THE

NEW GAME ACT DEFECTIVE,

PARTICULARY AS IT REGARDS WALES.

THERE is nothing more egotistical, in our opinion, than the foolish cant prevalent among would-be politicians of our day; nor, perhaps, can any thing be more mischievous in its consequences than to hear such men perpetually declare, that "the tories never effected a single act calculated to benefit their country;" or of the whigs, that "no good can ever possibly arise from their administration." With these bigots we have nothing in common, and can hold no parlance; but towards others, it may be necessary to disclaim, on our parts, such sentiments of absurdity, inasmuch as our critique on the new Game act, or upon any other measure of the legislature, would claim to be distinct from any narrow-minded policy, or a base wish to detract from the fame of the eminent statesman who brought the measure forward, or of the cabinet of which he constitutes so honorable a member. Our only object is to make suggestions which are, as we think, calculated towards the well-doing of the country.

To the candid investigator of facts and their consequences, we would observe, for example, that if ever an improvement was made upon an old, ineffective, and, indeed, disgraceful system, which, whilst it professed to protect the people of the metropolis, left them to take care of themselves, such improvement was effected by Sir Robert Peel in his establishment of the new Police; and, on the other hand, if ever any measure was wrought calculated to effect a diminution of rustic crime, Lord Althorp, in the new Game act, has been equally successful: so much then for necessary good or necessary evil resulting from any particular class of politicians.

But though we are convinced much good, in a moral point of view, will accrue to Great Britain by several of the enactments of the new Game bill, still we are prepared to show that a mere prevention of poaching does not embody all those alterations and improvements which many persons, interested in the prosperity and good feeling which should exist in the country, ourselves among the number, looked for. The clauses appointing certain periods when only game shall be killed, the penalties for laying poison, regulations for the sale of game, game certificates, on the laws of trespass, rights of manors, &c. &c., as far as they are intended to work, are satisfactory; but we want a clause to prevent a landlord from depriving his tenant, under any circumstances, in the instances of leases and takings at will, of his share of the game reared on the farm, though if he choose to wave that right, let him do so, but let it be on his part purely voluntary.

Of England, we do not profess to speak with confidence, but, in Wales, we are satisfied that such a system would work well; and our remarks (although we believe they would not be inapplicable as regards England,) are offered in reference to Wales only. Surely, on a deliberate investigation of the justice of such a measure, few persons there are who will deny that the grower of game ought, at least, to have a share of that game. It has been asserted, we know, that where experiments have been tried, the game has rapidly disappeared, but it has been only asserted, and we are prepared to prove, (an objection to giving publicity to the parties only prevents our doing so,) that the experiment has recently produced a totally different result, and, on the contrary, the oldest and best acquainted with the facts agree that the Game laws, as they have hitherto stood, have not upon farms, whether on lease or otherwise, increased the game. But granting that, in some instance, the tenant do kill all the game, and the landlord lose his share; on examination, the result proves itself mere selfishness on the part of the landlord; for be it remembered that he generally possesses his own farm, or at least his grounds, his park, or his ornamental covers, and, surely, from them he may be provided with some game. What rational motive is there generally to induce the tenant to destroy the game? That it might and would occur, in certain instances, we have no doubt; for example, wherever disagreement exists between the parties, the probability is that it would be so, particularly if the tenant were a man who could injure timber, or exhaust the soil; such a man, of course, would not scruple to destroy the game, the more especially if revenge prompted him to the commission of the act. We shall be quite ready at a future period to inquire into any further reasons why game should, or should not be destroyed by the tenant, if the law, independent of the landlord, permitted him to do so; but we really are at a loss, at present, for both time and space for lengthened observations on the point; and we will now merely enter on a short examination of what we believe to be the inducements the tenant would have to preserve the game conjointly with his landlord, and how poaching would thereby be effectually prevented.

By way of argument, we will propose that a man take a farm of five hundred or one hundred acres; we assume him to be, in his sphere of action, an intelligent being; he enters on the land determined to cultivate it, and to manage his live and dead stock to the best advantage: suppose a person were to rob him of any part of his poultry, (it matters not by what class of persons the depredation be committed,) is it likely, is it in the nature of things, is it possible that the injury would be often repeated, and our tenant be careless of the aggression? which, in point of actual value, as an article of food, is most useful-a fowl or a hare? the answers are obvious. Now we never knew a farmer who did not take care to

provide that most useful and beautiful object yclept a poultryyard: but, in proceeding with our argument, the answer may be, the landlord has no share in the poultry-yard: we beg pardon, he has an interest in it, as he has an interest in every thing tending to the prosperity of his tenant; and, in North Wales especially, although this may be new to our English readers, there is frequently provision made, between landlord and tenant, for the supply to the former, at merry Christmas and other festivals, of sundry goodly "duties," of geese, ducks, fowls, &c. Now we will assume that game is, in every respect, to be considered as the joint property of landlord and tenant; will any one be bold enough to affirm that a tenant, living in common amity with his landlord, would, under such circumstances, allow persons to destroy his wild poultry, (for such it is,) any more than those animals domesticated in his yard? why would he not as soon interrupt the poacher on his lands, as arrest the thief of his hen roost? Before the old laws were framed, the game was common to the yeoman, except where manorial or other exclusive privileges existed. At that time, it is true, the tenant had no inducement to preserve the game, but the thing we suggest is quite a different affair, and we have too good an opinion of the tact of our Welsh farmers, to suppose they would not avail themselves of the use of an article which would seem to them both as a luxury and an useful sustenance, growing round their premises, but which to them, at present, in many instances, is as "forbidden fruit."

