Commons Sitting of 19 March 1819

EXCISE PROSECUTIONS.—PETITION OF WILLIAM WEAVER.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanpresented a petition from William Weaver, complaining of his imprisonment under a prosecution by the commissioners of excise. The worthy alderman expressed his sorrow that the attorney-general had not acceded to the motion which had been made for an inquiry into Exchequer processes; and gave notice that he should himself bring forward some motion upon the expenses incurred in the

1069
conducting of such processes.—The petition was then read, setting forth,
"That the petitioner is a prisoner confined in the debtors' prison for London and Middlesex, and has been since the 2nd of December last, under prosecution of the commissioners of excise for alleged penalties to the amount of 44,450 l. upon information that he had been guilty of selling three chests of Spanish juice at the value of about 36 l., to a brewer, contrary to the laws of his majesty's excise; that the petitioner most humbly begs leave, in support of his claim to the attention of the House, to state, that he has never, to his knowledge, committed any breach of his majesty's excise laws, according to the just and equitable construction by which those laws were intended and are professed to be administered, but that he has been most cruelly, and (he humbly submits it to the House) most unlawfully prosecuted, without any consideration of the total ruin and destruction of his business and family, in consequence, and upon the oath and information of a common informer, to whom the petitioner has publicly, in the regular course of his trade, sold an unexciseable article; that the petitioner humbly states to the House, that he has carried on the business of a grocer in Charles-street and Cable-street, Saint George's, for upwards of ten years past, and dealt in the article of Spanish juice; that in the year 1815 the petitioner sold to messieurs Stewart and Ward, of Old Gravel lane, bottled porter dealers (one of whom is the informer in this case), four chests of Spanish juice, of the value of 40 l., which were at that time seized by the officers of excise in their possession, under some pretence of which the petitioner is uninformed, but, on application, and the report of the surveyor general of excise, were afterwards restored, and consequently the petitioner did not consider himself, as a tradesman, required to doubt the propriety or legality of his selling that article to the said persons; that the petitioner, in the month of February, 1816, sold to the said Ward three other chests of Spanish juice, at the regular credit in the trade, two months, at the expiration of which the petitioner became pressing for payment thereof, and was then informed by the said Ward, that a Mr. Gray, of West Ham, owed him a considerable sum of money, and if the petitioner would accompany him to the counting-house of Mr. Gray, he would then pay him his de-
[1070
mand, to which the petitioner consented; that, in the space of about twelve months afterwards, the petitioner was served with Exchequer process, at the prosecution of the excise, grounded upon the oath and information of the before-named Ward (who proved to be a common informer), for penalties to the amount of 44,450 l., or thereabouts; but, upon investigation and trial, the only circumstance in proof against the petitioner was, that he had received payment for the aforesaid three chests of Spanish juice of Ward in the counting-house of Mr. Gray, who is a brewer at West Ham; whereupon, before the case went to the jury, the petitioner was induced, by the urgent advice of his friends, to agree to a compromise of 200 l.; and, in consequence of his appeal to the attorney-general, stating his total inability to pay the said amount, he was pleased to state to the petitioner that the most favourable consideration of his case would hereafter be observed; and the petitioner humbly trusted that, under the circumstances of his case, his majesty's government would not have proceeded to enforce the said penalty; that the petitioner farther showeth to the House, that his property and effects were suddenly, and without any farther previous notice or demand, seized in execution, and sold by auction at the suit of the Crown for this penalty, which produced the sum of 81 l.; and that a part of the property so sold, namely, the fixtures and household furniture, were purchased by the petitioner's landlord, who compassionately lent the same for the use of the petitioner's family, who was thereby enabled, and by the help of other friends, to continue to carry on a small trade, towards the support of his numerous family, consisting of a wife and seven children; but in a short time afterwards, and without any farther notice or demand on the petitioner, the execution was again levied upon his premises, and the same fixtures and furniture which had been purchased by the landlord under the former sale (and remained his property), but humanely left on the premises for the petitioner's use, together with such small stock of goods as his credit had enabled him to possess, were again, in, despite of petition and remonstrance, sold by auction for 52 l. besides 13 l. 1s. in money, which was taken out of the petitioner's cash box by one Fitchew, the officer of excise, still leaving 53 l. 19 s. unsatisfied, by Which the petitioner's wife and family became desti-

1071
tute of house or home, except for the mercy of the surrounding neighbours, and himself was at the same time inhumanly dragged to that prison at the same suit, and now remains charged in execution for the before-mentioned penalty of 44,450 l., or thereabouts; that, previous to the last sale of the property found on the petitioner's premises, an offer was made on his behalf of 40 l. to the board of treasury in lieu thereof, and to prevent the farther disastrous consequences of another sale under such circumstances; this offer was refused, and a demand made of 60 l., which the petitioner not being able to comply with, the sale immediately took place; that, in answer to the petitioner's numerous applications and entreaties for mercy, and to be restored to his destitute family, he is informed, through the medium of Mr. Carr, the solicitor to the excise, that the matter is left to the discretion of one Fitchew, who managed the execution, and took from the petitioner all the money he possessed, and that on the petitioner's acceding to his terms he may be released from imprisonment; the petitioner therefore most humbly prays the House, that he may be at liberty to prove the statements of his petition, in such manner as the House may in its wisdom be pleased to order; and, with the conviction that the House will fully appreciate his unfortunate situation, he humbly submits the premises to the consideration of the House, to adopt such measures as to their wisdom may seem meet."
The Petition was ordered to lie on the table; after which, Mr. Alderman Waithman gave notice of his motion for Tuesday next.

COAL DUTIES.
Several petitions respecting the proposed alteration in the Coal Duties having been presented,
Lord Folkestoneobserved, that such a ferment had been excited throughout the country, in consequence of an expected alteration in the coal-duties, that it had become the duty of ministers to declare their intentions on the subject openly and specifically, in order to allay the anxiety which had been created.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had expressed himself as explicitly as he could upon this subject on a former occasion. He would, however, repeat what he had then said, in order that no future mistake might arise. He thought that it would be neither expedient, nor
[1072
wise, nor beneficial in any point of view whatsoever, to make any alteration in the present duties.

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD BILL.
On the motion of lord Castlereagh, the order for the further consideration of the report upon the Royal Household Bill was read. The amendments were agreed to, and on the motion that the bill be engrossed,
Lord Folkestonerose, he said, not to animadvert upon any of the amendments which had just been adopted, but to take that opportunity of stating his opinion upon the clause in the bill, which related to the grant of 10,000 l. a year to the duke of York. It was impossible, according to his impression, consistently to accede to this clause in the terms in which it stood at present; for this clause assumed that the same sum was allowed to her late majesty as a remuneration for the expenses to which she was liable, on her appointment to the care of the king's person, and that therefore the duke of York was entitled to the same allowance upon undertaking the same appointment. This assumption the noble lord maintained to be quite a fallacy, as must be evident to any one who would take the trouble of reading the last act upon this subject, or who recollected the debates on its progress through parliament. For the grant of 10,000 l. a year to her majesty, was not made in consequence of any expense which she incurred through her care of the king's person, but to defray the expense of travelling, to which she became liable, and for occasionally keeping a court at Buckingham-house, such expense having been liquidated from the funds of his majesty previous to his indisposition. That was the ground upon which the grant was made, as he distinctly recollected, and what he had lately read of the observations of Mr. Perceval on the discussion of the act to which he had referred, was confirmatory of his recollection upon the subject. Hence he concluded that the annuity of 10,000 l. was not made to the queen for the care of the king's person, as had been lately assumed; consequently to state that this sum should be granted to the duke of York, upon the same ground that it was allowed to her majesty, implied a direct falsehood. He was therefore decidedly of opinion that such a clause ought not to be acceded to in the terms in which it stood at present. It

