GAME LAWS.
Mr. COLLETT called attention to the circumstance which had lately taken place in Sussex, in connexion with an information laid against a poor person for purchasing game, at the instance of Sir Charles Taylor, and asked whether the attention of Government had been called to his statement?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the House would remember that the question put to him on a former day was, whether any police officer had been employed by Sir Charles Taylor to bribe another to purchase game from one who sold it without licence? It was his duty to make inquiry, and he asked Sir Charles Taylor whether the charge (made by a man named Silvester) was true. He had received a letter from Sir Charles Taylor, stating that the assertion was untrue. He then requested from the Magistrates at the Petty Sessions at Liphook the facts of the case. The Honourable Member for Athlone had said, Sir Charles Taylor was one of the magistrates who convicted the person. That was not so. Sir Charles Taylor was a magistrate, but he took no part in the judicial proceeding. He denied that he even had any conversation with the police officer in laying a trap, as it was called. The man Silvester, who made the charge, had been convicted of horse-stealing. The Hon. Member, in the present instance, had brought forward a new case. It was stated that a person named Bridger was the man seduced. If that had been stated before, he (Sir James Graham) would have made his inquiry extend further. He would make further inquiry, and he did hope that justice would be done. He had such confidence in the honour of Sir Charles Taylor, that he thought it necessary to inquire into the affidavits in support of the charge; and if they could not be sustained he did hope that a criminal process would be instituted.
Mr. BRIGHT said it was impossible to deny there was a sympathy with respect to the case of any county Magistrate acting under the game laws. It did exist, and there was no Hon. Member bold enough to deny the fact. The Hon. Member for Athlone had found the charge in a respectable newspaper. It was generally believed in Petersfield, that Mrs. Bridger, the person convicted and sentenced to a month’s imprisonment, was in her own house when the man called on her and offered to sell her a hare and pheasant. She paid 4s. The information was then laid by the servant of Sir Charles Taylor. She was convicted and sent to Winchester gaol for a month, because she purchased of a person not licensed to sell game—a hare and a pheasant. How did she know he was not licensed? (Laughter.) It was well known that members of that House bought game without ever knowing whether the seller was licensed. Here was the wife of a labouring man sent to a gaol for a month for buying food for her children. The Hon. Member for Athlone had sent down persons to investigate the case. He had brought it before the House, and the notice of the Government. There was no one who knew more than the Right Hon. Baronet how gross was the conduct of Magistrates with respect to game, and he did trust, now this case was before the Home-office, it would produce a change. These cases under the Game Laws were adjudicated without a jury, by parties interested in game, and it was scarcely possible that anything but gross injustice could occur.
Mr. LEADER defended the character Sir Charles Taylor. It was indecent to hold up a highly respectable aged gentleman to the public as having done something dishonourable. He knew Sir Charles Taylor. The time of that gentleman was chiefly employed in acts of charity and finding employment for the poor.
Mr. P. SCROPE could not admit that any undue sympathy was felt with respect to magistrates; but he thought there was some prejudice in part of the House with respect to the charge of Silvester, who stated that Hale, the policeman, had been promised 5l. by Sir Charles Taylor. The House could not take the evidence of a convicted horse-stealer against the statement of a respectable magistrate. Sir Charles Taylor had been 34 years a member of that House and 54 years a magistrate.
The question was then dropped.
(See also
2-May-1846
12-May-1846
19-May-1846
20-May-1846
13-Jun-1846
22-Jun-1846)