We may next advert to the injustice of the present, as well as the old Game acts, in depriving the cultivator of the soil of a share of the game; and on this point of our subject, we labour under much difficulty. Habitual prejudice has done much regarding the formation of our ideas of right and wrong; but let us for a moment forget our class, and remember only that we are men. Many a naturally good and amiable man would be astonished at the proposal that he should give up the game, even in part, to his tenantry. Yes, so would the old mail-clad Norman baron, could he but a second time start into life, and see the innovations made in feudal tenures, and the destruction effected on his darling Forest laws. Therefore to such a worthy, though mistaken man, of the present day, as also to such old Norman warrior, we would say, if, upon a dispassionate examination of facts, you find your rule of exclusive possession to be founded on injustice, is it not honourable in you to grant plain justice? do you live in an age when ill blood between yourself and your tenants cannot injure you? If such a man were to refuse, at least, to enter into the examination, we must think too badly both of his heart and his head, to deem him worthy of our notice.

Let us now observe on the law in operation as it affects the feeling of farmers, and on its tendency to render them dissatisfied.

Can there be any thing more mortifying to the grower of the game than to have his gates left open, or his hedges broken, by his landlord, accompanied by a party of gentlemen, not one, perhaps, of whom he has ever seen or heard of, while the gazing tenant has it not in his power to kill a brace of the birds that daily live upon the grain of his labour. Will not such a display of monopoly gall a man, brought up with ideas of British freedom? What are those gentlemen to him? he owes them nothing, but they, in some instances, commit more serious injury than can be well comprehended by any than those who understand the cultivation of the soil.

Suppose we also view the case of hunting; it may be exceedingly amusing to some people to gallop headlong over a man's enclosures, without even the trouble of a passing glance at the injury they perpetrate. We well remember instances of crops of young corn being literally kicked into the air, by a set of reckless red coats,—but we commiserated the injured farmer. We allow that men in their senses, fair sportsmen, and such are our sportsmen in Wales, will not dash over a crop of young October wheat, making it fly like the sand on the sea shore; but this is no palliative, for to deny that it is often done by another sort of riders, would be to assert what is a direct falsehood. "Well, but the farmer may come out, too!" we admit he can do so, if the fairs and the thousand and one things which require almost incessant attention at home or abroad, allow him a participation in the day's sport, and if he can afford a horse capable of carrying him. Again, it is said, "perhaps the field do not commit a farthing's worth of damage." This is no advantage to him; and the only question worth his notice is, does he obtain a hare if he wants one? if he does, it is but an act of common justice; and if he does not, we affirm it to be not only a very unfair deprivation, but a direct act of oppression. As to the assertion that the farmers do not care for game; it is untrue, why should they not; do they not care for good strong ale? or do they not care for many of those luxuries which their landlords know so well how to appreciate? but, the man who rejoins that they really are indifferent on the subject, we advise to offer his tenant a hare, to present to some dealer in the produce of his dairy, at Bridgenorth or Bristol fairs, where it is most valuable, and let him, the giver, observe how grateful his tenant will be even for that which it is, at all times, an injustice to withhold.

If there be a class of men more than commonly interested in keeping up that old-fashioned feeling of mutual dependence between the proprietor and the cultivator, to that class do we of the Cambrian Quarterly belong. Let no man, therefore, assert that our remarks are calculated to produce discontent; our wish is to see common justice done to the agriculturist, to have his best feelings exerted, to make him satisfied and happy under his land

lord, that he may look upon him as his friend and protector: for let it be borne in mind, that moment which carries with it a feeling of distrust, also cuts short an association become venerable from the time it has existed between two classes of society, who for ages have been the envy of the world, namely, those of the country gentlemen of Great Britain, and (without which they are valueless,) their tenantry.

Where are there men more loyal, men on whom government, in times of public solicitude, have looked for support, and not looked in vain? by whom were Cressy and Poictiers won? and in later times, when Napoleon scorched the earth with his fierce sun of ambition, and internal commotion stalked almost in open day, who came forward to support real liberty? it was the British yeomanry. Of what importance is it, then, that we should carefully abstain from any legislative measure which may lessen their comforts? We are convinced the Game laws have more to do with the promotion of a happy concentration of feeling between all classes of society, than at first may be supposed: we have proved this as regards landlord and tenant; and to treat of what has been repeated by others over and over again, namely the damning effects produced among all classes of the lower orders by poaching, would justly subject us to ridicule: but of one immensely important fact we are certain, which is, that poaching can be prevented by the tenant better than by the gamekeeper; for where the keeper has no corn to grow and no fences to repair, he will, (after making due allowance for his private consumption of game, with the extent of which, we opine, their employers are not exactly acquainted,) not trouble himself so vigilantly about the depredations committed by trespassers, as the man who has an interest in the productions of the soil; but who, as long as by law he is prevented to share in a commodity of which he alone is at the expense of keeping, will never trouble himself with preserving, but sometimes, on the contrary, will, when the game has become a nuisance to him, avail himself of the best private means of lessening their number, and his obvious means are, winking at the poachers. Give him then a property in the game, and the keeper and the poacher will be heard of but as characters passed away, stat nominis umbra. With these reflections, we are of opinion that a clause to remedy this crying evil should be introduced, and some of the existing ones altered; or, what is better, the repeal of the last, and the substitute of a fresh Game bill, empowering every farmer to kiil game on his own ground.