Lords Sitting of 7 March 1825

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
The Bishop of Exeterpresented a petition from the clergy of the diocese of Exeter, against the Roman Catholic Claims. The petition strongly censured the violent language used by the Catholic Association, and deprecated the repeal of laws which formed the security of the church and state.
Lord Kingobserved, that their lordships had now before them one more petition from the clergy, against granting the enjoyment of civil rights to their fellow-countrymen, to the Roman Catholics. How far these reverend gentlemen ought thus to meddle with politics he should not now discuss; but they always appeared eager to take part in them. He was informed that there was a city which had a right reverend mayor, and in which there were very reverend aldermen and well-beneficed burgesses. As these reverend gentlemen bestirred themselves, so much to find fault where they had no business, he thought it would be but right to bring them back from where they had gone to where they ought to be.
The Bishop of Exeterdid not under, stand on what ground it was pretended that the clergy should not be allowed the right of petitioning as well as any other class of his majesty's, subjects. Why

937
should they not be allowed to approach that House, when they addressed it in modest and humble petitions? With respect to the clergymen to whom the noble lord had alluded, as holding magisterial offices, that was a circumstance which nobody more regretted than be did, Such cases did exist in his diocese; but it was not in his power to prevent them.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, it was remarkable, that no petition had been presented in favour of the bill except such as had come from the clergy; but he would seriously advise those reverend persons to consider well, whether at the present moment there was greater danger from granting than withholding the Catholic claims. He wished they would read what Mr. Burke, the highest authority on this subject, had said. They would then see that it was now too late to oppose the religious liberty of the Catholics. Here the noble lord read a passage from Mr. Burke, showing, that the Roman Catholics already possessed religious liberty, and that the only remaining question was one of civil and political rights.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that a noble lord had quoted a passage from Burke. He would, in return, recommend the noble lord to read the last words of lord Russell. He was sorry he had not brought them down in his pocket.*
Ordered to lie on the table.

SPRING-GUNS.
Lord Suffield Lord Suffield moved the order of the day for the Committee on the bill to make the setting of Spring-Guns for the protection of Game illegal.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought the principle on which the bill was brought in if rightly followed up, would apply to enclosures of all descriptions. If spring-guns were not to be employed for the preservation of game, he could not see why they should be allowed to be set for the protection of roses and apples. He would object to the hill, unless it was extended to all other property as well as to game. With regard to accidents by spring-guns, he believed very few oc-
*"I wish all sincere Protestants may love one another, and not make way for Popery by their animosities. I pray God continue the Protestant religion amongst them, that it may flourish so long as the Sun and Moon endure." Howell's State. Trials, Vol. ix. p. 683.
938
curred; and, from all he had heard and observed on the subject, he was inclined to think, that the two cases alluded to the other day by the noble lord who introduced this bill, were the only cases of the kind which could be adduced. The effect of setting spring-guns had been the prevention of poaching, and not the endangering of human life.
Lord Suffieldreminded their lordships, that he had already signified that he had no objection to the introduction of a clause to allow the setting of spring-guns for the protection of property, which it would be felony to invade; but as no such an amendment could be made, except in the committee, he thought it hard that the motion for going into the committee should be opposed. With regard to the number of accidents occasioned by spring-guns, he could assure the noble duke that he was labouring under a great mistake, when he supposed them to be few. He had alluded only to two cases, because they were more immediately within his recollection. One of them in particular was strongly impressed upon his mind by the horror of the circumstances. If this objection continued to be pressed against the bill, he should feel himself called upon to go into details, the recital of which, however, he wished to be spared. As to the principle laid down by the noble duke, he entirely concurred with it. He saw no more reason for protecting cabbages by spring-guns than pheasants. He respected pheasants as well as cabbages, and wished to see them placed on an equal footing.