1073
would indeed be unbecoming the character of the House to adopt such a clause, because it was inconsistent with the truth. Upon what ground, then, could this grant be justified? It could not be pretended that the duke of York, through his appointment of custos regis, would have to incur more expense than that of paying for four horses to travel once a week to Windsor; and would it be maintained that the sum of 10,000 l. a year was necessary for such a purpose? [Hear! hear!] With respect, to the argument, that a son should receive 10,000 l. a year for taking care of a father, in the melancholy situation of the king, he could not help thinking it quite disgraceful to those who condescended to use it.—He had now to state that in which probably but few would agree with him. He was not of opinion that the duke of York was a proper person, much less, as had been alleged, the most proper person that could be chosen, for the care of the king's person; for, under the unfortunate circumstances in which his majesty was placed, the person appointed to such an office ought to be constantly resident at Windsor. But he remembered that this was an argument used by ministers, on the discussion of the last act for committing the care of his majesty's person to the queen, and that circumstance was universally deemed an additional reason for her majesty's appointment. On this ground then, he contended, that the care of his majesty's person should rather be confuted to some one who might reside at Windsor, which the duke of York could not possibly do, from the nature of his official engagements in town. But there were two of the princesses continually resident in the immediate vicinity of Windsor, and for that reason he should prefer the appointment of their royal highnesses for the care of his majesty's person. With that arrangement, it might be proper to appoint the duke of York as head of the council; but whether his royal highness were appointed head of the council or custos regis, it could never be patiently argued that he was entitled to an allowance of 10,000 l. a year to liquidate any expenses which he might be really called upon to incur. At all events, he felt that the House should not adopt a clause which contained a palpable falsehood, and upon that ground he should move that this clause be expunged.
The Speakerstated, that the question
[1074
to be put was, "That the said clause stand part of the bill."
The hon. Mr. Lytteltonobserved, that the reception which the remarks of his noble friend had met with, and the little attention which ministers seemed disposed to show them, held out but a slender encouragement to him to address the House upon this occasion. But still he felt it his duty to say, that if the grant alluded to was made, it would be quite scandalous to vote that grant upon false pretences. To the grant itself he had strong objections, but he urged those objections with great pain, for although the case was stated to relate merely to the grant of a certain allowance to a public officer, it was still, in many respects a personal question, and upon such a question, every man must feel it painful to state an objection, especially where a member of the royal family was adverted to. But it was among the serious faults of the present administration, to make the members of the royal family the subject of discussion in that House, as well as out of doors, with respect to pecuniary questions. The conduct of those ministers during the last session, could not soon be forgotten, when they pressed such propositions as served to render that House popular, by opposing pecuniary grants to several members of the royal family, and such conduct could not easily be forgiven by the real friends of that illustrious family. But the duke of York, who was spared on that occasion, and whose character stood high in the country, notwithstanding a certain event, to which he did not mean particularly to advert, was in the present instance dragged forward by those ministers in a most exceptionable manner; for what could be more exceptionable than to propose a pecuniary grant to his royal highness upon false pretences. But nothing was more remarkable than the sophistries adduced in support of this grant. It was argued that it was essential to the maintenance of the dignity of the duke of York to annex 10,000 l. a year to the office which he had undertaken; but, in the view of every unbiassed man in the country, it would be much more consistent with the maintenance of the dignity of his royal highness to accept that office without any salary whatever. But it was alleged that the grant under' consideration was necessary to defray the expense incident to the performance of an important public duty. Where, however,

1075
he would ask, was the proof of that necessity? The fact was, that the duke of York would have comparatively no expense to incur through the office alluded to. His royal highness was therefore, by this clause, to receive 10,000 l. a year for nothing Yet it was seriously maintained by some gentlemen, that his royal highness was justly entitled to this grant in the way of remuneration. This, however, was not the real ground for pressing that grant. It was understood that the duke of York was greatly embarrassed in his circumstances. He believed that such was really the fact; and with all the respect and regard which he entertained for his royal highness, he, in the performance of his public duty, felt himself bound to declare, that this grant was really proposed with a view to relieve those embarrassments. Notwithstanding the manner in which the ostensible motive was urged, such, he was persuaded, was the true reason for this proposition. The embarrassments to which he referred were not, however, he believed, at all likely to be removed by the amount of this grant, while the expenditure which occasioned those embarrassments was still going on. He would ask the minister, indeed, whether he himself did not calculate upon the probability of being called upon to apply to that House for an advance of the public money to discharge the private debts of the duke of York; and, if so, with what grace could such an application be made, should this grant be voted? But this grant was, it appeared, to be made unconditionally; whereas, if an application were at once made to the House for an advance to pay the duke of York's private debts, such a proposition was not likely to be acceded to without some conditional arrangement, calculated to produce a reduction of the expense which called for the application, and thus to guard against the necessity of its repetition at any future period. Here, however, there was no idea of any such arrangement, and that formed another objection to the proposed grant. How lamentable, then, was the counsel under which this pecuniary measure was brought forward, referring, as it did, to the heir presumptive to the Crown, whose personal honour and public character should be peculiarly guarded. He did not mean to dwell upon the various resources of the duke of York, but those resources were notorious to the country, and especially his royal high-
[1076
ness's enjoyment of the emoluments of an office which heretofore had very rarely existed in time of peace. There was another point to which he felt it necessary to advert particularly as the question before the House was connected with a pecuniary grant to the heir presumptive to the Crown. According to the doctrine recently maintained in that House, the privy purse of his majesty was a sacred fund, which ought not to be touched by parliament—which ought not to be available for any public service—which should, of course, be allowed to accumulate. Upon whom then, he would ask, was the surplus of that fund to devolve, but upon the duke of York or the Prince Regent? Was not this a consideration which should restrain ministers from pressing such a charge upon the public purse as that under discussion? But, to revert to the sophistries brought forward in support of this grant. Among others, the propriety of consulting the feelings of the king had been much dwelt upon, although it was obvious that his majesty's feelings had no concern whatever with the transaction. Yet upon this point a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) had thought proper to quote the preamble of an old act of parliament, on which the right hon. gentleman descanted with great emphasis and elaborate eloquence. But, however, acceptable such eloquence might be at court or elsewhere, it could scarcely be supposed that it would have any weight in that House, or among impartial and dispassionate men any where. Still, a young hopeful statesman, who thought proper to discard the just claims of four or five millions of Catholics, perhaps because they were "mere Irish," conciliating thereby the favour of some English noblemen and gentlemen of high extraction, might deem it expedient to use such eloquence. But, with that House he trusted that no such eloquence would ever have weight. It was impossible, indeed, that eloquence of that character should ever have any such effect, if that House duly consulted the sentiments and feelings of the country. He hoped the House would reconsider what had been done, and regulate this grant to the duke of York; for if it was to be granted at all, it certainly ought not be granted in the manner proposed.
Mr. Protheroesaid, he had always felt great respect for the personal character of the duke of York; but he had felt as he had before expressed, that in a discus-

1077
sion of this kind the influence of his name and family had not been used with the utmost delicacy; it was a fair inference that ministers had impressed the mind of his royal highness with sentiments not congenial to it. He regretted that so painful a subject had been brought under discussion, and was convinced that it would have done much greater honour to ministers, if they had come down to the House with a statement, that, under existing circumstances, his royal highness, however just his claim, could not think of adding a new weight to the burdens of the people.
The question being put, "That the said Clause stand part of the Bill," the House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes 97.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, lord

Lamb, hon. G.

Anson, hon. Geo.

Lamb, hon. W.

Baring, Alex.

Lloyd, J. M.

Barnett, James

Maule, hon. W.

Benyon, Benj.

Martin, J.

Bernal, Ralph

Maxwell, John

Birch, Joseph

Milbank, Mark

Brand, hon. T.

Merest, J. W. D.

Brougham, H.

Monck, sir C.

Burdett, sir F.

Milton, lord

Bankes, H.

Newport, sir J.

Calcraft, John

North, Dudley

Clifford, capt.

Newman, W. R.

Clifton, lord

Onslow, A.

Coffin, sir I.

Ord, Wm.

Colborne, N. R.

Parnell, W.

Colclough, C.

Philips, G. R.

Coke, T.

Phillipps, C. M.

Curwen, J. C.

Powlett, hon. Wm.

Crompton, Saml.

Price, R.

Crawley, Saml.

Pryse, P.

Carhampton, earl of

Protheroe, Ed.

Davies, T. H.

Ricardo, D.

Dickinson, Wm.

Ramsden, J. C.

Dundas, hon. L.

Rancliffe, lord

Dundas, Thos.

Rickford, W.

Duncannon, lord

Ridley, sir M. W.

Ellice, Edward

Robarts, A.

Fane, John

Robarts, W. T.

Fazakerley, Nic.

Rowley, sir W.

Finlay, Kirkman

Russell, lord, John.

Fleming, John

Smyth, J. H.

Graham, J. R. G.

Smith, hon. R.

Grenfell, Pascoe

Smith, George

Griffith, J. W.

Stanley, lord

Guise, sir W.

Sefton, earl of

Hamilton, lord A.

Tavistock, marq.

Harvey, D. W.

Taylor, M. A.

Honywood, W. P.

Taylor, C. V.

Hornby, Ed.

Tremayne, J. H.

Hughes, W. L.

Thorp, alderman

Hume, Jos.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Hutchinson, hon. C.

Waithman, alderman

Houldsworth, T.

Whitbread, Wm.

Heygate, alderman

Webb, Ed.

[1078

Wilkins, W.

Wilberforce, Wm.

Wood, alderman

White, Luke

Wilson, Thos.

TELLERS.

