Sitting of 5 June 1815

SCOTCH GAME AND FISH PRESERVATION BILL.
Sir George Clerkemoved the order of the day for the third reading of the Scotch Game and Fish Preservation Bill.
Mr. W. Dundasopposed the principle of the Bill, as being excessively severe, arbitrary, and unnecessary.
Sir G. Clerkeobserving that those terms were particularly applied to two clauses of the Bill, the one inflicting a severe penalty on unqualified persons killing game and fish, and the other on persons laying snares, declared, that he was willing to withdraw both; and hoped, by such a concession, to conciliate the favour of the hon. gentleman, and also of the member for Glasgow (Mr. Finlay), who he understood intended to oppose the Bill.
Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that his objection to the Bill was not confined to those two clauses, but was extended to another, which he considered equally oppressive.

609]
He alluded to that which authorized sending persons convicted of the offence to the House of Correction, instead of the Countygaol, the usual place of punishment.
Sir George Warrenderstated, that several representations had been transmitted to him from many parts of Scotland, deprecating the proposed Bill, and declaring, that its effects would be totally different from what were expected. The measure was unknown to Scotland, ill suited to the manners and feelings of the people, and consequently injurious and oppressive. He therefore should oppose it.
Mr. Hornerexpressed his unqualified dissent to the measure; and that opinion was in no small degree confirmed by the assertion made by an hon. member, that it was totally unnecessary, an assertion of considerable weight, as coming from one who was himself a keen sportsman. He feared that the gentlemen of Scotland who favoured the Bill, had not attended sufficiently to its object; to afford them, therefore, more time, he would move, as an amendment, "That the Bill be read this day three months."
After some further observations from sir G. Clerke, Mr. Abercrombie, sir C. Monck, Mr. Serjeant Best, and lord Binning, sir George Clerke consented to withdraw the Bill altogether.

SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. Wilberforcewished to ask the noble lord in the blue ribbon, whether any arrangements had been made with Louis 18, relative to the total suppression of the Slave-trade, in the event of success in the present war against Buonaparté?
Lord Castlereaghreplied, that nothing should be wanting on the part of his Majesty's ministers to execute strictly the wishes of Parliament on that interesting subject. The present state of the case was most favourable to the accomplishment of that object; and he could assure his hon. friend that the subject had not escaped the notice of ministers.
Mr. Wilberforcerelied with the fullest confidence on the feelings of his noble friend, in his endeavours to suppress that traffic—nothing could be more satisfactory than his uniform concurrence in the attainment of that object.
Here the conversation ended.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
The Report of the Committee of Supply was brought up, and on putting the question, That the Resolutions be read a second time,
Lord John Russellrose to express his disapprobation of the war, which he declared to be impolitic in its origin, unjust in its object, and injurious in its consequences. He could not conceive what right we had to compel France to receive any particular form of government. It was true, that annexed to the Treaty of Vienna was a Declaration that the Allies would not force the Bourbons on the throne of France; but nothing could be more contradictory than the purport of the Declaration, and the 1st and 8th articles of the Treaty—by the former the right of Louis was waved; while the latter recognised it in full force. He conceived that Declaration to be nothing more than a pretence to satisfy the friends of freedom in this country, and to conceal the real object of the confederacy. As to compelling France to submit to foreign dictation, the thought was absurd—the experience of history would not warrant such a supposition, and the last war should have taught us the impossibility of effecting it.
Mr. J. P. Grantwished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what resources he looked to for carrying on the war, which had escaped every other person's observation. He could not conceive it possible to carry on the war without a deficit beyond the war taxes of about 45 millions. The whole income of the country appeared, from the property-tax returns, to be only about 145 millions; and yet the country would be called on to pay 70 millions of taxes, with a deficit, after all, of 45 millions. If he was wrong, he would be set right with pleasure. Nothing he had heard during the discussions, had changed his opinion of the impolicy of this war; neither by eloquence, nor by the technical justice of it, deduced from Buonaparté's non-fulfilment of a treaty for which no security was taken, and which, no one could believe he would abide by, if his interest led the other way, had a justifiable case been made out in his mind. The only argument that could be urged was, that it was essential to our safety that Buonaparté should be deposed. It was the first time in the world that war was made for such an object. It was the first time that it was said in that House, that the character of any individual was ground for a war for our own safety, which must depend upon our own exertions.
Mr. Bennetanimadverted on the conduct of King Ferdinand 7 of Spain, who