The Earl of Liverpoolconcurred in the principle laid down by his noble friend, that in consistency the bill should apply to other property as well as game. He was himself for carrying that principle to its fullest extent. That a man should be allowed to buy a trap to shoot another, in a case in which he could not directly shoot him, was something extremely preposterous. There was another circumstance in which the state of the law was extremely absurd. If a man went into a garden, and took away a basket full of fruit, he was guilty of felony; but if he went over a wall, and took the fruit from the trees, he was then only guilty of a trespass. Now, there was a great number of fruit-gardens in the neighbourhood of London which would be exposed to depredation, if it were not for the terror of spring-guns. The state of the law re-

939
specting trespassing on enclosed grounds ought to be amended.
The Earl of Westmorlandwas for the bill, and would carry the principle to the fullest extent. He would not only exclude spring-guns from enclosed grounds, but even from locked-up places; because innocent persons, attempting to enter in consequence of the key being lost, or from any other cause, might meet with serious accidents. It was not fit that any person living under a well-regulated government, should have the power of setting an engine for the destruction of human life. If the principle of the bill were made to apply generally, it should have his fullest support.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that if the alteration proposed by the noble duke was carried in to effect, nobody in the neighbourhood of London would be able to preserve any fruit. The fear of spring-guns, where they were not actually set, but where a board stated them to be, prevented depredations. But this bill, if carried to the length proposed, would take away the fear. There was a great difference between going into open grounds, and climbing over a wall or entering a hot-house.
The Lord Chancelloracknowledged the inconsistency and uncertainty of the law with respect to spring-guns. On every occasion on which any question on this subject had come before the courts, the judges, he believed, had been about equally divided. To those who considered the state of the law on this and some other subjects, that maxim which declared it to be "the perfection of human reason" appeared absurd. It certainly was not the perfection of human reason which made it only trespass to take from a tree a pear, and which made the taking the same pear, when separated from the tree, felony. It was his wish, that property should be protected; but he should be sorry to be thought the advocate for spring-guns. There had been no occasion for those engines in former times; but now, when every plantation was turned into a poultry-yard, protection of this kind was thought necessary. A sportsman was now thought nothing of, unless he could kill his thousand birds a-day. But, such a thing had never been heard of in the days of his youth. There were no pheasants in those days, or at least very few, in that part of the country from which he came: some were kept for show, and some were to be found at the seat of the ancestor of the
940
present lord Ravensworth. Now that so many plantations had been made, and so well stocked with pheasants, how could their lordships expect that people who had a taste for game—and he never knew an Englishman who had not—would not go and look for it where it was to be found?—Poaching was the consequence of game being preserved and protected. He, for one, never could defend the practice of setting engines to endanger the life of a fellow-creature for the sake of a partridge or a pheasant.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that his noble and learned friend had touched the true source of all the evils. There was no greater grievance under which the people of this country laboured than the game laws. There was no example of such another system of laws in any other country. The noble and learned lord had said that, in former times, he had never heard of the preservation of game. Whether of modern or ancient date, it was one of the greatest grievances under which the people of this country suffered. The game laws had filled our gaols with criminals; increased the number of crimes; and added to their atrocity. The state had created a new species of property to the amount of 800,000,000 l, and all those who enjoyed this species of property, were deprived of the right of doing as every Englishman was fond of doing. No owner of this species of property had a right to kill a head of game. In proportion as our debt had increased, so had the temptation to procure game unlawfully increased; and, in the same proportion, had the law been strained to prevent it. The game laws was an evil preying on the vitals of the poorer classes of the people; and if his noble and learned friend could contrive some means of remedying it, he would confer an essential service on the country.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he was for legalizing the sale of game, and thought, if the country gentlemen gave up their strong hold on that point, they would relieve themselves from a great deal of obloquy to which they were at present exposed. It would be beneficial to the country to have a law enacted on the subject, which was really meant to be executed. Such he hoped the law would be which was coming from the other House. It ought to be made a law really capable of defending game.
The Earl of Limerickwas in favour of

941
an alteration of the game laws, but was surprised to hear what had fallen from the noble earl, when he recollected what had formerly passed in that House, relative to the sale of game.
