in public. But he took a wrong view of the subject. His bill was an experiment and a hazardous one, and I believe even its stanchest supporters now own that it has entirely failed. But we will take a cursory view of the law in its present state, and can then judge more fairly of its faults and its merits.

The repealing of twenty-eight old statutes was an excellent part of the bill, for, as I have before observed, the state of this country had completely changed since those statutes were passed.

The penalty for poison is good and cannot be too strictly enforced.

The certificate should have been raised to five pounds, for as Colonel Hawker, in his excellent work, observes, "the man who can afford the time to shoot and the expenses of the sport can afford five pounds for his certificate; and if certificates became less numerous on account of the sum being raised, so much the better for the birds, if not, so much the better for the revenue."

The law of trespass is the next important clause, and in my opinion in its present state is an excellent measure; the justice can make a distinction between the wilful trespasser and the man who unwittingly enters another's field, and much expense in litigation may be saved by the thing being settled summarily. The fine should have been raised to five pounds, subject to the discretion of the magistrate, which would be giving him more power to punish the gentleman poacher, a class of poachers now become very common.

Then comes the old bone of contention between the landlord and tenant,—which ought to be entitled to the game. I think Lord Althorp quite right in giving the landlord the exclusive right of killing the game on his estate, though it may seem hard that the farmer who breeds it has no power to procure a head of game; but the law must be definite, and certainly the landlord has the right over game bred on his own grounds. It is but fair however that the farmer who feeds the game should have some share of it, and I think there are few landlords who could be unreasonable enough to quarrel with a tenant for the sake of a brace of birds or a hare, and it certainly is very much to the game-preserver's interest to keep on good terms with the farmer, on whom in reality a good supply of game entirely depends. Viewing it in this light, and to compensate for damage done to his crops by which he must in some degree be the loser,-though I believe game does not commit one half the damage that most people imagine, — a day or two coursing or shooting during the season given to the farmer would not be felt by the landlord, and would then give him an interest in preserving the game, without which there never can be a good supply. Who can so easily detect the poacher as the man who is constantly on the spot, and at a time when the keeper may be many miles distant? The game-preserver, however, knows best on what terms he should be with

the farmer, but nothing will be lost by giving him an interest in the preservation of the game, and in allowing for any alleged damage which is done to his crops.

We now come to the most important clause in the Act, and the rock upon which Lord Althorp split-Legalizing the sale of game. The working of that clause is now I fear too generally felt to need much comment from me, and much said upon the subject would be useless repetition and tedious as a thrice told tale." Every one must have seen ere this whether this clause, which was to put a stop to poaching, has had the intended effect. At the commencement of the act most of the sportsmen with whom I conversed on the subject declared at once that it would never do, though many I am aware entertained a different opinion. It is now easy to decide which was right. By opening the market, of course you increase the facility of the disposal of game, and with it poaching. For instance, in almost every village at a distance from town a gang of poachers exists, who are generally a well organized band, and have always a leader or captain. This man "takes out." His gang can among them easily muster the sum of £3 13s. 6d., and, qualified by the possession of a certificate, he commences shooting in the most daring way. He trespasses every where, risks being detected, and even if caught and fined, manages to carry away game enough to cover the fine, for where caught once he has perhaps been twenty times undetected. He takes his game to market legally, and sells it; and that too in the face of the proprietor, who spends a large sum yearly in preserving it, and then has the satisfaction of seeing it brought to market by a fellow whose only property consists of his gun and shooting jacket. Nor is this all; his gang at the same time are far from idle, and at work by day and night. Their depredations are not unprofitable. Their rendezvous is the captain's house. The booty is deposited there, and he takes it to market; his certificate doing away with all risk attending its disposal. Formerly there was but little sale in a country neighbourhood, and the only chance of disposal was the London market; but great risk attended its carriage to town, and when arrived there the sale was precarious. This is all now obviated. The dealer is a ready customer for the poacher-in fact, his best friend. No questions are asked should it even be brought by an uncertificated man, The poacher can always undersell the breeder and preserver: he is at no expense beyond the outlay for his certificate and tackle.