Wilson, sir Robert

Folkestone, viscount

Wynn, C. W.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Mr. Wynnsuggested, that there was a verbal inaccuracy in the preamble which ought to be corrected. The 10,000 l. per annum was not granted for the care of the king's person, and it ought not to be so expressed.
Lord Castlereaghthought the words employed unexceptionable: the same terms could not be applied to the queen and the duke of York; and if they were more general in the present instance, they were on that very account less liable to objection.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
A Member, whose name we could not learn, contended, that the measure was much more likely to increase than remedy the evils at present existing. It would encourage poaching, the first step to crime and the first entrance into bad company. The scheme of making it lawful for the tenant of the soil to sell game, and thereby drive the poacher out of the market, was visionary. The price of game would be raised, and the inducements to poaching of course would be augmented. He did not mean to assert that the system now established was perfect; on the contrary it had many defects, but not one of them would be remedied by the bill upon the table.
Sir John Shellyhoped, the House in this instance would legislate practically, not theoretically. The present bill was of the latter description, and the practice of legislating on theoretical principles for practical purposes, he totally disapproved of. From the most mature deliberation, he found himself imperatively called upon to oppose the bill. Although all the eloquence might be on the other side, yet he flattered himself that all the argument would be found on his side. The bill professed to detect and prevent poachers; in his opinion, it would tend to increase, rather than diminish them. The poacher would find a new stimulus to his nefarious pursuits, by the provisions of this bill, and whenever he got possession of game, he would

1079
know much easier how to get rid of it. To protect game by the provisions of this bill would be found in many instances impossible. As to any facilities in convicting offenders, it might be very easy in small covers to take poachers in the act; but in large woodlands, for instance, where often 500 acres and upwards in extent, it would be almost impossible to take them: the only method to be pursued would be either to take the game found on the poacher's person or in the carts of the country higglers, the persons who were generally employed by them. As to the principle of the reward, the offer was 5l. to those who were fortunate enough to take a poacher, who was to pay either that penalty, or submit to three months imprisonment. Now, to his own certain knowledge, for the last five years, it had been found impossible to recover the 5l. in most cases, so that the extension of that sum was no great object. He was himself as fond of country society and country sports as any one in that House; and he should be very sorry to find, on any occasion, that he could not entertain his friends with game; but even a circumstance of that nature should not induce him to support the present bill. He should therefore move, "That it be read a second time that day six months."
Sir John Stewartseconded this motion, and condemned the principle and tendency of the bill.
Mr. Wilberforceobserved, that though no sportsman, he was as much alive as any man in that House, to the importance of keeping, by every possible inducement, the country gentlemen resident on their estates. He felt fully the value of such a custom, when he reflected on the exercise of those qualities which that class, the pride and honour of the kingdom were so conspicuous in cultivating, and to which might mainly be attributed the peculiar character this country had acquired. When he felt that result thus strongly, it could not be supposed that he would yield his support to any measure which tended to diminish so laudable an influence. But from the best views that he was enabled to give the proposed bill, combined with the opinions of others, on whose authority he could rely, he was persuaded that its effect would be to increase, not to diminish the quantity of game; while, on the other hand, it would produce amongst the population a growing indisposition to commit violations of
[1080
the law. Even now, when the existing game laws, so opposite to every principle of personal liberty, so contrary to all our notions of private right, so injurious, so arbitrary in their operation, that the sense of the greater part of mankind was in determined hostility to them; even now, when these were in full force, a system of poaching prevailed to a greater extent than ever. But in his mind an object of far more vital importance arose out of this subject than those which concerned a love of gain, namely, a question of human punishments. They had good reason to believe, that by poachers, the greater part of the criminals who swelled the calenders of our country assizes were led into those shameful and dishonest practices, which ultimately brought them to the gallows. Such numbers came to an untimely end by poaching practices, they presented such a mass of criminality, and such a body of crime, as the House ought not to allow to continue. But as the hon. gentleman had contended, that yet greater facilities would be afforded to poaching, if people were allowed to have game in their possession without becoming liable to a penalty, he wished to ask him whether a clause to this effect might not be introduced, without injuring the principle of his bill, namely, that no person should be allowed to sell game who had not a licence for that purpose, such licence to be granted by the magistrates? He thought it would then become that person's interest, not to connect himself in any way with poachers: he would have a business to keep, and a character to preserve. There was now no such person; no one whose interest was in hostility to that of theirs; but if this system of licensing were to be pursued, there would be those persons whose business as it were, it would be to search for those who were themselves poachers, or who sold the game they procured. He presumed that nothing could be imagined more unlikely than that these two descriptions of persons should enter into any thing like a combination to sell game. While this subject had been pending, he had make it his business to make very minute inquiries relative to it, among the dealers in game; and the House could have but a faint idea of the immense amount of that traffic: when it considered that it was a luxury sought after not merely by the higher, but also very generally by the lower classes of life, it would readily ima-

1081
gine that its consumption must be immense. He could assure them, that many London dealers received sacks of game to the value of 100 l. per week; a quantity so enormous, that he could not help considering the consumers in some sort accessory to the crime of poaching. Some remedy surely, ought to be applied to this growing evil; yet he could not help remarking, that of all the honourable members who had spoken before him, and among all the arguments they had made use of, not one had professed, that he himself believed it possible to correct the habits of society, An hon. gentleman on the bench above him had said, that the country gentleman ought as much to enjoy the advantages he possessed, as the monied man, who enjoyed his advantages at a cheaper rate also; and he had entered into a comparison of their relative situations. He thought, however, that nothing could have been more unfortunately put; for in point of fact, the country gentleman possessed a luxury which the other did not enjoy. The former, he was sure, would think it a great boon if he could people his neighbourhood with an honest peasantry; and be most grateful for the passing of this bill, or of any other measure that would tend to remedy the many evils which constituted a sort of system of poaching. He was well aware that, should they adopt the insertion he had recommended, they would be thought to have acted contrary to their own interests, and greatly to their prejudice: this was the very reason why he wished it should be introduced; for the present was one of those questions which they might possibly be considered to entertain with interested views only. Thus much was certain—that as the present game laws now stood, all the purchasers of game were the absolute encouragers of vice.
Lord Clivesaid, that the objects of the present bill appeared to him to be two; the one to prevent poaching, and the other to secure the proprietors of estates. It was found, that the present game laws, strict as they were, could not preserve game. Now the present bill would take away all restriction whatever; and he never yet found that to take away a security tended to preserve a thing. As to the recommendation of granting licences, he could not see what good they would effect. Licenses were granted to various persons to sell tea, tobacco, or spirits, yet it had not-been found that those licences
[1082
were sufficient to prevent smugglers from running their goods upon the coast, in defiance of them: so neither would licences prevent the poacher from trespassing, or the farmer from selling game. Seeing nothing in the bill to induce him to support it, but a great deal to induce him to be hostile to it, he should certainly vote against the second reading.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, that, fond as he was of the sports of the field, he could not give his assent to the continuance of a system of laws vicious and tyrannical in principle, and which, in point of fact, could seldom or ever be put in execution. As a proof of this, it had been already stated, that the sale of game was carried on to an immense extent, in defiance of laws the most unjust and most odious to the public, ever passed. The legislature had certainly enacted some statutes on this head, contrary to the general spirit of our law, and to all our notions of liberty and equity. The act which was passed last session had excited throughout the country the greatest disgust; so much so, that no magistrate had ever put it in force, without the strongest feelings of reluctance and aversion. The recommendation of the hon. member he could by no j means assent to. It would certainly be j very curious to find parliament legalizing the sale of that which it had been for so many years endeavouring to prevent.
Mr. Cokeof Norfolk, said, he had always looked upon these laws as most odious ones. He was an old member of that House, and he remembered, about six and thirty years ago, that a bill was introduced, which gave to keepers and others a right to take up persons found walking about the grounds of their employers; which bill was afterwards withdrawn, on a prosecution having been commenced, by virtue of its enactments, against an individual, who took the opinion of the three most distinguished lawyers of their time upon the subject: they gave it as their opinion that game was, legally, private property: upon which the act was withdrawn. Those lawyers were lord Kenyon, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Lee. He should hope that the framers of this bill, in bringing it in, had not merely the preservation of game in view, but the good of their country. As to the mere preservation of game, he thought an attention to farming, agriculture, or any other useful amusement or rational pursuit, infinitely more
║

1083
laudable. He was of opinion that every man had an inherent right to that which was on his property; nor could he think that he was sent to that House to legislate on one man's property to the detriment of another. It appeared to him, that a man with a single acre of land, had just as clear and natural a right to that which was on it, as he himself had to what was on his own. Why, then, should not he have also an equal power to destroy what was on his possessions, as the wealthy owner of preserves had to destroy what was on his? He had heard a great deal said by the gentlemen who owned preserves, about their interest and amusement; but for himself, he was not sent there to consider merely his own amusement and interest; if so, he should most likely have gone to the other side of the House, as he might have found his interest possibly in sitting there. He had to look to other and to more important interests; to the protection of those whom he represented, from, the operation of laws which were arbitrary, cruel and tyrannical, laws which were not to be endured. It was only at the close of the last shooting season in Norfolk, that a poor old woman in crossing a gentleman's plantation, was cruelly shot and desperately mangled. Her screams at length brought the keeper up to her; and all the consolation he offered was, to tell her, that she had only got a little wounded in the leg, whereas had she gone further up the plantation, she would certainly have been shot through the body and killed. Application was then made to the magistrate: and who did the magistrate prove to be? Why, the owner of the soil! The House would ask, what relief he extended to her? He gave her an order on the parish for the weekly payment of one shilling! He would again ask, were such things to be endured in a civilized and Christian country? Conceiving that the bill would not only tend to preserve the game, but that it would have a more extensive and beneficial operation, he should give it his decided support.
Mr. Bankesadverting to the circumstance mentioned by the hon. member for Norfolk, observed that the injury sustained by the poor woman was the result not of the game laws, but of the wanton, or it might be accidental, act of the gamekeeper. What was there in the bill before the House which would prevent the recurrence of a similar event? He contended that
[1084
the provisions of the bill were of a nature so heterogeneous, that he had scarcely ever seen so much contradictory matter amalgamated into four or five sheets of paper. If it were said, that the game laws were injurious and productive of vice and misery, let them be abolished. He did not advise such a proceeding; but such a proceeding would at least be a consistent one. But, with the large words, humanity and justice, and the liberty of the subject, to propose a bill which still more strongly affirmed the principles by which humanity and justice, and the liberty of the subject were said to be violated, was, indeed a most singular proceeding. The most severe laws in the statute book for the preservation of game were strictly preserved in the bill before the House, and yet the preamble of the bill called those laws unjust. Was this wise? Was the accusation true? "Unjust," that meant, to deprive a man of what was his due. Was it the due of every man to be allowed to kill partridges and other game? That might be called a natural right; but civil law in every society had superseded natural right. "But," said the supporters of the bill, "call the game private property, and that will be satisfactory to all." What! would the poacher be satisfied at being punished more heavily than before, because that which he took was called by the new name of property? But what did the bill in the way of making game the property of the person on whose land it was? If a poor man had a right to the game on his land, he had a right to kill that game. But a poor man might be no sportsman. He might be blind and not able to shoot; or if he shot, he might shoot so unskilfully that the game would fly over into his rich neighbour's estate. A little experience of this kind of failure would induce him to exchange his gunpowder for dexterity; his fowling piece for wires and nets. But then would the House believe that all those odious parts of the game laws, which applied punishment of the severest kind to the use of snares, were left untouched? Such a bill did not appear to him to be fit to be on the table. The hon. gentleman repeated what he stated on a former evening, of the great importance of attaching gentlemen to their country residences, and of the danger of doing any thing likely to disgust them. Perfectly agreeing in all that had been said by his hon. friend behind him, of the destructive nature of the prac-