The Earl of Carnarvonexplained, that on that occasion he had had on his side the vote of the learned lord on the woolsack, who was, like himself, of opinion, that if the seller was to be held criminal, the purchaser ought to be made equally criminal.
The Earl of Darnley,alluding to the subject of spring-guns, threw out as a suggestion, that the legality of setting them should be confined to walled grounds.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that the ground of the opposition to the bill which had been alluded to was, that noble lords who lived at a distance from their estates, wished to have the opportunity of purchasing game.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that the real ground was, a dislike that the same punishment should apply to the rich as well as to the poor. The punishment of the pillory was then in existence, and to that punishment the purchaser might have been liable as well as the seller.
Earl Grosvenor, from what had passed, and especially what had been said by the noble lord on the wool-sack, was inclined to hope that the bill coming from the other House, on the sale of game, would experience a better reception than the bill of last year. The property of the gardeners in the neighbourhood of the metropolis ought to be protected, because the fruit which they reared was all the property of those poor people. The case was very different with respect to hares and partridges. He would support the bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that with regard to extending the principle of the bill to enclosed grounds, a great deal of difficulty arose from the distinction which the law made between trespass and theft; between the act of pulling a tree out of the ground, and taking away a tree which had been previously pulled. A similar distinction was made with respect to the rivers in which salmon were caught. The law had decided, that as salmon were feræ naturæ, the taking them out of the river was only a trespass. He remembered a case of a man who had been prosecuted for stealing salmon out of a river, and acquitted by the jury, on the ground that
942
his offence only amounted to a trespass. A person, however, caught a salmon, and marked it by inserting a twig through its snout. This salmon was put into the river, and being stolen by the same man, he was tried and found guilty, because the salmon was no longer feræ naturæ, but property. The man, if then living, was in Botany Bay, expiating his offence.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that as it seemed to be the general sense of the House, that the clauses of the bill should be considered in a committee, he moved that it be committed pro formâ.
The House accordingly resolved itself into a committee. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Monday.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he was by no means an advocate for the continuance of the Catholic Association; but, at the same time, he did not wish that it should be put down by a measure imposing new restrictions on the liberty of the subject. He said this, not because the Association had heretofore done harm, but because their future conduct might be calculated to prejudice their cause; and therefore he hoped it would dissolve itself. He felt no regret that it had existed. On the contrary, he considered it matter of congratulation. It had made both Catholics and Protestants think seriously of the evils arising from the existing laws: and it had produced a stronger disposition in the minds of both parties to make mutual sacrifices of their prejudices in order to set their differences at rest, for the attainment of a great national advantage. It was said, that the Association attributed the present tranquillity of Ireland to their exertions. Undoubtedly, they had done some good; but, whatever might have been the effect of their conduct, he considered them as most harshly dealt with. In the first place, they had been condemned unheard. It was said, that they had perverted the course of justice. Was there any proof of that? Certain magistrates might feel themselves uneasy under the eye of a Catholic barrister; and a certain class of persons might entertain strong fears of being prosecuted: but these were not reasons for putting down the Association. He was satisfied that some practical benefit had arisen from

943
the feeling which it imparted to the poorest man in the country, and whatever injuries he might sustain, there existed for him the legal means of protection. He did not see why it was to be inferred, because they had used their power in doing good, that they therefore meant to misapply it by doing evil. He thought that the: expectation of a great benefit now held out to them by the other House of parliament, might have the effect of dissolving the Association; but, if that measure had not passed, he could not have expected it. It had been said that the Catholics, when they obtained what they asked for, would then ask for more. In reply to this he would say, that he should never dread the Catholics, while they asked for what it would be unjust to give them. What he dreaded was, that they should continue to ask, and their lordships to refuse, those rights which it was unjust to keep from them. It was impossible to disprove the fact, that the more Ireland was improved, and the better the condition of the Catholics became in other respects, the deeper would be their dissatisfaction at the continuation of those laws by which they were at present oppressed. There were two measures in particular, which would be productive of the greatest advantage to the country; one of them was a provision for the Catholic clergy, and the other an alteration in the qualification of freeholders; yet no man in his senses would venture to propose those measures while the present laws existed. He trusted that the Association would be induced, by the hopes which were now held out to the Catholics, to pronounce its own dissolution. He trusted that those hopes would not be again disappointed; and that the noble earl would pause before he told six-millions of people, who were now closely united for a just purpose, that their eternal portion was despair.
