1816.1

GAME-LAWS.

71

of this Committee, that all game should be the property of the person upon whose lands such game should be found." They contemplated the removal of the qualification to kill game-that law which had its beginning in the reign of Richard II., and which, perfected by the aristocratic legislators of the time of Charles II., required "fifty times the property to enable a man to kill a partridge as to vote for a knight of the shire."* The Committee of 1816 evidently pointed to the necessity of "removing the restraints upon the sale of game." It was not till after fifteen years of controversy that the statute of William IV. dispensed with the qualification for killing game, and legalized its sale. The statute of the 9th of George IV., and that of William IV., rendered the law more stringent and effective against poaching, especially by night. The number of convictions under the Acts for the preservation of game furnish no uncertain test, not only of the state of morals amongst the agricultural labourers, but of the presence or absence of those qualities which make the landed proprietor a blessing or a curse to his humble neighbours. In the more daring and depraved of the population of the rural districts, the severe administration of the game-laws produced a spirit such as was displayed in January, 1816, by the Berkeley poachers, who cried out "Glory! glory!" when they had killed one gamekeeper and wounded six others.t

* Blackstone.

"Annual Register," 1816-Chronicle, p. 11.

Parliamentary Reform taken up by the ignorant and uneducated-Extended circulation of the writings of Cobbett-The Hampden Clubs-The Spenceans-Orator Hunt and the Spafields Meeting-Riot in the City-Meeting of Parliament-Outrage on the Prince Regent Secret Committees-Habeas Corpus Act suspended, and other stringent measures-Oliver, the spy-The Derbyshire Insurrection-Lord Sidmouth's Circular Letter-Prosecutions for Libel-The Three Trials of William Hone-The Government and the People-Eulogies on Francis Horner in the House of Commons.

made itself very feebly With the exception of

THE call for Parliamentary Reform seems to have heard in the Lower House in the Session of 1816. some four or five petitions that produced very slight discussion, it would scarcely be thought, from an inspection of the Parliamentary Debates, that such a question agitated any part of the nation at all. On one occasion, in June, some Members spoke very briefly upon the subject. One complained of the apathy with which the question was regarded in England; another (Mr. Brougham) mentioned the cause as "opposed by some, deserted by others, and espoused by persons whose conduct excited no small degree of disgust out of doors." But from this time the name of Parliamentary Reform became, for the most part, a name of terror to the Government-to the elevated by rank and wealth-to the most influential of the middle