1085
tice of poaching, and of the various crimes of which it was the fruitful parent, he maintained that the bill before the House was calculated to increase that evil, and to create a dozen poachers, where only one now existed. Poachers would become so numerous, that they would be extinct only with the extinction of the game itself; and then, although the vice of poaching would be got rid of, the taint would remain: the persons who had been employed in that practice would be let loose on property in general, and their evil habits would burst forth into acts of a more atrocious character even than those to which they had hitherto been accustomed. He was inclined to think that this crime was rather diminishing than increasing at present; as was also, he believed, the practice of selling game. Indeed, he did not think they could correct the sale of game, As to this bill, it made no sort of provision for it whatever; but, on the contrary, it put game and the power of buying and selling game, into every man's hands.
Colonel Woodobserved, that the hon. member for Corfe Castle had entirely misunderstood the nature of the accident which was described by the hon. member for Norfolk, as having happened to a woman in some cover or other. That woman had not been shot by a game-keeper, but by a spring-gun. [Mr. Coke observed, that he had certainly stated, that the woman had been shot by a game-keeper.] Colonel Wood apologized for his error. The bill before the House would, however, prevent even such accidents; for if game were made private property, that petty warfare between the higher and the lower orders, between the game-keeper and the poacher, would be at an end, and the ferocious practice of shooting, whether by spring-guns or otherwise, would be checked. Gentlemen set no spring-guns to protect their turnips or their poultry. He denied that the bill would increase the number of poachers, by assuring them of a market; for no man went out at present to poach, before he was assured of a market for the game he took; otherwise it would spoil before he could sell it. He believed that if the bill passed, although there would still be stealers of game, as well as there were now stealers of poultry, yet that the majority of those who dealt in game would be honest dealers. When a measure was sometime ago in the House on the subject, the poulterers of
[1086
London, a very respectable body of men, told him that if they could obtain game for their customers through a legal channel, they would never have any thing to do with poachers. And if the present bill were to pass into a law, why should they? Did they now buy stolen chickens? Did butchers buy stolen sheep? The greater part of the arguments against the bill were directed, not against its principle, but against its provisions, and ought therefore to be postponed until it was committed. The question now for the House to determine was, whether the game laws should be allowed to exist in their present state? As to all that had been said of the danger to which great game preserves would be rendered liable, he begged to know whence the metropolis of London was at present supplied with game, if not from these preserves? Was it not notorious that, night after night, the mails were laden with the game of which those preserves were plundered? There was one argument urged against the bill, which, if valid, ought to have great weight. It was said, that the bill, by aiding in the destruction of game, would tend to induce gentlemen not to reside on their estates. He thought it would not have the effect of destroying game. And it ought to be recollected how comparatively few were the districts in which game was now found, and yet how general was the residence of country gentlemen. Besides, there were other field amusements much better than shooting. For instance, hunting; fox hunting in particular. And yet he believed that the preservers of pheasants were often the poisoners of foxes. One fox, too, amused hundreds of gentlemen, while hundreds of pheasants amused only one gentleman. The old-fashioned practice of gentlemen going out for a whole day to shoot in the country, was, he understood, becoming obsolete; and that the existing usage was for a gentleman who had got together in a neighbouring wood as many pheasants as he had barn-door fowls (and nearly as tame too), to turn into the wood with a dozen friends with guns, and a dozen clowns with poles, and then quietly to let fly at the alarmed birds, and to fancy himself shooting. In France, the mode of hunting was similar. The peasants surrounded a wood, and drove out the game, which the gentlemen standing in a row killed as it passed. This was, however, as different from English hunting as French

1087
gentlemen were from English gentlemen. He should certainly give the bill his cordial support.
Mr. Frankland Lewisconceiving the system of the game laws objectionable in the highest degree, thought that when a measure to supersede that system was brought before the House, it was their duty to give it a fair consideration. The bill was called a bill for the amendment of the laws for the preservation of game; but it might fairly be called a bill for the better protection of game, and for the prevention of poaching. It had been said, that the bill was full of absurd contradictions; that among other things, it first declared that game was the property of certain persons, and then allowed those persons to remain subject to penalties for using that property. Was it absurd to say, that those who had the land should have a right to the game on it in preference to all others? Was it subversive of the right of property to say, that that property should be put under regulation? Were not fisheries put under regulation? Were not the proprietors of fisheries limited to fish only in particular seasons? And was it not well known, that by means of these regulations fish continued to be preserved notwithstanding the open sale of it in the markets by those who had the property of it? He wished to see game preserved, and better laws for that purpose than those which existed at present; by giving an interest in the game to those who had the greatest power of preserving it. Was not this object more likely to be accomplished than by the existing laws? With respect to the comments of the hon. gentleman on the floor, on what had fallen from the hon. mover of the bill as to natural rights, they were altogether founded in misconception. God forbid that any person should insist on natural rights in a state of society! As well might it be said that every man had a natural right to the land of a country, as that certain persons had a natural right to the game on that land. But did it follow that, because you made game the property of the person on whose land it was, you therefore said he had a natural right to it? Property of various kinds was put under restrictions in this country. It was necessary, for instance, to have a license to deal in horses. For the sake of the morals of the people, public-houses were put under restriction. But it was contended by the hon. gentleman, that
[1088
licenses did not prevent smuggling—as notwithstanding the licensing of tea-dealers and spirit-dealers, smuggling still went on. But it was not the licensing the dealing in those articles which created the smuggling, but the amount of duty on them. They wished to distinguish between an honest mode of selling game and a dishonest mode. He would say, continue the severe laws against those who steal game, but not against those who sell the game which they come honestly by. It was not right to punish those things which were not crimes in nature. There was no person acquainted with the game laws who would not agree, that the present system of qualification was extremely absurd. He had no hesitation in saying, that the bill as it now stood was not drawn up as he thought it ought to be drawn up. He thought the qualification ought to be of the nature of a license. What the amount of that qualification should be, would be a fair subject for after consideration. The selling of game ought in like manner to be subjected to a license. Persons who had game in their possession ought to be bound to show that they came honestly by it; and it ought to be made penal, tremendously penal, to sell game dishonestly come by.
Mr. Crippssaid, he had heard objections made to several of the clauses, but there were none of them that might not, in his opinion, be got over, and, therefore, he should vote for the second reading of the bill. It was due to the hon. gentleman who introduced it, and to the committee who came to the resolution on which the bill was founded, to suffer it to proceed, and to see, whether, in its progress, they could not remove the objectionable parts. With respect to the objections of the hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes), they did not strike him in the same point of view they did the hon. gentleman. He was not sorry to see those provisions retained to which the hon. gentleman urged his strongest objections. One of his observations was, however, correct. He had stated, that the number of criminals imprisoned for offences against the game laws, at present were less than they used to be. This, he believed was the fact; but the circumstance was owing to a bill introduced into that House by a near relative of the hon. gentleman. In one clause of that bill were was a very great, omission. Every person purchasing game, was, by that clause, subject to a