Lord Calthorpecontended, that the House had disqualified itself, by its past conduct towards the Catholics, from inflicting a measure of this description upon them. There were some of the acts of the Association of which he did not approve; but, even supposing the wish to annihilate it to have been produced by its own conduct, he thought there was much less danger to be apprehended from the conduct of the Association than from parliament continuing to act towards the Catholics in that spirit which had given
944
rise to that Association. He preferred soothing and conciliatory measures to those which were in their operation vexatious and oppressive. None of the noble lords opposite could hold the Catholic religion, as a system of faith, in stronger dislike than he did; but all the arguments by which their claims were opposed were grounded on the assumption, that the Catholic religion was now, and would be in future, what it had been in those times when it was filled with slavish doctrines and prejudices, which were fostered by the corruption and ignorance of the age. He would certainly object to Catholic priests having seats in either House of parliament; but he was convinced that the best antidote that could be ministered to the injurious effects of the tends of that faith, would be to grant the laity an equal participation in the honours and the privileges of the Constitution. He thought that the recent proceedings in parliament against the Catholics afforded them just ground of increased dissatisfaction and irritation, and that the liberal policy lately adopted by the legislature in other respects was calculated to throw a darker shade upon the system pursued towards them. Their lordships had been instrumental, more than once, in intercepting measures of grace towards the Catholics in their progress towards the throne. In so doing, had their lordships been influenced by the conduct of the Catholics? If they had, surely the unequivocal testimony which had been borne to the good conduct of the English Catholics ought to have operated in their favour. It seemed that their conduct was only to be regarded when it furnished an argument against them; but, when it was unobjectionable, it was overlooked. He trusted that noble lords would not support a measure like this, because they had formerly supported measures which had produced those very consequences of which they now complained.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that though he was favourable to the bill, he never' could give it his consent upon such grounds as the noble lord had just stated. No principle was less capable of being defended in that House than that it would be right to pass the bill, because those whom it was to affect professed the same religion with persons who had done wrong before. But he would go further, and say, that he would not support' this bill if

945
it was to be taken as a pledge of what he was to do afterwards, in respect to another measure with which it had no connexion. Upon that measure he would act as he had always acted. He would consult his conscience, and do what he considered best to be done. What he might now do, or what he might have done before, should have no binding obligation on his mind, as to what he should do when the question to which the noble lord had alluded should come under the notice of the House. But this much he would say, that, having devoted many serious moments to that question for the last thirty years, he did not yet see any thing to induce him to think that his former opinion was wrong. At the same time, he should keep himself perfectly free to act as his conscience might subsequently dictate; when the period was arrived he would do his duty. He did not vote for the bill, in consequence of the past conduct of the Catholics, but because the principle on which the Association was founded was dangerous and unconstitutional.
