Sitting of 9 June 1817

LORD COLCHESTER.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee to take into consideration the Prince Regent's Answer to their Address,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,after a warm eulogium on the merits of the late Speaker, entered into a consideration of the provision which it was desirable to make with respect to him. He adverted to the allowance made to Mr. Speaker Onslow on his retiring from the Chair in the early part of his majesty's reign, which was 3,000 l. a year, and observed that considering the depreciation in the value of money, and the incalculable increase in the duties which the Speaker had to perform, he was persuaded the House would not consider a grant of 4,000 l. a year to lord Colchester during his life, and on his demise of 3,000 l. a year to the immediate successor to the title, too liberal a vote. The right hon. gentleman concluded by moving a resolution to that effect.
Mr. Holme Sumnercontended, that the sum proposed was very insufficient. Necessary as economy was in the present state of affairs, the country was not yet so poor as to be unable justly to reward those who had so long devoted themselves to its service as the noble lord in question. He thought not only that the sum to be granted in the first instance to lord Colchester should be larger, but that the reversionary grant should extend to two lives. In pursuance of this opinion, he moved, as an amendment, that the sum of 5,000 l. be substituted for 4,000 l.
Sir M. W. Ridleycontended, that no one could estimate the services and merits of the late Speaker more highly than himself, but insisted that, in fixing the amount of the grant, there were other considera-

917
tions to be attended to, more imperious than even gratitude itself. The state of the public means was such that we could not now part with one shilling unnecessarily. Lord Colchester had a place of 1,300 l. a year in Ireland, which made his income, from the public 5,300 l. a year.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that this discussion confirmed him in the idea that his proposal was, under all circumstances, the best; and he recommended the House to adhere to it; at the same time he must add, that the place in Ireland was given as a compensation for one that had been relinquished.
Mr. H. Sumnerexpressed his wish to withdraw the amendment, but intimated his intention of persevering in the proposition of extending the reversionary grant to two lives.
Mr. Ponsonbywas glad that the hon. gentleman had agreed to withdraw his amendment, as with all the respect which he entertained for the late Speaker, and with all the conviction which he felt of the justice of liberally rewarding his valuable services, other public duties of an imperative description would have compelled him to vote against it. In fact, he conceived that the sum proposed by the right hon. gentleman was, if any thing, too high, when the circumstances of the country were considered, and when it was also taken into the account that lord Colchester derived an income of 1,500 l. from a place in Ireland.
Mr. Tierneydeclared, that no man could feel more grateful than himself for the services of the late Speaker, but it would be inconsistent with his ideas of economy to grant more than had been proposed, in the present state of the country; and he felt some indignation at the manner in which the grant had been at first proposed to the House. Under the present circumstances of the country, and according to all the precedents, he could not for himself agree to pay the late Speaker 4,000 l. a year. On what grounds was that sum proposed? The noble lord had no longer to support that hospitality which was expected of him when Speaker; and was the salary to be continued when the hospitality it was meant to support was no longer requisite? Besides, what had been the scale to others? There was a bill before the House in which the utmost reward that could be bestowed on civil services was limited to 3,000 l. a year for one life, and though the Speaker's exertions
918
were great, what were they when compared with such a man as Mr. Pitt, who had the interests of Europe to attend to? And yet his wardenship of the Cinque Ports was not worth more than 3,000 l. a year. What minister had ever been rewarded on the scale now proposed? Lord Wellington had no more than 2,000 l. a year attached to his rank of Viscount. Why had the Speaker greater claims on the public purse for services which, after all, were services affecting the health alone—for as to the anxiety that had been talked of, he felt less than any man in the House, or perhaps was the only man entirely without anxiety; he existed in a sort of middle atmosphere, between the two contending parties, and his absence from all care seemed to him (Mr. T.) quite enviable. He had only to remain erect in his chair, to bend his head to one side or the other, and enjoy the fray of contending parties. He was unwilling to say more, but if the hon. gentleman persevered, he must oppose the extension of the grant to the third life.
Mr. Curwenexpressed the highest regard for the late Speaker, but coincided in the sentiments expressed by his right hon. friend.
Mr. Lambtoncoincided heartily in the sentiments of his right hon. friend, and should move, that the words 3,000 l. a year be substituted for 4,000 l.
The Committee divided:

For the Amendment

42

Against it

126

Majority

—

84

The original motion was then agreed to. After which, Mr. Sumner pressed the adoption of his Amendment for extending the reversionary grant to two lives.
The Hon. J. W. Wardopposed this amendment, and deprecated the principle, that the Speaker of the House of Commons was to consider a peerage as the invariable reward of his services. Such an expectation was calculated to be very injurious to the privileges of that House in any contest which it might have with the other House, or with the Crown.
The amendment was negatived. After which,
Mr. Ponsonby,adverting to the motion which had been made on Tuesday, and afterwards withdrawn, for taking into consideration the Message from the Prince Regent, recommending to the House to make a prevision for their late Speaker, expressed his surprise to find no notice

919
of that occurrence in the Journals, and his supposition that the omission was attributable to some mistake, as another motion made on the same evening by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Curwen), which was withdrawn also, was entered.
The Speakerobserved, that it was probably his duty to explain this matter as far as he was able to do so. It was perfectly true that the motion made by the chancellor of the exchequer on Tuesday not appearing in the votes of the House had not been entered in the Journals. The motion made by the hon. member for Carlisle, and subsequently withdrawn, did appear in the votes of the House, and would therefore appear in the Journals. The difference between the two cases was this: He (the Speaker) understood it to have been the general sense of the House that the motion which had been made by the chancellor of the exchequer was (on the suggestion of an hon. gentleman, in which suggestion there appeared to him to be a general acquiescence) to be considered as not having been made at all. It might, perhaps, have been his duty to inquire more explicitly on that occasion the wish of the House. If so, it was only a proof of that which, on taking the chair, he knew would be his fate—the necessity of his frequently throwing himself on the indulgence of the House [Hear, hear!]. It was not very easy at present to suggest the course by which the omission might be cured; the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer not having been regularly withdrawn, on question, as the motion of the hon. member for Carlisle had been.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he certainly understood it to be the general feeling of the House, on the occasion alluded to, that no notice should be taken of the motion which he had made.
Mr. Ponsonby,after assuring the Speaker that he did not attribute to him the slightest neglect, contended, that the feeling of the House had been misconceived; and that all that he and those who thought with him had agreed to was, not to negative the motion which the chancellor of the exchequer had made, but to allow it to be withdrawn. It was by no means intended that the proposition should not appear on the Journals.
Lord Castlereaghmaintained, that the proceeding which took place on Tuesday was the consequence of a wish to preserve unanimity on the subject. It now ap-
920
peared, and correctly appeared on the Journals, simply, that no proceeding had taken place. He should have objected to any proposition which would have given a different character to the transaction.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the chancellor of the exchequer had distinctly expressed his wish to withdraw the motion in question, in order to give time for the reconsideration of it before the next sitting of the House. All the House agreed that it was desirable, that whatever they did for their late Speaker should originate from them; and this opinion, it was also most desirable, should show itself in the Journals,
Mr. Canningobserved, that no one could ever mistake the fact, that a message had been sent down to the House, on which no proceeding had taken place; but that next day the House originated a proceeding to which the message related. On this subject, the expressive silence of the Journals would be as good a guard of the privileges of the House as the most laborious entry could have been. He would have had no objection to an entry on the Journals at the time, stating the circumstance as it had occurred; but it did not seem to him to be necessary to go back for the purpose of effecting this object.
Mr. Ponsonbyremarked, that if it was right to make such an entry at any time, it was right then.
Mr. Wynnrecommended, either that the Message should be expunged from the Journals, or that notice should be taken in them of the motion of the chancellor of the exchequer, and of the proceeding thereon.
Mr. Bankessaid, it did not seem to him, however, that it was any inconvenience that it should appear on the Journals, that a message had been sent down to the House from the Crown, and that no proceeding had taken place upon it. In fact, I no proceeding had taken place; for his right hon. friend did not regularly withdraw his motion.
Sir C. Monckwas of opinion, that to insert in the Journals that such a motion had been made and withdrawn, would render the whole matter clear.
Lord Palmerstondistinctly recollected what had passed on the occasion. It was suggested to his right hon. friend, when he was about to withdraw his motion, that it would be better that it should not appear on the Journals that such a motion had been made and withdrawn. This sug-

921
gestion his right hon. friend adopted; and his impression of the feeling of the hon. gentlemen opposite, was, that they acquiesced in the propriety of the proceeding.
Mr. Ponsonbyprotested, that it had never entered into his mind, or the minds of his friends that the motion should not appear on the Journals as having been withdrawn, although they were willing not to negative it. Those were two things perfectly distinct. All that he and they wished was, that it should appear on the Journals that the motion was withdrawn. For that purpose he would now move, "That the following entry be made in the Journal of this House of Tuesday the 3rd day of June, after the entry of the Prince Regent's Message concerning Charles Lord Colchester, late Speaker of this House: motion made, and question proposed, that his Royal Highness's said most gracious Message be referred to a committee of the whole House, for Thursday next; and the said motion was, with leave of the House, withdrawn."
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that this was to call on the Mouse to affirm a proposition which was untrue. The general understanding was, that the motion was to be considered as not having been made.
The motion was negatived.