1089
penalty of 5l. to be levied on his goods and chattels—but, if he had no goods and chattels, no punishment followed. If this was a mere omission, it ought to be rectified; if it was intentional, it certainly defeated the object which the clause appeared to have in view.
Mr. Brandsaid, he could not recollect that a single argument of any force had been adduced against the bill. The market, it was observed, could be as easily supplied with stolen game as with stolen turnips. But the market was not supplied with stolen turnips, ergo it would not be supplied with stolen game. It was also stated, as a proof that the present bill must fail, that all previous enactments had failed in preventing depredations on rabbit-warrens. He could have stated, àpriori, to the hon. member who made the observation, that no law could possibly prevent that species of offence, when persons possessing property in the neighbourhood of such warrens were absolutely interested in the destruction of those animals. Of this he was well convinced, that no legislative enactment, however severe, could prevent the supply of game to the metropolis. It was therefore, the duty of legislative wisdom to devise some means by which a regular supply of game might be afforded, without encouraging vice, or immorality. He had followed a resolution of the last parliament, which declared "that game ought to be the property of the owner of the soil." He contended that the exclusion of small proprietors was contrary to the principles of equity and of natural law. He was much mistaken by an hon. gentleman who fancied that he had confounded the doctrine of the law of nature, with that of the natural state of man—and he had argued to prove the fallacy of such an association. But, if the hon. gentleman reflected a little, he would not have supposed that he could be guilty of so extravagant a blunder. He must be aware that there were natural laws, anterior to those of a conventional description, and that the validity of the latter was supported by their coincidence with the former. From this he contended, that it was contrary to the law of nature and of equity to preclude a man from the use of that which was nurtured on his own soil—always considering game as the growth of the soil. He was astonished, when an hon. gentleman declared that, in this bill, he had described the former laws as unjust. This was not the fact. The
[1090
preamble merely said, "that those laws were found inadequate to their object—that they were impolitic and inconvenient and, in many cases, oppressive and unjust." He did not say that they were generally oppressive and unjust, but that they were, in some instances, contrary to equity and natural law. The hon. gentleman said, "if individuals want game, let them purchase land." But this would not do; it would be necessary for them to purchase manors. And, as the system now existed, an individual with a manor of 100 l. a year, and a qualification might shoot on the land of any person he pleased. Indeed, he believed that some persons had acquired qualifications, merely to carry on the business of poaching. There might be many clauses in the bill that required amendment. There were many interests, a variety of property which it was impossible for him, in the first instance, to protect or include in a measure of this kind. But he was convinced the more the House considered it, the more they would see the necessity of carrying it into effect. The greatest practical mischiefs flowed from the present system—one of the most prominent of which was, that the great body of the lower orders were opposed to the higher classes on this point, and the morals of the country were deteriorated to an alarming degree. In his view of the subject, this was the most important revision and amendment of the criminal law, that was likely to be submitted to parliament during the present session.
The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided: Ayes, 110. Noes 83. The bill was then read a second time.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES DEFICIENCY— PRESENTS TO FOREIGN MINISTERS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for receiving the report of the Committee of Supply. The resolution, "That a sum not exceeding 79,154 l. 8s. 9d¼ be granted to his majesty to make good the deficiency of the grant of parliament for the year 1818, to enable his majesty to provide for such expenses of a civil nature as do not form a part of the ordinary charges of the Civil List, having been read.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, it was not his intention to enter upon the hacknied topics of the public burthens and the duty of that House. He meant merely to justify himself for affirming that the expenses in

1091
these papers were evident extravagance. They had voted 3,500,000 l. of the public money for the navy and ordnance, and yet they were Called upon to vote 79,154 l. for the purposes stated in these papers. The House was bound to watch narrowly such accounts and items. By doing so they not only did their duty to the country, but essential service to ministers themselves; for if the House would not suffer extravagant expenses to pass, ministers could retire to the cabinet secure of The support of the House in their measures of economy and retrenchment. This would give them a strength in the cabinet which otherwise they could not possess. The first item he had to remark upon was 8,195 l. 12 s. for furniture to the Royal George yacht. This expense appeared to him most extravagant. This was not for furnishing the ship generally, as might be supposed, but for the furniture of one room. The next item he would advert to was 8,432 l. as the expense of a noble viscount and a noble duke at Aix-la-Chapelle. He did not conceive this expense to have been necessary. Whatever good the noble viscount and the noble duke had clone at Aix-la-Chapelle, they could have done by their remaining at home, and by any ordinary character being sent to the Conference. Not one thing had been done at Aix-la-Chapelle, which had not been settled before the noble viscount, the noble duke, or any of the other great personages, had gone thither. The other item on which he had to remark was, 19,300 l. for the Grand Duke Nicholas. He saw no reason for incurring such an expense for any royal or imperial visitant. If we thus paid the expenses of one during his residence here, we could not refuse to pay the expenses of fifty, and thus a serious Burthen would be imposed upon the country. In going over the items, he found one of 20,000 l. for law charges, which he could hot but think extravagant. The item to which he was now desirous of calling the attention of the House, was the sum of 22,510 l. 15 s. 1d. for snuff-boxes as presents to foreign ministers. How could Ministers, in the present state of the Country, justify themselves for incurring such an extravagant charge for such a purpose? They, no doubt, relied on precedents, but he thought precedents in this case of little value. He had been informed, that the absurd practice of giving snuff-boxes been earned so far, that the coachman appointed to drive an im-
[1092
perial grand duke lately on a visit to this country had been presented with one. Would the noble lord cloak himself under a precedent of this kind? In times of public prosperity these items were frequently overlooked, and perhaps did not deserve so minute a scrutiny; but at present the distress under which the nation laboured was so great, that economy ought to be introduced into every part of the public expenditure; and though the strictest economy could not produce an immediate or any great relief, still the House ought to show an endeavour to carry retrenchment as far as possible. After some late votes, the people would be led to distrust professions. After the vote of last night to continue a board on the war establishment, whose principal duties terminated with the war—to continue the same number of lords of the Admiralty, with a navy of 20,000 men and 120 ships, and during profound peace, which was reckoned necessary, when we were in hostility with all the world, with a navy of 130,000 men, and more than 1,200 ships, the House should endeavour to recover its character for economy by endeavouring to retrench in some way or other. It was only lately that a vote of a few hundred pounds for two equerries had been lost; and yet if any public servants were to stand in the way of public economy, these individuals deserved their salaries. To one of them, sir Brent Spencer, he was glad of an opportunity to pay his tribute of respect. He had served in the army forty years; he had been engaged in every war during that time, and in every part of the world he had faced dangers and shed his blood in the service of his country. His gallant conduct in Egypt on the glorious 8th of March was known to every one acquainted with our military annals; and yet these claims were not sufficient to continue him in the receipt of a salary which he obtained as the mark of his sovereign's confidence, and the reward of his fidelity-He would apply the case of the equerries to his present argument, by stating, that if the House refused on a late night 500 l. a year to a gallant officer, they ought to abolish 20,000 l. of useless expenditure. The sum now in the estimate for snuff-boxes would more than afford the two equerries their salaries for life. He was satisfied that, by examining in the way that he had done the papers submitted to the House, the public interest might be highly benefitted, and thousands saved

1093
which were now uselessly squandered. Ministers would thus receive a check in their course of extravagance, and would be more cautious what estimates they brought forward for parliamentary sanction. He concluded by moving, "That the sum of 22,510 l.15 s. 1d. which from papers on the table of the House is stated to have been expended for Snuff Boxes, appears to this House to be a most profuse and improvident expenditure of public money."
The Speakersuggested, that there was a Resolution before the House that 79,154 l. be granted to make good the civil contingencies. The hon. member could propose an amendment, by subtracting the sum of 22,510 l. from it, and by adding the concluding words of his resolution.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he did not wish to negative the grant, as the money had been expended; he would therefore propose his resolution after the question before the House was disposed of.
Lord Castlereagh, in rising to give the explanations required by the hon. gentleman, said, he could not promise to speak to every point, as there were several totally out of his own department, and which be must refer to his right hon. friend. He perfectly understood the hon. gentleman not to have meant any thing like a personal charge by his motion, but to have brought it forward merely out of a sense of duty, to enforce an economical application of the public money. With respect to the fitting out of the royal yacht, he could say nothing, for he knew nothing. As to the expense incurred at Aix-la-Chapelle, the observations of the hon. member had been rather of a political than a financial nature. The hon. gentleman had said, that a king's messenger could have transacted the business as well as himself and his noble friend. If such observations had been made when the treaties and protocols concluded at Congress were laid on the table, they might have deserved an answer. If the hon. gentleman, however, required any explanations on the head of expense, he would not refuse the most ample. By examining the account, he would find that there had been no improvident waste of the public money, and that the sums expended had been less than on former missions of the game nature. With regard to the item of charge for his imperial highness the grand duke, who lately visited this country, all that he would say was, that
[1094
it was incurred out of that courtesy which usually prevailed between governments. The expenses which we had to provide for in this respect were not so great as some other states. During the congress of Vienna, the emperor of Austria had entertained all the sovereigns, princes, and ministers, assembled in that capital. The principal part of the hon. member's objections was directed against the practice of making presents to foreign ministers. The hon. gentleman had not represented the matter fairly in allowing it to be supposed that the 22,000 l. of expenditure under this head had been incurred within the year. The truth was, that the present account comprehended the money expended in this way for more than two years, from July, 1816, to Jan. 1819. It was likewise to be recollected, that in that period the country had not been in its natural state. To show that the sum thus distributed over two years, or about 11,000 l. per annum, was not extravagant or extraordinary; he would refer the hon. gentleman to papers laid on the table in 1811. In them, he would find an account of the expense? incurred for presents to foreign ministers during the seven preceding years. These charges amounted on an average to 10,000 l. per annum. By looking a little farther back, he would find that in 1804 Mr. Pitt had laid on the table an estimate of such expenses, which likewise amounted to 10,000 l. a year. He (lord C.) was well aware of the general opinion, that any thing in the shape of a present might be advantageously dispensed with; but whatever degree of obloquy might be thrown on him for defending a custom in which he might be supposed to be interested, he would still contend against its abolition. The hon. member did not seem well acquainted with the regulations under which these presents were given, nor with the limitations both as to the persons on whom they were conferred, and the number of them that must, according to custom, be provided. Their amount was not in the least arbitrary, nor could they be connected with any improper influence. The practice of bestowing them on the signature of treaties, was as old as the monarchy, and nearly co-extensive with civilized states. He knew that it was a principle with the United States neither to give or receive presents; but the practice was general among the monarchies of Europe. The East India Company, in their transactions with the states