611]
he contended; had been enabled to carry his detestable measures into execution, by the assistance of the Government of this country. Formerly the character of this country stood high abroad; but the noble lord, and the Congress of Vienna, had at length settled that character. He wished to know from the noble lord, who it was that inflicted such disgrace on the character of the nation, as to advise the Order of the Garter to be conferred on Ferdinand of Spain.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that from what he had heard, the present system of recruiting the militia, particularly in Ireland, was extremely injudicious, and conducive to a most lavish expense. He was informed, that bounties were given to recruits, who were then permitted to return home, under a promise of appearing again when required. He wished to know if such were the fact.
Lord Palmerstonreplied, that as the militia regiments were not as yet embodied, Government had been obliged to have recourse to the system mentioned by the right hon. baronet. The entire bounty was, however, not paid, the recruit received only a guinea, and the remainder being withheld, he expected most of them would appear again when called upon.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that there was nothing to prevent every one of them enlisting in different regiments, and receiving the bounty in each.
Mr. Gordonwas anxious to know whether any means were devised to correct the lavish expenditure in the commissariat department.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the attention of Government had long been directed to this subject, and he hoped that measures had been now taken to put the system under more effectual control. In Spain, owing to the nature of the country, and the scantiness of resources, which led to the dispersion of the officers of the commissariat very widely, it was found impossible to regulate the department as well as could be wished, and abuses had crept in. In the Netherlands the supplies being abundant and at hand, the same difficulties would not exist; and the appointment of Mr. Rosenhagen to the new office of controller of this department, he hoped would be attended with the happiest consequences.
Mr. Baringcomplained that the whole system of the commissariat in Spain had
[612
been defective, particularly the practice of giving only government paper in the mountains of Gallicia or Andalusia, where the inhabitants did not know how to estimate its value. He had wished that a committee should be appointed upon the subject. He objected to the great disproportion between the money we were to provide, and the small force it enabled us to bring into the field. He had understood that for the service of the army the agents of Government were now in the habit of buying up guineas. He wished to know if that were the fact?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if such a practice existed it had not come to his knowledge. He was happy to say that a larger sum of ready money had been obtained for the army, by regular means than had been expected.
Sir J. Newporthoped some regulation would be adopted to correct the system of billeting at present practised in Ireland, by which persons were liable to have the soldiery billeted upon them at the pleasure of the officers whose duty it was to provide quarters for the soldiers, without any regard to that fairness of distribution which ought at all times to be practised.
Lord Palmerstonwas not so well acquainted with the nature of the laws upon this subject in Ireland, as with those in this country; but if the right hon. baronet would point out any improvement which his knowledge might enable him to suggest, he should be happy to attend to it.
Mr. Peelsaid, that a measure was in contemplation, whereby, in all cases where soldiers were billeted on private individuals in Ireland, an allowance, of threepence per night for lodging money would be allowed; a sum which, on all occasions, would be sufficient to induce the soldiers to go elsewhere; but as there were many districts in that country in which public-houses were not to be found, it was absolutely necessary that billets on private individuals should be granted.
Sir J. Newportsaid, his object was to have some measure adopted which would prevent respectable tradesmen and others from being rendered subject to the system of billet, as was the case in this country.
Mr. Grenfelltook this opportunity of asking, whether it was not now the practice to purchase light guineas for the purpose of being re-coined?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerknew of no such practice.
Mr. Hornersaid, that it was absurd to attempt to conceal the fact, that not only Prussian and German, but French money, was now coined at the British Mint most extensively; and it was almost equally certain, that British guineas to a great amount were melted into Louis-d' ors. He admitted that it might be a necessary expedient, but it was absurd to keep laws upon the statute book against individuals, to prevent melting the coin of the realm, when: Government were guilty of the crime to so enormous an extent.
Mr. Baringsaid, that this practice appeared to him to be exercising an unjustifiable act of sovereignty over those countries whose coins we imitated without express permission. What should we say to foreign nations who should venture to fabricate guineas for us?
The Report was then agreed to.

MONUMENT TO SIR EDWARD PAKENHAM.
Lord Castlereagh,in rising to propose that a monument should be erected to the memory of the late sir Edward Pakenham, assured the House, that whatever delay had taken place in proposing the present vote, was to be attributed only to an anxiety not to infringe those roles by which the proceedings of Parliament in cases of this nature had hitherto been guided. The general principle had been to connect with records and tributes of this nature something of a successful issue to the occasion on which the individual had fallen, or had acquired distinction. There were, however, he had discovered, exceptions to this rule, and he was far from thinking that the present instance was not one in which the exception ought to be allowed. Monuments had sometimes been voted where Parliament had not previously expressed their approbation by a vote of thanks; and if this had ever occurred, he could conceive no reason why that honour should not be decreed to a soldier, distinguished on so many memorable occasions, and whose whole short but active career had been passed in the highest schools of his profession. He was generally admitted to be not only a good disciplinarian and an exact regimental officer, but to possess all those endowments of mind which were essential to the more important duties of command. After having acquired great reputation in the West Indies, where he was twice wounded, he applied to be sent to the Peninsula, though in very bad health,
[614
where, from the period of the battle of Talavera, he rendered the most important services to his country. He should afterwards have the honour of moving a similar resolution with respect to generals Gibbs and Gillespie. He should now move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that a monument be erected in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, to the memory of Major-general the honourable sir Edward Pakenham, knight of the most honourable Order of the Bath, who fell on the 8th of January last, in an attack upon the enemy's works in front of New Orleans, in commemoration of his eminent and distinguished services; and that this House will make good the expense attending the same."
General Gascoynebore testimony to the gallant behaviour of general Pakenham, who, when first struck, had advanced within thirty yards of the fort, which was the only difficulty which remained to be surmounted; he was then struck by a ball, and being about to mount a horse which was brought him, he was struck by another ball in the spine, which terminated his valuable life. He hoped there would not be a dissentient voice on the question.
Mr. Wynnsuggested the propriety of entering the several votes of thanks of the House to general Pakenham, to the number of six, which having been done, the motion was unanimously agreed to.