GAME BILL.
Colonel Wood Colonel Wood moved the second reading of the bill for legalizing the sale of game. He said he was aware that many persons were decidedly adverse to the measure, but he protested that he was actuated solely by a sincere wish to put a stop to the destructive practice of poaching, which was the forerunner of every description of vice. He agreed in the propriety of making game private property; and contended, that it would be so recognized were it not for the act prohibiting its sale. In support of this opinion, he quoted the authorities of lords Holt and Kenyon to show, that if a hare was caught in the ground in which it started, it belonged to the owner of the ground; but if in the ground of another person, it belonged to the hunter. The poachers at present were the causes of great mischief. For the game which they obtained they found a ready market. It was collected by receivers in the country, and conveyed to salesmen in the metropolis, who disposed of it to poulterers, by whom it was sold to the public. This last class, the poulterers,
922
were placed in a hard situation by the existing law, which imposed a heavy penalty on the sellers, but not on the buyers of game. The poulterers were obliged to sell game, or they would have no customers for their poultry. He had authority for saying that they were not at all anxious to sell it, but they were very anxious not to be exposed to heavy penalties for doing so, while the purchasers escaped with impunity. It would not be easy, however, for the legislature to impose heavy penalties on the purchasers of game; and it followed, therefore, that the only way of remedying the partiality and grievance would be at once to legalize the sale of game, and thus give the public a lawful supply of it. It had been urged that if the sale of game were legalised, it would be difficult to detect the poacher. To this he replied, that he intended to propose a clause in the bill, imposing a penalty on any person having game in his possession, who would not declare from whom he obtained it. It had also been said, that it would be discreditable for gentlemen to sell their game. For his part, he was at a loss to discover why it should be more discreditable for gentlemen to sell their pheasants, than it was for them to sell their sheep, their pigs, or their horses. He had the authority of a noble lord, not of the most penurious character—the Marquis of Anglesea—to say, that if this bill passed into a law, he was determined to transmit his game to the metropolis, in order that it might be supplied legally, instead of illegally, by poachers. That noble lord's amusement was in shooting game, and he had no wish to withold from the public a luxury which their money entitled them to command. He contended in opposition to a contradictory statement, that the poacher would be completely undersold, if the bill were agreed to; and dwelt on the great advantage that would be obtained by the removal of that continued cause of irritation which at present annoyed those most valuable individuals—the resident country gentlemen. As a proof of the great evil of the game laws, it was only necessary to mention, that in the last year between 900 and 1,000 individuals were imprisoned for offences against them. He hoped the House would allow the bill to go into the committee, in which it might receive any modifications that should appear desirable.
Lord Deerhurstwas astonished that a bill, which ought to have been crushed