Lord Dudley and Wardsaid, he rose with considerable reluctance, in consequence of ins general views upon the question, to support a measure directed against the Catholic Association, whose conduct, however reprehensible in itself, was easily to be accounted for, by the painful and trying circumstances in which they were placed. It was for their lordships to consider what might be their own conduct under an order of things which should place them in a similar situation—not for any crime they had committed, nor as the authors of any dangerous innovation; but because they had adhered to the religion of their ancestors, and had not received that great light which, after the darkness of a thousand years, had broken forth on the christian world. If any one of their lordships thought that, under such circumstances, he ought not to feel any irritation or discontent, but that he should bow with submission and kiss the rod, that noble lord, undoubtedly, might vote for this measure without regret. But in his view, who thought that the Catholic question ought to pass as soon as possible, and that the Catholics were placed in a situation most trying to their loyalty, he was not disposed to scan their faults too nicely, and felt that some indulgence ought to be extended towards them. But then, there was a certain point where indulgence
946
must stop—when danger began to appear; and it must be admitted that this Association had assumed a dangerous aspect. It set up a government against the government, a parliament against the parliament, and a revenue against the revenue. He did not mean to say that there was rebellion in its acts, but there was rebellion in its tendency. It was the machinery of a rebellion, for the time when the occasion might arrive. The government that would be intimidated by them would deserve to be overturned. Those who were at the head of this Association appeared to be able and intrepid men, and they might, perhaps, hate parliament for doing their duty; but, it was better that they should do that, than be taught to despise them for neglecting it. It became their lordships, without any regard to consequences, to pursue the course which duty dictated. This Association was founded on political principles of the most mischievous description, and was capable, at any moment, of forming dangerous and extensive connections. They assembled for the evident —indeed, the almost avowed purpose—of compelling the government to act as they dictated. An institution of this sort, which was established, not for any ordinary political purpose, nor for any great moral object, ought to be watched with a jealous eye. It was because he was the sincere friend of Catholic emancipation, that he wished the Association to be effectually put down. There were two ways by which the Roman Catholics might endeavour to attain their ends—the one by resorting to force, the other by adopting the language of persuasion. If force were hinted at, he should be surprised if the Protestant peers of that House did not resist any such proceeding; if persuasion were adopted, he thought the representations of the Catholic body ought to be seriously attended to; but he certainly wished that the Catholic Association should be put down —that the very name and recollection of that body should be abolished. So long as it existed, it would be cited as a specious plea against carrying the great measure of emancipation. He wished to see the Roman Catholics in possession of perfect political freedom; but he did not think it right that they should have a sort of government of their own, and political heads of their own. The Roman Catholics always had, and always, should have, his voice in favour of their claims; but he trusted they would not adhere to

947
a line of conduct, which was not agreeable to the spirit of the British constitution, nor, indeed compatible with the spirit of any free government [hear].
The Earl of Rodensaid, that he, as well as many of his friends, could bear witness to the violent proceedings of the Catholic Association during the last twelvemonths. They had erected an imperium in imperio, and lorded it over the whole Catholic population of every part of the country. Could any thing be more objectionable than their levying a tax on the people?— He said "levying a tax," because, however it might be said, that the sums collected were voluntary offerings, he believed that, in many instances, the money was taken from individuals who were unwilling to subscribe; and not only that, but from persons who actually disapproved of the measures of the Catholic Association. The noble viscount who moved, and the noble lord who seconded, the address, on the first day of the session, had very justly described the mischiefs which were to be apprehended from this Association. Those noble lords must have known, as he himself well knew, the fever which the Association had excited throughout Ireland amongst the Catholics and Protestants during the last year. That body had been the means of fomenting jealousies, misunderstandings, and angry feelings between them; and therefore it was fitting, that such an instrument of mischief should not be suffered to exist. He knew of no good that it had effected, and he was quite sure that if it were suffered to go on, it would produce the most baneful effects. True it was, that the Association had put forth addresses, cautioning the people against becoming Ribbonmen, and imploring them to remain in a state of tranquillity; but, lest the people should take their advice, they, in the same breath, reminded them of "the hatred they bore to Orangemen." It was impressed upon their minds, too, that they were slaves— degraded and disgraced persons, to whom no meed of justice was extended. The Catholic population certainly suffered under the disabilities of the penal code, yet he would venture to say, that there were no peasantry in the world more free, or who would more rejoice in a participation in the blessings of the constitution, or be more anxious to acknowledge the boons they had received from parliament during the last two or three years, if they were permitted to do so, by those per-
948
sons who assumed an undue authority over them. He was anxious to support the best interests of his country; and he spoke the honest conviction of his mind, when he declared that, in his opinion, this Association ought to be put down. He would not attempt to inquire what were the specific objects of the Association? And he would rather, if possible, think that much which they had done, and much which they had spoken, arose from irritation of feeling, ardency of mind, and from that warmth which mixed itself up with debate. But he would say, that, whatever their objects were, the evils which arose out of their proceedings were precisely the same. The ill effects produced by their speeches and manifestoes, on those who heard and read them, were just the same. A noble lord had told them; that if the Association were left alone, it would sink into nothing. It had been left alone; and, what was the consequence? Why, it had gone on increasing in numbers, and consequently in the power of doing mischief. He was glad that the present bill had been introduced; because it afforded the means of putting down all political societies—whether Orange societies, or Catholic societies. But, when he coupled them together, he must take the liberty to say, that they were very different in their nature and object. He thought, however, the time had gone by when Orange societies ought to exist; and he wished to see all political associations, be they what they might, put down, as well as all those annual processions which grew out of them. Whether the bill would completely effect this object, he could not say. With regard to the Orange societies, he thought it would; and with regard to Catholic societies, he was sure, if the people listened to the advice of those respectable noblemen, whom no person could mention without praise—lords Fingall, Gormanstown, Killeen, and others—the measure, with reference to them also, would produce the contemplated effect. As to the agitators of Ireland—that body which had excited so much angry feeling—of them he would say,
"Hi motus animorum atque hæc certamina tanta,
Pulveris exigui jactu, compressa quiescent."
