speech which occupied two hours and a-half. Throughout the whole of this period he commanded constant and unbounded attention, and was interrupted only by the cheers that broke out from all sides. He presented an array of facts and figures, lucidly arranged, which could not be resisted. His sturdy hate of wrong, and unaffected sympathy for the suffering which these laws had brought upon the poor and the defenceless, gave to his arguments a tone and colouring of rich feeling, which made them as touching to the heart as they were convincing to the head :—

"I have noticed that for many years past a very considerable number of the convictions, particularly at petty sessions, in agricultural counties, have been for offences against the Game Laws. Hundreds and thousands of persons, chiefly of the labouring classes, have been fined and imprisoned for these offences; there have been most violent outrages, and encounters of the most ferocious character between gamekeepers and poachers, ending not unfrequently in the death of one party or of the other; and further, the last dread sentence of the law has often been inflicted on criminals whose guilt originated in offences against the Game Laws. It is because I feel a deep sympathy for these, the poorest and most defenceless portion of the population, and as deep a reverence for the sacredness of human life, that I now ask the attention of the House to the subject of this motion. I feel quite sure that no considerable number of the members of this House can or will refuse to accede to this motion. If any justification for bringing it forward were needed, it is found in the fact that there have been repeated instances heretofore of the appointment of committees to inquire into the operation of the Game Laws. There was a committee of this House in 1816, another in 1823, and one of the House of Lords in 1828, all on this subject. The object of the committee in 1816 appeared to be to abolish the then existing

qualification for killing game, and to enable persons to qualify by taking out a taxed certificate. The committees of 1823 and 1828 went further, and recommended that the sale of game should be allowed by law. No one, however, can be ignorant of the real cause of the appointment of these committees. The infractions of the Game Laws, the prevalence of poaching, the violent encounters between gamekeepers and poachers, could no longer be overlooked, and it was hoped some remedy for these evils might be discovered. It is worth while to follow the course of these committees. In 1823 and 1828, they went upon the assumption that if the sale of game were legalised, gentlemen and lords of manors would breed game for the market, and so take the trade out of the hands of the poachers. The committee of 1823 examined a large number of poulterers from Leadenhall Market, and asked them if the proposed change would put an end to poaching. The poulterers, being naturally anxious to have an open and legitimate trade, recommended that the sale of game should be legalised. But the committee were warned by one or two of them more honest or more intelligent than the rest that the experiment, as a means of putting down poaching, would fail; that the rearing of game would be so expensive to the gentry that the poachers, who would incur no expense but the risk of being taken, would still undersell them in the market. And this has been proved to be correct. The recommendations of the committee were adopted, and they have signally failed, and poaching is now probably more prevalent than ever, and this I consider a sufficient ground for further inquiry. But in order to strengthen this opinion, I will, with the permission of the House, proceed to lay before it some description of the evils which arise from the Game Laws and the preservation of game. From the almost universal cry which has been raised throughout the kingdom by the tenant farmers, I shall be justified in calling the attention of the House to that branch of the subject, and in endeavouring to lay bare, to some extent, the injury inflicted on the farmers by these laws. Some objection may possibly be raised to this course; but, considering how many honourable members are landed proprietors, and how many of them must naturally have a very strong sympathy with the cultivators of the soil, I trust there will be no serious objection to an examination of this part of the question. . . . It is notorious that the destruction of grain by game throughout the kingdom is to an enormous amount; I believe it to be very much beyond what is generally supposed, but its true amount unfortunately we have no means of ascertaining. Now, the landowners have, for reasons which some may think sound, taken upon themselves the duty of providing food for the people of this country. Honourable members know my opinions on this point, but, without here discussing whether the system they have pursued be right or wrong, it is a system upheld in this House, and in favour with a majority of the landed proprietors of the country. These proprietors have then taken upon themselves to be, and have constituted themselves, purveyors-general to the people of Great Britain and Ireland. Now, if there be a complaint on the part of a large portion of our population that in some years they have an insufficient supply of food from the partial failure of the harvest, they have a right to represent to the landed proprietors that they feel it a hardship to be prevented going to other countries to supply themselves with food; and that the landed proprietors in almost every county of the kingdom maintain on their estates large quantities of game, for no other purpose than that of amusement, by which a very considerable portion of the produce of the soil is destroyed, and the scarcity of food is greatly increased and aggravated. It may be urged, also, if any honourable member oppose this motion, that my sympathy with the farmer is beside the question,-that farmers make contracts with their landlords, and must stand the consequences of their bargains. I admit they make these contracts, and I have no wish to interfere with them; but there is no landed proprietor in this House who is not conscious of the fact that there is at this moment, and has been for many years past, a competition for land so fierce and merciless in its operation upon the tenant-farmers that they can scarcely be said to make half the bargain. And if they do contract with the landlord, reserving to him the right of the game, how do they know that the quantity of game preserved