1095
in the neighbourhood of their territory, acted under a law to receive no presents; but this meant presents of a great amount, and dangerous to diplomatic agents, by the undue influence which they might produce. The presents mutually given in Europe were of a different description. They were never conferred till the treaty for the Signature of which they were to be given had been ratified, and therefore; could not be considered as a reward offered to diplomatic agents for favourable stipulations, as the treaty they had concluded had received the sanction of their own government, before any acknowledgment was made by its ally. The hon. gentleman laboured under an error in supposing that these presents were always returned to the secretary of state. They were given to the minister who signed the treaty, whoever he was; and not to the secretary of state, unless when he acted in the Capacity of a negotiator, and so affixed his signature. To speak of himself, he could say, that out of twenty-two presents given to the agents of this country, during the last two years, only five had come to him. The situation of diplomatists was not very enviable or gainful, and therefore ought not to be curtailed of any of its advantages. They were not paid so well, considering the expenses to which they were exposed, as other public servants. He would not, therefore, consent to withdraw this advantage without re-placing it by another, and he could think of no other more appropriate or economical Some of them, he was aware, disposed of these presents for immediate pro-fit; but the greater part preserved them as memorials of the transactions in which they had been engaged. He himself had kept all the memorials of this kind he had received in the shape in which they were given; and should transmit them to his family as property which they would prize higher than any thing else he could leave them. He went on to argue, that no more eligible or less extravagant way occurred of rewarding public servants very moderately paid. Besides, though some saving might take place, he did hot see how a change in the present practice could be effected without the concurrence of other States. It would appear a piece of absurd affectation in us to attempt it, without; Such a general Concurrence. He Should consider the abolition of the practical even prejudicial to the public service, while no call existed for it in the extrava-
[1096
gance of the expenses to which it led, or in the danger of any influence which it might create.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that as to the practice of giving snuff-boxes and such presents, it was, he would admit, one of long standing, and might in some respects have been called for by circumstances'; but he trusted it was an expense which the country would not be called upon to pay in future. He gave credit to the noble lord for the statement he had made; and he would add, that, from circumstances which had come to his knowledge, the noble lord had not done himself justice. He conceived that the House and the country owed the noble lord a great deal for his conduct at Aix-la-Chapelle, where the resolution that, had been proposed at the meeting of ministers for interchanging presents for each of the treaties which had been concluded, had been objected to by him, and only one present interchanged in lieu of many. This was conduct for which he conceived the noble lord deserved credit, where he had the practice of other times to urge him to a contrary mode of proceeding. There were in the account some other items, of which, though the amount was comparatively small, he conceived the principle ought not to be agreed to. It was the practice of going to much expense for the royal personages who happened to visit this country. He was not averse from having every necessary attention paid to those illustrious strangers, but he conceived we were not bound to pay all their expenses whilst here; or if that principle was to be contended for, he would suggest, that those who were appointed to attend them in their tour should be a little more economical. He saw that the expenses of one of the grand dukes, whilst at an hotel in Edinburgh, was charged 100 l. a day. He could not conceive how such an expense was necessary. The next item to which he objected was, the expense of the royal yacht: 3,000 l. had been expended in repairs and ornaments for that alone—an expense which, in his opinion, could not be incurred unless there had been great prodigality. There was another item, to the principle of which he could not agree; he meant the sum of 3,000 l. as the expense of the Alien establishment. This establishment, and the act which gave rise to it, were disgrace to the statute-book, a disgrace from which he hoped; they would be redeemed in a short time.
Mr. Canningobserved, that the hon. baronet was right in saying that his noble friend had objected to the interchange of presents among the ministers, for each treaty which had been concluded; but he was not correct in mentioning that circumstance as having occurred at Aix-la-Chapelle. It was true that at Aix-la-Chapelle, there was only one present interchanged between the several ministers; but the circumstance to which the hon. baronet had so candidly alluded in respect to his noble friend, occurred at the congress of Vienna, where a resolution was proposed that presents should be given for each treaty, but this was objected to by his noble friend, and on his suggestion one present was interchanged for all the treaties; whereas, if, according to custom, they had interchanged one for the conclusion of each treaty, the number would have amounted to forty-five.
The original resolution was agreed to; after which, Mr. Hutchinson said, his object would at present be answered by having his resolution entered on the Journals. It would go against the precedent being established. He gave credit to the noble viscount for what he had heard, and had no intention of imputing any thing personally to him and to the practice which had prevailed.
The motion was then put, and negatived.

TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.
The Attorney Generalmoved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on this bill.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, the bill was called a bill for the abolition of trial by battle, but it went also to take away the right of appeal, with which, he conceived, it had nothing whatever to do, any more than with an indictment at common or statute law. In fact, the trial by battle might be considered as completely obsolete. The principle was—"cessante ratione cessat lex; "and he conceived that here, as well as in the cases of trial by ordeal, by fire and water, and by receiving the sacrament, and other cases where the judicia Dei were resorted to in the absence of other means of proof, the law had completely ceased, and might be considered as quite obsolete. These were, in fact all done away; and why should not the trial by battle be considered as done away also? He was aware of the objection which would be made to the appeal,
[1098
which he contended ought to be allowed in cases of murder—that it exposed persons to a second trial for the same offence. He was as much an enemy to a second trial generally as any man; but he conceived, that in the case of murder, the appeal ought to be allowed, because it went to check the illegal exercise of the power of the Crown in pardoning criminals. The trial by battle was only resorted to in cases where it was supposed all other mode of proof failed, and then the parties looked to the judicia Dei, or judgment of God. This was, in a great measure, the case in the instance of colonel Ramsay and lord Rae. The court to which the matter was referred, at which the earl-marshal presided, came to the determination of allowing the wager by battle, but it was only on the supposition that no other mode or proof remained. This was in itself an argument to show that the wager of battle was only a sort of ultimum remedium. He confessed that, looking to the present attempt at abolishing the right of appeal, and considering the quarter in which it originated, he could not (though he meant nothing personal whatever to the hon. and learned mover), view it without strong feelings of constitutional jealousy. It was, he conceived, a measure which went to increase the power of the Crown, inasmuch as it went to deprive the subject of an appeal against what might be an illegal and unjust extension of the power of the Crown in pardoning criminals in cases of murder. He was not objecting to the abolition of the second trial in most cases, or to the wager of battle; but he contended, that this right of the subject should not be done away with. In support of it he had some of the highest legal authorities. Lord Holt and Mr. Dunning had said, that it was one of the main pillars of the constitution; and the peers of the revolution, when they objected to the practice of trying any one of their body by commissions appointed by the king, soon afterwards passed a resolution, that this should not at all trench upon the right of appeal. He was also anxious that this right should, be preserved, from the instances which had occurred in the present reign, in which the most scandalous abuses had been made of the power of the Crown in the pardoning of murderers. The hon. and learned member for Knaresborough had said that the clamour on this subject had arisen from the writings of Junius on

1099
the case of the Kennedies. Here certainly was a case where the power of the Crown had been abused. These men had been found guilty of murder, and had been pardoned. The circumstance which led to their pardon was a proof of the force of his argument—that the power of the Crown was often abused in the pardon of criminals. The sister of these men was the mistress of the then lord Sandwich. If she had been honest, her brothers would, have been hanged; but because, she, was the mistress of a person, who had some political influence they were pardoned, after having been found guilty of a foul murder. The hon. baronet next alluded to the case of the man for the murder at Brentford, at the time, when Wilkes was candidate; and also to. the case of a young man, a gardener, who had murdered his master, an old man of eighty years, in both of which cases the criminals were pardoned. Here he conceived was an undue exercise of the assumed power of the Crown. He said, "an assumed power," because by stat. 2 of Edward 3rd the pardon of murderers was expressly prohibited, except in cases of self-defence. If it was absolutely necessary, at that time, to have this law of appeal, it was more so in the present day, when a sort of military government was resorted to; when soldiers were introduced on almost every occasion, instead; of the civil power; or in aid of it when such aid was unnecessary. He could not here omit to notice an anecdote of, then opinion of the noble lord to whom he had alluded: A crowd of persons had collected round a house in Holborn, where it was supposed a number of impressed men were, who had been kidnapped to be sent to America. Application was made for the aid of the military, and the matter was communicated to lord Holt. He asked the; officer who was sent to him, what he would do in case the crowd did not disperse. The answer was, "that he would give orders to fire upon them, for such were the instructions he had received. "Then, sir," replied lord Holt, "if you do, and either you or any of your soldiers should afterwards come before me, depend upon it you will be all hanged." The consequence of this admonition was, that the soldiers were not ordered out, but a party of the police were found sufficient to quell the riot. If lord Holt was in that day, with such opinions as he held upon the law of appeal,
[1100
so Jealous of the military power, how much weight ought not those opinions to have at the present moment, when the military system seemed, in many instances, to have superseded the? civil, and when barracks were erected in every part of the country. The law of appeal would, he conceived, be some protection, though perhaps a weak one, against the abuse of such a system. As to the argument that the law of appeal was inconsistent with that principle which went against two trials for the same offence, and that its abolition was connected with that of the wager of battle, he should only say, that no two objections could be more easily obviated. It would be only necessary to bring in a small bill to do away with the wager of battle, and to repeal so much of the statute of Hen 7th as allowed one trial for a particular offence, to be a plea in bar of a second trial for the same offence, leaving the appeal open in cases of murder. In order to have this matter fully discussed, he should move that the bill be recommitted, and he would afterwards move the amendments which were necessary. The hon. baronet then alluded to the case of "Ashford v. Thornton," which was so fully before the public a short time ago, and regretted that the appellant in that case had not common sense enough to pursue his appeal to the last; because then it would be seen whether the law was really considered one which ought to be acted upon or not—whether the chief-justice of the court of King's-bench would have, gone into Tothillfields to see two men beat each other first with cudgels, and afterwards with sand-bags for a whole day. He was sorry the law had not been brought to such a test, as he was convinced the result would be an argument, in favour of what he had asserted namely, that it was one which ought not to beaded upon.
The report was then ordered to be taken into further consideration, and on the motion "That the amendments be now read a second time," sir F. Burden moved, to leave out from the word, "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words, "That this bill be recommitted."
Mr. Serjeant Copleysaid, he understood the hon. baronet's object to be that of preserving the right of appeal, while he agreed in the propriety of; abolishing the trial by battle; but according to his own feelings upon the question, he would