The Earl of Darnleycontended, that the Catholics of Ireland were justified in using the best means within their power for the restoration of their civil rights. The noble earl had spoken in flattering terms of the situation of the peasantry of

949
Ireland. Did he really mean to state that the peasantry of Ireland were in so enviable a state, that they had no just cause of complaint? He could inform the noble earl, that as they were now situated, it was impossible for them to be satisfied. They felt deeply the political degradation to which they were subjected. He believed that, from lord Fingall to the lowest peasant in Ireland, all the Catholics felt severely the situation in which they were placed. The legislature had in its hands a better means of putting down this institution than that which had been adopted. He would not go into a discussion as to the merits or demerits of the Catholic Association; but he would call their lordships' attention to an event which had recently occurred elsewhere, and which, if followed up, would give peace and tranquillity to Ireland. Let the House well consider the effect which had already been produced by that proceeding. He implored their lordships, he implored the learned prelates opposite, who had been the chief means of defeating, on former occasions, the measure to which he was now alluding, to pause before they dashed the cup of hope from the lips of the Roman Catholics, and destroyed their just and well-founded expectations. Their numbers were great, their cause was irresistible, for it was founded on reason and justice. He had heard it asserted, upon high authority, that it would be impossible to form an administration that would be unanimous on this subject. Whoever said this, appeared to him not to speak with an accurate knowledge of facts. For his own part, he did not think it would be difficult. Then it was said, that if such an administration were formed, they could not carry the measure, because it was contrary to the feelings of the people of England. This he totally denied. There were individuals in both Houses of parliament who were hostile to it; but, where was the hostility of the people of England shown? There had been but two or three petitions presented against it; and he was persuaded that the people of England were not adverse to it. It was in vain for noble lords to conceal the fact from themselves, that, without this measure, the Roman Catholics never would be, and he thought they never ought to be, satisfied. They were told that the government was divided against itself on this important subject. The farce had been carried on for a great length of time;
950
but it could not be acted much longer. It must be settled: for he was sure no noble lord could lay his hand on his heart and say, that things could remain as they were.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, they were now about to frame a law which would be fatal to the peace of this country and of Ireland, if it were not accompanied by the measure to which his noble friend had alluded. Their lordships were going to adopt this bill, without hearing one word in defence of this much-maligned institution— without being in possession of the sentiments of the noble lord who was at the head of the government of Ireland—and without accompanying the enactment of this penal law with any conciliatory or healing proposition. They were proceeding to legislate in this manner, when the power of the Pope was no more. They were proceeding to legislate in this manner, when the Roman Catholic population had increased in knowledge and in riches; when the numbers of that body were not only relatively but actually enormous; and without stating, in any part of the bill, the nature of the danger that was apprehended. He trusted that the Roman Catholics would never be satisfied with any thing less than a full participation in the rights and privileges of the constitution.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.