THAMES BATHING BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of the Thames Bathing Bill,
Mr. Bathurstwished the committee on this Bill to be fixed for Thursday, on which day he should propose a clause to limit the operation of the Bill.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the object of the Bill was to restore to the public the advantage of bathing in the river Thames, of which they had been deprived by a clause introduced into the Thames Police Bill, at a late period of the last session, which left a discretionary power to the magistrates, of which they had availed themselves, by prohibiting persons from bathing on the shores of the river Thames, from Blackwall to Battersea-bridge, under a penalty of 20 s. As this was a most injurious encroachment on the comfort of the lower classes, there being at common law sufficient remedy against public indecency, if any such were complained of,

615]
he thought the Bill should be allowed to pass in its present state, to put the law upon its old footing.
Mr. Bathurstthought that some power of summary punishment, by fine, should be given against offenders against decency, as the common-law remedy was expensive, and the punishment severe.
Mr. Wilberforceobserved, that the Bill before the House would go to sanction the indecency frequently committed on the banks of the Thames, and would be a declaration of Parliament that it was expedient that persons should expose their naked bodies on the banks of the Thames.
Mr. Hornersaid, the hon. gentleman had committed a pious fraud in his statement of the case, because the Bill would merely declare, that it was inexpedient to make a provision to prevent all bathing between the West India docks and Battersea, there being already a law against any indecent exposure of the person, either in the Thames or elsewhere, which had been exerted against one of the most celebrated wits of Charles the second's court, sir Charles Sedley. Nothing, he thought, should be left to the discretion of the magistrates on this subject.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that the country had gone on extremely well under the old law on this subject; and if decent females who look the water were annoyed, it was better they should stay at home than that the health of all the lower classes of the metropolis should suffer for the accommodation of their delicacy, Queen Elizabeth, with her maids of honour, used to go from Whitehall to Greenwich, or to Richmond, in barges, and the archbishop of Canterbury to pass in a barge to attend his duty in parliament, at times when the practice of bathing in the Thames was more common than at present. Besides, the Police Act had no provision against persons undressing or exposing themselves, so it was not with an intention to bathe.
Sir J. Newportsaid, if bathing was prohibited in the Thames, a similar law must be passed with reference to every other river in the United Kingdom, as it would be unjust to legislate for one place without extending the benefit of the same legislation to others. Thus the inhabitants of Dublin, Liverpool, Bristol, and other great towns must be subject to similar laws.
Mr. Wrottesleythought that the clause ought to be repealed, as it had been introduced without any notice.
Mr. Prestonthought that the House would be more nice than wise, if they were to legislate on such a subject.
Mr. Wilberforcesaid, that with regard to Dublin, to which a right hon. baronet had alluded, he apprehended it would not be very necessary to pass any law for prohibiting bathing in that city, as he understood the river Liffey, which flowed through it, was not of that pellucid nature which would afford many inducements to such amusements. He did not consider the antiquity of the practice of bathing in the Thames as an argument for its continuance. If this was once admitted, many other practices might obtain, which would be injurious to the peace of the metropolis, but which had been abandoned for years. It was only a few days since he dined with a gentleman who had shot snipes and woodcocks in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. However correct that amusement might have been formerly, he did not consider that it ought to be permitted at present.
The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.
Mr. Bathurstmoved that the committee have power to amend the Thames Police Act. He thought it would be proper to revive the provisions as to bathing, somewhat modified; one reason for which was, that the want of deference in the lower classes towards the higher, which had increased so much of late years, rendered some alteration in the law necessary.
The House divided: For the motion, 21; Against it, 15: Majority, 6.