1101
rather that the bill of his hon. and learned friend should be lost altogether, than that an attempt should be made to carry it into effect with the amendment proposed to be made—so objectionable in his view was the right of appeal. The hon. baronet had declared, that the trial by battle was obsolete: this was rather an extraordinary assertion, when it happened so very lately, that it was insisted on in the court of King's-bench, and when the hon. baronet must have known that it never was suggested by the judge or by the counsel upon either side in the course of such proceeding, that the trial by battle was not the law of the land. If the court of King's bench was placed in a ridiculous light by the proceeding, it furnished an additional argument in favour of the bill; for every thing which had a tendency to bring the laws of the country into contempt and disrepute, ought certainly for that reason to be removed. The hon. baronet had cited the authority of lord Holt in support of that law, and certainly a more enlightened man could not be mentioned as a lawyer; but the hon. baronet had omitted to mention, that this opinion of lord Holt's was one on a party question. The hon. baronet should have recollected, that the whole of the authority in this respect did not equally bear him out. There were other authorities which the hon. baronet might have found in the same place where he had discovered this opinion of lord Holt's, and which in fairness he should not have omitted; one was that of lord chief justice Treby, a man as enlightened on the subject as any other who could be named. Yet this lawyer had given his opinion quite in opposition to that which the hon. baronet had mentioned. Another authority was that of as eminent a statesman as any which he could name—a man who had been one of the brightest ornaments of that House—he meant Mr. Fox. That eminent statesman had strongly objected to the law of appeal; but he supposed his was an authority to which the hon. baronet would not be ready to bow. He had expressed himself in favour of the power of the Crown to pardon; he had shown that it was a power held for the benefit of the people, and that they had a claim upon it; but perhaps the hon. baronet had no respect for such authority. Passing that subject, however, he should come to another part of the hon. baronet's speech. The hon. baronet had maintained that the Crown had no
[1102
right to pardon for murder, and that the right was abolished by statute. In that he begged leave to differ from him entirely. The very book which he had cited, and the very judge on whose opinion he so much relied, would have informed him other wise. It was difficult to suppose what he could be thinking of when he talked of the common law; according to his description, it was a creature of his own,' and was not to be found in the practice of the country. His whole argument was in fact assumption. The Crown had the prerogative; it might, indeed, like other' prerogatives, be abused; but it was necessary to the ends of justice itself that such a prerogative should exist somewhere. It was now vested in the Crown, and exercised by responsible ministers. If taken from the Crown, where would the hon. baronet have it placed? Was there any civilized country in the world which did not entrust such a power to some public body, and was it not essential to liberty that it should be so entrusted. Suppose it was discovered after condemnation that the party was not guilty, should there not be a power of this kind to appeal to? And if there should, was not the analogy of the other prerogatives in favour of vesting it in the king? But what would the hon. baronet propose to do? He would place it in the hands of a private individual a relation to the party, whose motive was revenge, and who might be farther stimulated by factious views to prosecute. Such was the system which the hon. baronet had eulogized. In the case of the Kennedys, which he would not attempt to justify, for he agreed with the judge in thinking that it was a foul, an atrocious murder, the widow appealed, and the proceedings were commenced in the courts. Lord Ashburton, who was engaged in behalf of the prisoners, recommended a compromise, which the widow refused to accept. "Count out the money, 500 guineas," said lord Ashburton, then Mr. Dunning, "before her, throw them into her lap, and try whether she will refuse you." The sight of the gold was too powerful, the widow yielded, and the appeal was unsuccessful. This was the system' eulogized by the hon. baronet. But if the hon. baronet was favourable to this system, he ought to have stated how much it was limited at present. If them ordered person left a widow, and she did not appeal, no appeal could be made by any other person. The same was the case if
§

1103
she had married again. If only a daughter survived, no appeal could be made. But there were other objections to the system. When a party was prosecuted for a criminal offence, it was necessary that he should be charged upon oath, and a grand jury must find a bill before he could be put upon his trial; but, in a case of appeal, it was only necessary for the appellant to make affidavit that he believed the party to be guilty. The party was then put upon his trial, without the verdict of a grand jury, or any intervening step. Yet, such was the system which the hon. baronet, an avowed friend to the liberty of the subject, and a declared enemy to all oppression, felt himself called upon to sanction and applaud. The hon. baronet had directed his attention to the; law by which peers were tried; bat if a peer, charged with murder was acquitted by his peers, an appeal might be made against him as the law now stood, and on such appeal he must be brought to trial before a common jury for the offence. He was sure it would be unnecessary for him to enter into any farther detail, in order to show that the amendments contemplated by the hon. baronet ought not to be carried into effect.
Sir F. Burdettinsisted that there were statutes which took away the right of pardoning murder from the Crown, except in the cases he had already specified. He admitted, that if the person was found to be innocent, there ought to be a power to save him vested in the Crown; but that was not pardoning murder; it was preventing the execution of innocence. Though the right of appeal, in its present form, might be liable to many abjections, those objections were susceptible of remedy, and as it constituted come check of advantage to the subject, he could not consent to part with it, merely because there were disadvantages annexed.
Mr. C. Tennysonsaid, that there was an objection to a part of this bill, which he wished to present to the consideration of the House and of the hon. and learned gentleman with whom it originated. The bill went to prohibit wager of battle not only in writs of right hereafter sued out, but in those now depending. The objection was, that as far as concerned any writs now depending, this prohibition was ex post facto in its nature. If any practical and impending mischief were to be avoided, or any great end of public security to be an-
[1104
swered, parliament had sometimes tolerated such a mode of enactment. Bills of attainder and of pains and penalties, were instances, but they were such as be trusted would never recur. Some few other instances, indeed, might be mentioned but none he believed in which, without an ex post facto enactment some actual mischief would not have inevitably occurred, and thus it had: been supposed to be justified by the necessity of the case. However that, might be, it was well known that in writs of right, battle was never practically waged in modem times. It was two hundred and fifty years since such a result had ensued, and if the law continued as it was a thousand years longer, it would not probably ensue again. He would therefore put it to the House and to the hon. and learned attorney-general, whether this was a case in which a fundamental principle of legislation should be sacrificed. The law had stood as it now was ever since the coming in of the Normans, and he would suggest that it would be better to continue its application to the actually defending cases, if indeed there were any, than establish a precedent of the most objectionable and dangerous tendency.
The Attorney Generaljustified the clause as absolutely necessary. If in the case of Ashford v. Thornton, the appellant had persevered in the trial, by battle, he had no doubt the legislature would have felt it to be their imperious duty at once to have interfered, and to have passed an ex post facto law for preventing so degrading a spectacle taking place, especially as one of the parties must wage battle till death ensued. He was not aware that there was any writ now pending, but it was absolutely necessary, whether that was the case or not, he thought he could not discharge his public duty by omitting a clause to prevent this from being the case. He should be sorry to see the proposition of the hon. baronet established, namely, that the king had no power to grant mercy in cases of murder, because it was absolutely necessary that such power should be vested somewhere; and as his hon. and learned friend had justly observed, that power could be vested no where owe properly than in the head of the government. By the common law that power was vested in the king, and he did not think there was a single statute which took away that power from him. He conceived there was a mistaken, idea of the statute which

1105
the hon. baronet had quoted, and that it had no such meaning as that the king had no power to pardon murderers.
Sir F. Burdettobserved, that he had not referred to the statute of Gloucester.
The Attorney Generaladded, that if the hon. baronet had not alluded to that statute, he must confess his total ignorance of any other taking away the power of the Crown to pardon; he believed—he was sure it did not exist.
Sir F. Burdettread the words of the statute 2nd Edw. 3rd, c. 2, which expressly provided that the king shall only grant pardons "in cases where the king may do it by his oath.'
Mr. Serjeant Copleysaid, that the hon. baronet had declared himself not satisfied as to the law of trial by battle not being obsolete. In reply to that, he would merely state, that the very case of Ash-ford and Thornton showed that it was not obsolete. There the appellce having thrown down his glove, and challenged a trial by battle, one of the counsel declared it to be his opinion, that such a proceeding was obsolete. The late lord chief justice Ellenborough immediately replied, that he could not see how that was the case, the act having never been repealed, and therefore was still a part of the law of the land.
The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of tile question," the House divided: Ayes, 66: Noes, 4.