upon the farm at the time of the bargain will not be increased? It might be a moderate quantity then; but the landlord may sell the shooting to a third party, who has no connection with and no sympathy for the farmer; and this third party may preserve the game, until that which was an endurable evil to begin with becomes a calamity ruinous to the tenant, so that all his capital and labour may be unable to bring him a fair return for the undertaking in which he is engaged. Upon this point I feel that I have strong grounds of appeal to the members of this House. There have been complaints, since this session began, of distress among the farmers in some districts, and deputations have waited upon the right honourable baronet at the head of the Govern ment, to ask him to consider that distress. A motion is at this moment on the books of the House for some proposition whereby the proposed reduction in taxation may not take place, in order that some other reduction may be made which is thought likely to afford more relief to the tenant-farmer. But I ask the landed proprietors whether it is not possible to give their tenants great-ay, munificent-relief, by abandoning this most ruinous and absurd system, and allowing their tenants, when they take land, to be the sole owners of every living thing upon it, and the sole proprietors of everything their land shall produce? I will tell honourable members what I have heard from some farmers. Just before coming up from the country at the commencement of the session, I met with a very respectable and intelligent farmer from Lincolnshire. We first discussed the question of the Corn Law, and on that we differed as widely as possible; we then touched upon the subject of game. I asked that farmer this question: 'You believe that the repeal of the Corn Laws would be hurtful to the farmer; now, assuming, for the sake of argu. ment, that you are right, and that you admit that game-preserving is injurious to the farmer, do you believe that the abolition of the Game Laws would be a fair compensation for any injury he might receive by the abolition of the Corn Laws?' His answer was, 'That would make very little difference on the estate where my farm is, because there is very little game there; but where game is preserved to any great extent, I do think the abolition of the Game Laws would be a full compensation for any evils that may result from the repeal of the Corn Laws and the establishment of Free Trade.' I conversed with a farmer from Hampshire, in a free and friendly spirit, and I find of late that the farmers view these questions in a more rational light than before, and that they do not think men in this House who differ from them in opinion are therefore hostile to their interests. This farmer told me that his fear of Free Trade was so great that he hardly durst give an opinion; but that, if he knew Free Trade to be inevitable, his fears would be greatly mitigated if he knew that game-preserving was at the same time to come to an end. I have found this opinion general among farmers; and, although it is not my duty here to dwell more on that point, yet I do recommend to hon. members who are sincerely anxious to better the condition of the farmers and to improve the agriculture of the country, to limit at any rate, if they will not give up, the enjoyments of the chase for the sake of that large, and most honourable, and most useful, and, in many cases, very suffering, class of the people who are employed in the cultivation of the soil. (Cheers.) I pass now to another class who have often enlisted the sympathies of hon. gentlemen in this House-those who are holders of allotments; and if the noble lord the member for Dorsetshire and the hon. member for Hertford are in their places, I have no doubt I shall have their sympathy. I will first mention the case of W. E., of Midhurst, in Sussex, as I received it from an informant :- W. E. told me, and on a subsequent day showed me, that his allotment was at best of little value to him. It was part of a small field, situated with plantations full of game on three sides of it, and a heath, on which the game was also preserved, on the fourth side of it. Everything which he sowed or planted upon it was eaten up by the game, save his potatoes, and they were also destroyed less or more. I, myself, counted sixty and odd rabbit-holes, mostly made by young rabbits learning to excavate' (laughter), as young rabbits do, among the potatoes. He had sown peas, expecting a few dinners from them, with a bit of bacon, in the summer; but he only had in all about a gallon,

THE DUTY OF LANDLORDS.