923
at its first formation, should have been allowed to proceed so far. It should not, however, proceed farther without his warning voice being raised against its very injurious tendency. The object of the bill, as appeared from the correspondence of the honourable colonel who had just spoken, with another honourable colonel, a member of the House, was to give country gentlemen an opportunity of selling their game; and a noble marquis was named as prepared to avail himself of the Jaw, if passed; yet the country gentlemen would be constantly undersold by poachers. The case would be similar to that of two broom-makers, who sold their brooms in adjoining stalls. The one sold so as to have the very smallest profit; the other sold a halfpenny cheaper. The former, who was conscious that he himself stole the materials of which the brooms were made, asked the other, with astonishment, how he could sell so cheap? Why, replied the latter, because I steal my brooms ready made. Just so the poacher could get his game ready made. The difficulty of effecting a sale was the great means of entrapping poachers. Let them not cut up the goose for the sake of the golden egg. The history of the sale of game at present was thus: a person bought game of the poacher at 7s. the brace, and sold them to the poulterer in London for 15 s: he again sold them to the consumer for two guineas. If sale were legalized, a door would be opened to game keepers and others to poach and sell without risk of detection or fear of punishment. If citizens, who had much money, must have game, let them get it on the same terms with country gentlemen. They had it at present for one-fourth the expense of rearing game. If this bill passed, in two years there would be no game in the country. The House should be very cautious how it listened to such a proposal. From small beginnings mighty consequences often proceeded, Hœ nugœ seria ducunt in mala. This was not a time to disgust resident gentlemen. He concluded by moving, "That the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Curwensaid:—I heartily concur with those who oppose the further progress of the bill. As it is desirable to hold out every inducement to tempt the residence of gentlemen in the country, the protection of game is, in this view, of considerable consequence. Agreeing in this point, I would ask, if the tyranny of
924
the game laws has produced, or is likely to produce, this effect. From all quarters we hear complaints of an increase of poaching. It is fair, therefore, to suppose that there must be some radical defect in the system. It would be well for sportsmen to consider whether this does not arise from the manifest injustice that characterizes the whole code. The right of game is, by an arbitrary act of the legislature, taken from every land-holder possessed of less than 100 l. per annum. He feeds, he shelters it, but must not appropriate any part of it to his own use. The punishment of offences against the game laws rests solely in the hands of the monopolists; nor are punishments defined, but left to the will of the party—it rests on his mercy. Offences that have not a shade of difference are punished by a fine of 5l. or up to 80 l. In one case the fine may be paid by the poor man by the sacrifice of his little property, in the other by imprisonment for life. There is something so monstrous in this, that it is not to be wondered a general abhorrence prevails against the game laws. Who are the protectors of game?—a few individuals. Who are their enemies?—almost, the whole collective body of the people. By a breach of such laws no moral turpitude can be possibly attached; whilst odium and ill will attends the rigorous protection of game. It is the interest of the sportsman, as well as the people, that all the odious laws, relative to game, should be swept from our statute books. It is high time a new system should be devised, founded on justice. Restore to every proprietor his right, and you will have every proprietor united in the protection of game. No country possesses so much game as France and yet it is to be purchased in every market town. It is contended the poacher can undersell the gentleman, as the cost of preserving game is so great; very true, and it is so at present; but I do not apprehend that would be the case was game put on a different footing, and made private property. Gentlemen lay out of their consideration, in estimating the cost at which the poacher procures game, the risk of his liberty. Is the danger of being confined for life nothing? The returns before the House present a most revolting picture of the state of the country; above one thousand persons languishing in different prisons from breaches of the game laws. This alone furnishes a ground that imperiously demands of this House

925
seriously to review the state of these laws. Gentlemen doubt whether the Marquis of Anglesea can meet the poacher in the market. It is a libel on that noble personage to suppose him actuated by any sordid view;—it is to prevent crime—it is to take away the temptation to the poor man's forfeiting his own liberty and destroying the happiness of his family. These are the motives, and such as I hope and believe would have a very general influence in bringing game to the market. In condemning the acts of outrage and violence that have occurred from poaching, will they justify the means resorted to for the protection of game? Can the setting of traps, or other destructive implements, whereby a human being may be made miserable for life, be reconciled to any principles of humanity? A deviation from what is right on one side produces it on the other. Better the whole race of game was extinct than it should owe its preservation to such cruel expedients. I recommend my hon. friend to withdraw his bill, and in a future session, to move for a committee to take the subject into serious attention. I should hope a plan might be devised for the protection of game, bottomed in a just regard to the rights of proprietors, and the convenience and accommodation of the public. The infraction of such a system would attach reprobation and disgrace equally with the purloining of any other property. Before we can hope to command obedience to laws, they must be framed so as to entitle them to the respect of mankind. Whilst they remain at variance with every principle of justice no severity we can inflict will produce the effect; on the contrary they will only serve to multiply the evil.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, that a clause in the bill vested the power of granting licences for the sale of game in the hands of a justice of peace. These licences would be granted with an unsparing hand, and tippling and drinking of all kinds would be carried on where they were conferred; so that if the poacher changed his habits from one vicious tone, he would be only transferring them to another equally bad. He was therefore averse to the bill.
Mr. Wilberforcewas sorry that the bill was likely to meet the reception which awaited it, particularly when he considered that the system which it went to remedy, vitiated the morals of that large class of the community—he meant the peasantry,
926
who were generally virtuous, and whose habits were of quite a different class from those observable in the populous classes of large towns. There was something peculiar in the feeling relative to these laws. It was, he understood, not considered any crime to purchase this sort of luxury for a gentleman's table, for which the poor wretch who purloined it would suffer with the loss of his liberty, and perhaps be ultimately led to the gallows. He could not, like the hon. baronet who spoke last, anticipate the abuse of the power intrusted to justices of the peace in this case; on the contrary, he thought it would be fairly exercised and properly enforced. An hon. friend of his (Mr. Gurney) had received information on this subject from France, by which it appeared, that formerly when severe penalties—even in some cases death—were attached to poaching, game was nevertheless insecure, but that since a different system had been pursued, and game had been made private property, poaching was no longer a trade in that country. Mr. Wilberforce highly complimented the ability exhibited by lord Deerhurst, but expressed his persuasion that a little more consideration of the subject would lead that noble lord to feel all the evils of the existing system. He hoped either that the bill would be allowed to go into a committee, or that a committee would be appointed to investigate the subject, and see if some other remedy could not be applied.
Mr. George Bankesthought that the sale of game, as was now proposed, was utterly incompatible with the present system of the game laws. He hoped that the purchaser of game would be rendered liable to some penalty, but the present measure was so objectionable in its principle, that he could not agree to it under any modification.
Mr. Prestonspoke in favour of going into the committee.
Sir John Sebrightwas of opinion, that the best course would be, to make game private property, and therefore he should oppose the present bill, or any measure that went short of that object.
Mr. Gurneysaid, that he conceived the country peculiarly obliged to the hon. colonel for his persevering endeavours to get rid of the abomination of the game laws, though he was sorry he could not congratulate him on the success which had hitherto attended his efforts.—The only legislative enactment that had sprung