NETHERLANDS SLAVE TRADE BILL— SIERRA LEONE.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Marryatsaid:—Mr. Speaker; before this bill passes through its last stage, I cannot but express my concern, that all the beneficial results expected from it, and from the conventions between this country and the other powers of Europe, to which this and similar bills are intended to give effect, are likely to be frustrated, by the choice of Sierra Leone as the place of residence of the commissary judges and the commissioners of arbitration. The total unfitness of Sierra Leone as the place of adjudication for captured Negroes, has been so strongly stated by that gallant and lamented officer, the late sir James Lucas Yeo, in his official dispatches to the lords of the Admiralty, that I shall give it in his own words: "Another great objection to Sierra Leone, arises from its being at Such a distance directly to the windward of where
[1106
the slave vessels are captured, which is generally in the right of Benin, and Beaffra; the vessels are always crowded and sickly, and the mortality in making the passage, exceeds one-tenth: added to this, the climate is detestable, the rain commencing the end of April, and continuing to the middle of October: it proves the grave of most Europeans who go there, and even those who escape the grave, linger out a painful and miserable existence." He then points out the superior advantages of the Gold Coast, as a settlement for captured Negroes and in a subsequent passage repeats, that "Sierra Leone is in every respect the most unfit, and worst situation on the whole Coast." If any confirmation of this authority were wanting, I might state that 240 white troops of the York rangers, were sent there in 1815; and that in the spring of the following year only 14 or 15 of them were alive and doing duty, the rest being either actually dead, or dying in the hospital. I have had occasion to send out two of three monitions from the court of Admiralty, to be served in Sierra Leone; and in none of these cases, did the parties to whom they were addressed live to receive them, but they fell into the hands of their executors, administrators, or assigns. The impression produced by the fatal effects of the climate of Sierra Leone, was strongly illustrated by the declaration lately made by the king's advocate in this House, that a delay of more than twelve months in carrying these conventions into effect had been occasioned by the impossibility of finding any person who would accept the appointment of commissary judge there; even with a salary of 3,000 l. per annum, although the appointments at the other stations, (the Brazils, and the Havannah), with half that salary, were objects of great competition. I wish the House seriously to consider the consequences of sending the captured slave ships to Sierra Leone for adjudication. The Bann sloop of war, according to the dispatch of sir James Lucas Yeo, wad five weeks beating up there from the Gold Coast, and the Brisk sloop of war, was ten weeks making the passage from Cape Formosa. In the crowded state of slave ships, the mortality on board them must of course be dreadful; and would be almost wholly avoided, by their being seat to Cape Coast Castle, where they might run down in fewer days, than it requires weeks to beat up to Sierra Leone. But, Sir,

1107
dreadful as this waste of human life is, the mischiefs of the present arrangement do not end here. A great mortality must also be expected to take place among the commissary judges, and commissioners of arbitration, who are to be appointed by the different powers with whom we have made conventions, as well as by our own government, to reside at Sierra Leone. The act of parliament passed last year to carry these conventions into effect, and the conventions themselves, recite, that when a slave-trading vessel is Brought in, the two commissary judges appointed by Great Britain and by the power to which the vessel belongs, shall take the depositions of the master and Crew, and in case they do not agree whether the vessel is subject to confiscation, they shall call in one of the commissioners of arbitration to be chosen by lot from the two commissioners, nominated by the same powers; and that the decision of the majority of the three judges and commissioners so chosen, shall be final. This arrangement proceeds upon the presumption, that all the judges and commissioners will at all times be alive, and able to perform the duties of their office. I am aware that, in case of the death of those appointed by Great Britain, the governor of Sierra Leone has power to nominate others; but in case of the death of those appointed by the power to whose subjects the captured vessel belongs, no person at Sierra Leone has such an authority, and no such tribunal as the conventions require can possibly be constituted. To this state of things, what is to be done? Are the captured Negroes to remain on board, till new judges and commissioners are appointed in Europe, and arrive at Sierra Leone?—Or is the vessel to proceed with them to some of the other stations where the judges and commissioners reside? In either case the mortality among them must be dreadfully aggravated, and this will perpetually be the calamitous consequence of sending these unfortunate creatures to Sierra Leone for adjudication. On looking over the papers relative to the Slave Trade, that were lately printed by order of the House, I am not however surprised at the determination of the allied sovereigns upon this point, for I find among them a string of answers to questions put by the noble lord on the Treasury bench, which were laid before the assembled sovereigns at Aix-la-Chapelle, and which recommend
[1108
Sierra Leone in the strongest manner. One of these answers maintains that, "Sierra Leone and its immediate neighbourhood, may be considered as the only part of the African coast, where plans of improvement can be pursued, without encountering the malignant influence of the slave trade;" but another answer shows that the slave trade rages all around Sierra Leone; for it states, that the coasting trade in the vicinity of that settlement can no longer be carried on, because, the slave trade has increased to such an extent, "that the slave traders who frequent the part of the coast near Sierra Leone, destroy every vessel they meet;" and a letter signed by Mr. Zachary Macaulay states, that the missionaries beyond the precincts of Sierra Leone have been obliged to abandon the exercise of their functions; "so great is the demoralizing effect of the slave trade, and so inveterate the evil habits which it generates.". Facts show, in opposition to these answers, that attempts for the civilization of Africa made from Sierra Leone fail, while those made from other quarters succeed. An expedition to explore the interior of Africa, proceeded from Sierra Leone near three years ago, under the direction of major Peddie. He and most of the officers with him died; the command was afterwards taken by captain Campbell, who shared the same fate; neither of them being able, from various obstacles, to penetrate far into the interior. A third attempt has lately been made by major Gray, and the last accounts of him, according to the public papers, are, that he had lost most of the white people who accompanied him, most of his beasts of burthen was in great distress for want of provisions, unable to continue his intended route through the territories of some hostile chief, and had written to the French governor, at Goree for assistance. An, expedition was also fitted out last year, from Cape Coast Castle, to the dominions of the king of Ashantee; which perfectly succeeded. The deputies matte a treaty with him, which promises the happiest results; and have fixed a permanent resident at his capital. So encouraging is the opening thus made to the interior of Africa, that in order to follow it up with effect, his majesty's government have lately sent out Mr. Dupuis, who resided many years as British consul at Mogadore, and is well acquainted with the Moorish language, to proceed Train Cape Coast

1109
Castle on another mission; and we shall probably obtain more real knowledge of the internal state of Africa from that quarter in the course of two years, than has been obtained for a century past: while from Sierra Leone, we obtain none Whatever. In another of these answers, we are told that Sierra Leone presents the gratifying spectacle "of a community of black men, living as freemen, maintaining themselves by the ordinary pursuits of agriculture, commerce, or some mechanical art;" but, unfortunately for the veracity of this statement, within a few days after it was printed, some papers respecting the deficiencies of the civil list were also laid before the House, in which appeared among other items, bills to the amount of more than 30,000 l. drawn from Sierra Leone, for the maintenance of those very captured negroes who are said to maintain themselves. Not to detain the House with more comments upon these answers, I shall only state that I have seldom met with more misrepresentations, fallacies, and falsehoods, within the same compass than they contain; and it does seem extraordinary that they should be received and acted upon as official documents, at the conferences at Aix-la-Chapelle, without being authenticated by the signature of any individual, but described merely as answers from the African Society in London, and from Sierra Leone: who the African society are, I know not. We have indeed an African Company; but these certainly are not their answers; for I understand they gave answers of a very different nature, and which were not laid before the plenipotentiaries at Aix-la-Chapelle. We have also an African institution, who may perhaps now be denominated a society; but I do think that some persons should have made themselves responsible for the truth and correctness of these answers, which have been permitted, in this anonymous Character, to influence the minds of the assembled ministers and sovereigns of Europe. I can allow for the partiality which gentlemen who have long taken an interest in Sierra Leone may feel for their own favorite bantling; and for their wish to nurse it up into that maturity and consequence which it never can attain; but this partiality ought not to be indulged at the risk of sacrificing those laudable and important objects, which the bill now before the House, and the convention on which it is founded, are intended to ac-
[1110
complish. I hope, therefore, to hear from the noble lord either a contradiction of the objections I have stated, on the authority of sir James Lucas Yeo, to making Sierra Leone the destination of the captured negroes, and the place of residence of the commissary judges, and the commissioners of arbitration; or an assurance that he has it in contemplation to remove them all to some other situation, more eligible both in point of geographical position, and salubrity of climate.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that in settling an establishment on the coast of. Africa, for the adjudication of captured slave ships or the civilization of negroes, government had, in fact, no option. They were obliged to take Sierra Leone—no other suitable place being found. Cape Coast Castle and other places, which had been mentioned, were fully inquired about, and it was ascertained that none of these places could be fixed upon for the establishment alluded to by the hon. member, with safety to the object in view, to the protection of the negroes, in consequence of their defenceless condition, and their contiguity to the populous districts of Africa. Hence the establishment was made at Sierra Leone, the internal organization and general circumstances of which were, he was happy to, say, very materially improved of late, years. The noble lord concluded with assuring the hon. member that government had not come to a determination upon this subject without duly considering the letters of sir James Yeo, to which the hon. gentleman had referred, as well as; every other information that it was practicable to obtain, and that had any bearing upon the case.
The bill was read a third time, and passed.