Then the idea of a gentleman, or game-preserver, turning poulterer, is rather a degrading one. Many of our stanch old preservers have, I am happy to say, forbidden the sale of a single head of game from their estates, and in many cases have succeeded in preserving a tolerable stock. And such of them as have made a practice of selling the game for the

sake of supporting the measure, are, I believe, by this time heartily sick of the trade and wish sincerely for an alteration to take place in this clause. Another very objectionable clause is the doing away with the Qualification. Some qualification is certainly necessary; but different from that required by the old laws, which was most absurd. There are many professional men who, not possessing any landed property themselves, can yet spare a day or two during the season, and through the kindness of their friends enjoy a little sport. There are others who residing in the country on a small income, have leisure to enjoy the sports of the field. It would be hard were these men debarred that enjoyment. It is evident that some qualification should be required, though what that qualification should be I leave to a wiser head than mine to determine. Say either so much landed property, or such a yearly income, as would confine the sport to men who could afford time and money to follow it, This would then keep a class of men out of the field who are much more to be feared than the night poacher, and who have, since the passing of the act, sprung up like mushrooms. I mean those men who form the link between the sportsman and the common poacher; who, without possessing an acre of land or a shilling's worth of property, are the annoyance of all the sportsmen in the neighbourhood, and, without the least regard for fair sporting, commit wilful trespasses and slaughter the game without remorse. Possessing an unbounded share of impudence, they risk detection, and being generally good shots, contrive to bag two thirds of the game, without one shilling's expense in preserving it; their only authority is their certificate, and even this many do not possess.

I hope, by these observations, I shall not be understood to advocate field sports being enjoyed only by the high and wealthy. This is far from my desire; and sorry indeed should I be to see the sports of the field, one of the sources of our national pride, and honour, confined to any one class exclusively. But this I must say that the man who has his family or himself to support by his daily labour, or his exertions in business, has no right to neglect these for pursuits for which it must be quite evident he cannot afford either money or time. Let him once place himself beyond the fear of poverty, provide against "a rainy day," and then enjoy himself in what manner he pleases.

Another most arbitrary clause, in my opinion, is the one empowering game-keepers or others to take game from a trespasser. This clause might lead to serious consequences, for what sportsman would give up game willingly which it has cost him so much pains to procure. I, for one, would be very much inclined for a struggle at least. Let his name be demanded, and then proceedings may be immediately instituted., In the above observations I have given my notions on the subject, and though in the opinion of many they may be considered as erroneous, they have not been formed from prejudice. Living in a county well

stocked with game, I have had opportunities for watching the operation of the bill from its commencement; and from what I have seen in my neighbourhood, my opinion has been formed. I fear that my remarks are of too trivial a nature to have much effect in the cause; and the only inducement I had in troubling you was, that I hoped they might meet the eye of some one who was as deeply interested in the subject as myself, and who, better fitted for the task than I am, would be induced to suggest, through your pages, some available remedy for this increasing evil.

We have now nearly arrived at the end of another season, and, luckily for the sportsman, there is still a scanty supply of game left to continue the breed next year. But something must speedily be done, or in a year or two it will be entirely extinct. Another session of parliament is at hand, and let us hope that some advocate of British sports will be found among its members, and that while every class of society has its representative in the British senate, the sportsman alone will not be without a friend. Yours, truly,

Oundle, Nov., 1835.

Тоно.

THE POACHER.

Engraved by DUNCAN, from a Drawing by ALKEN.

OUR second plate, a winter-piece," is appropriate to the season if not to the weather, and represents a poacher with his mongrel-bred dog pursuing a wounded hare through the snow. We know not whether Alken in making his sketch had any individual in his eye, but the figure before us may be taken as no bad representative of a class of men, which, instead of having decreased (as it was confidently predicted they would) since the new Game Act, we fear are greatly on the increase. Whatever difference of opinion may exist on the policy or propriety of giving the denizens of wood and wild,

Nature's free race, to each her free born child;

all must agree in the demoralizing nature of the poacher's habits of life, too often, as almost weekly instances at this season of the year testify, leading to bloodshed and murder. The subject has already, in connection with the present Game Laws, been discussed in our preceding article, and we will not pursue it, but (in the words of Sir Walter Scott) remind those who are apologists for poaching that

"There is no wicket in the gate of law!
He, that would e'er so lightly set ajar

That awful portal, must undo each bar;

Tempting occasion, habit, passion, pride,

Will join to storm the breach, and force the barrier wide."