927
from his committee having been the precious bill for transporting poachers, of the last session, which, with so much merited reprobation, had been repealed, this. He was however still happy to augur favourably of the ultimate issue of his labours, as whatever objections hon. gentlemen had to offer to the mode of altering the system, the principle of the existing game laws,—but one member was found bold enough to defend.
Mr. Gurneystated, that he had made inquiries as to how far their new regulations, which appeared extremely analogous to those proposed by the hon. colonel had been found to answer their purpose in France; and he begged leave to produce the reply of a gentleman who had occupied very confidential situations in the foreign department in that country; he states, that the game is the property of the owner of the soil; that a port d'armes, subject to a slight impost, is granted to almost any body who applies for it; but that the land-holder has a right to prosecute any one who may appear on his soil with a gun.—That the penalties incurred, are 30 franks to the proprietor of the soil, and 15 franks to the commune, if the land be not inclosed; and 40 franks, and 20 franks, if it be.—That the penalty may be doubled or trebled by the court, if there be circumstances of aggravation; and that in case of non-payment, sentence of imprisonment may be pronounced, from one day to three months, should the culprit be an old offender.—Before the revolution the laws against poaching had been increasing in severity, till Henry 4th made its punishment the gallies; and poaching went on, almost unchecked, though the gallies were thronged with poachers. On the revolution all law ceased, and the game was nearly all destroyed; every man taking his revenge on it. Since the present laws have been acted on, the game has increased rapidly, every land-owner becoming his own game-keeper as well as game-keeper to his neighbour. And, with the sole exception of attacking the pheasants in the royal forests, where the gamekeepers are understood to be the poachers, the trade of poaching has ceased in France.
Mr. Gurneyobserved, that the violences so much complained of had been tempted almost of inevitable consequence by the game preservers. That while sporting was sporting in England, they had been little heard of. When wild ani-
928
mals were chased over a wild country by wilder men; but that when in the march of cultivation, every man's space was circumscribed; and when to game, which was game, succeeded the feeding, and rearing, and driving, a valuable, half tame, and exotic bird, not felt to be any one's property, but guarded in its covert by legions of game-keepers,—what had followed, might have been expected to follow, that bands of marauders would turn out, and attack both the pheasants and their defenders.—The evils of such a system, which made men as it were of necessity, the hunters of men, were glaringly obvious. The returns which had been laid on the table showed that the captives made in this miserable, domestic warfare, were becoming so numerous, that if it were allowed to connue, the gaols would hardly contain them. He therefore most earnestly hoped that the hon. colonel would carry his bill. For if things went as they were going, they would have to keep up instead of dismantling, the Norman-cross, and Dartmoor establishments, as depots for their prisoners of peace.
Mr. Goulburnmiantained, that in those countries where game was considered private property, poaching had increased and game disappeared. He denied that that law which was applicable to the character and usages of the French people, would be equally applicable to the character and usages of the English.
Colonel Woodsaid, he believed it would be the most prudent way not to press his motion for the second reading of the bill to a division. He thought it would be best to defer any further proceeding, and see if at a future period a more acceptable measure could be devised by a committee.
The amendment was accordingly agreed to.