229

where he should have had at least a bushel. This was entirely the result of the game. He had tried, both last year and this, to get some turnips and greens for the winter: every blade went to the rabbits. All his neighbours were in the same predicament, less or more. This land was rented from Colonel Wyndham, of Petworth, and the game was his game and two other gentlemen's. In Midhurst we have about fifty allotments, and I have frequently heard the tenants complain of damage done them by hares and rabbits, although not to any great extent; but in most cases they are afraid to say much, for fear of offending.' Another communication I have is from the county of Suffolk from a respectable farmer in the neighbourhood of Clare. He says, ' In one of the cases referred to in my last letter (Bruce's), the loss cannot be estimated at less than twenty shillings. I include the damage done to his barley-crop as well as the wheat. This is more than his earnings for two weeks, and more than the rent of the whole of his land. The other case mentioned by me, but with no name, being a cottage tenant of the game preserver, is considerably worse; he had a worse crop, independently of which he sowed his land three times to insure a plant, the grain having been eaten by the pheasants after it was sown, and that which escaped was eaten by the hares when it got above ground, and the few heads that came to maturity were cut off with a knife, not being enough to employ a sickle.' I would ask, then, in all seriousness, the attention of hon. gentlemen to this portion of the question, as being important indeed. There are parties in this country who have judged harshly of me and others with whom I act, because we have not hurriedly and enthusiastically advocated the system of allotments. We are of opinion, as all men must be, that it is of very great consequence to the agricultural labourer to have a nice garden about his cottage. In a moral point of view it is worth half the police of the district. I think every owner of land should, if possible, give to every labourer on his estate as much land as will provide him amusement and employment, and provide his family with some articles of food. But imagine the case of a labourer who gets up by sunrise, two hours earlier than his usual time, in order to devote them, before he goes to work, to his garden. He works with gladness and hope. He returns from his daily toil, and again labours on his allotment, while during the day, perhaps, his wife and children have been performing there such services as are consistent with their skill and strength. But when what he has sown begins to appear above ground, it is devoured by the game of some large landed proprietor who, standing on an eminence in the country, cannot see the extent of his estates, so boundless are they. I declare I do not envy the feelings of any man who is conscious that his game does this cruel and extensive mischief,-blasting the hopes and damping the energies of the honest and industrious labourer, and yet is indifferent about the matter. (Cheers.) But in speaking of labourers, there is another important consideration. All farmers agree, and I think all landowners who honestly speak out will say so too, that the preservation of game is most injurious to agriculture as a pursuit. I speak not with respect to farmers, but as to the cultivation of the land. A farmer came to me the other morning with the petition from Ruislip, in this county, which I have presented to the House this evening, and which is signed by nearly every farmer in the parish—every one occupiers in the parish. The farmer told me that though the parish contained 7,000 acres of land, not more than about one hundred labourers are employed in agriculture ; and that game is preserved to a great extent. He gave me an account of the expenses of that parish for the prosecution of poachers for three or four years back; and here let me observe that in the returns presented last session to this House no return was made for Middlesex, as far as petty sessions are concerned. From this statement, and from the statements made by all parties, I am led to this conclusion: that where there is rigid game-preserving there cannot well be good farming; and if not good farming, there cannot be that reasonable amount of labour for the labourers which they have a right to expect, and which it is necessary they should have. (Cheers.) If I were a landed proprietor, seeing labourers growing up around my property, there is nothing I would seek to advance more than measures to give them greater employment and remuneration, so as to