CHAPEL EXEMPTION BILL.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House went into a further consideration of the Chapel Exemption Bill. The right hon. gentleman said, it had been proposed that one seat in ten in all chapels to be built in future should be allotted to the poor; but he would move as an amendment, that one seat in five should be reserved for that description of persons.
General Thorntonwished, in the first place, to oppose the amendments, and then to throw out the Bill altogether.
The Speakerthen put the question, that the Bill, with its amendments, be engrossed.
General Thorntonlamented, that some gentlemen of great abilities, who intended to oppose the third reading of the Bill, were not then present; but as he had intimated his intention of opposing it in every stage, he would then declare, that it seemed of a dangerous and alarming nature. It

617]
called on the members of the established Church to support the dissenters, and exempt certain places for the gratuitous instruction of the poor, where no religious instruction whatever was given. A right reverend prelate had recently preached a sermon before the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, wherein he maintained, among other points, that we should guard against all the modern doctrines of liberality and toleration, and that indifference to forms of faith was indifference to truth and falsehood. The hon. general, therefore, sincerely embracing these opinions, moved that the Bill should be engrossed on that day three months.
This amendment was put and negatived, and the original question carried.

FOREIGN SLAVE-TRADE BILL.
On the motion of the marquis of Lansdowne, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Foreign Slave-Trade Bill. The Marquis having moved that their lordships should agree to the first clause,
The Earl of Westmorelandsaid, it was with regret that he stated any objection to this Bill, as he coincided in the principle of patting an end to the Slave-trade carried on by foreign Powers; but he could not help repeating his objections to the provisions of this Bill, on account of the risk to which the innocent were exposed by them. He again stated, that by the provisions of this Bill, it appeared to him that any person in this country, by his agent lending money which might be applied to the Slave-traffic, though entirely without his knowledge, would be liable to be tried where the act was committed, which might be in any part of the West Indies, or on the coast of Africa: so that a friend of the noble marquis now at Madrid, might be hurried away from that place to be tried before the West India tribunals, or before the learned surgeon of Sierra Leone. It was well known that the trials in these places were not conducted with the same order and regularity as here; and, therefore, this was a grievous hardship. With respect to the clause against lending money on the security of property in the foreign islands, any person here or in the West Indies might be subjected to a trial in these tribunals, because be might have a debt due to him for goods consigned there for sale; and this was the more dangerous, because any person to whom the money was lent which was employed in this traffic, was not only to be pardoned, bat

607]
to get free of the whole debt: there was, therefore, the strongest temptation to bring innocent persons to trial, if any colour of criminality could be set up so as to afford a chance for conviction. It was also to be observed, that the late act had never been enforced m this respect so as to attempt the suppression of the offence by the pecuniary penalty. The only prosecutions were against persons directly concerned in the traffic, and they knew the issue of those at Sierra Leone, where the learned surgeon presided.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, that the clause as to the lending money on security in the foreign islands extended only to mortgages of the land, and not to security on the produce—and without such a clause, the whole provisions of the Act would be nugatory. With respect to innocent persons, the Act extended only to those who knowingly and wilfully lent their money for this particular purpose. There were, however, a few amendments which he wished to propose. As to the tribunals, they were such as existed for the punishment of piracy, which this offence very much resembled.
Lord Ellenboroughstrongly argued against the adoption of a measure by which a crime, very loosely described, was to be considered as felony. He conceived that for the punishment of usury, a heavy mulct would be sufficient on the present occasion; or, at most, that the crime should be declared a misdemeanor, liable to the punishment of transportation. No one wished more ardently than himself that the Slave-trade were abolished all over the world, but he could not give his consent to such crude acts of legislation as that before their lordships. He warmly recommended a postponement of the consideration of the measure, instancing several cases, in which, as it at present stood, unoffending individuals might be entangled in its provisions.
The Earl of Westmoreland, in reply to what had been slated by the noble marquis, said, that he had not alluded to the danger that innocent persons might be punished, but to the danger of their being brought to trial at such distant places and before such tribunals. And he was still of opinion, that according to the words of the Act, providing that the trial should take place where the offence was committed, persons might be taken from this country to be tried before those colonial tribunals.
Lord Grenvillesaid, that the principle of the measure was to have it declared, that persons guilty of this atrocious crime were to be regarded as criminals, and to be punished as such, and by the same tribunals which were appointed for the punishment of piracy. As for the pecuniary penalty, it had been found that the profits of this abominable traffic were such as to overbalance it. The only way to check the offence, was to degrade those persons engaged in it from that rank in society which the crime rendered them unfit to hold. But he admitted that the severity of the punishment rendered it the more necessary that the law should be clear and precise in its enactments; and he hoped his noble and learned friend, whose powerful assistance in the business of the abolition he well remembered, and would always remember with gratitude, would lend his aid in giving the Act all the precision of which it was susceptible.
The Earl of Liverpoolsuggested, that the most proper plan would be to agree to the amendments of the noble marquis, and then to have the Bill printed, that the House might see it in its most perfect state, and then decide whether it might not be necessary to have it recommitted.
This was agreed to. The amendments were introduced, and the Bill ordered to be printed as amended.