Sitting of 11 March 1824

RIBBON MEN AND RIBBON LODGES.
Lord Althorprose to submit to the House the motion of which he had given notice. If he succeeded in the attainment of his object, it would, he said, enable the House to determine what measures would be the most likely to restore quiet to that disturbed country. It would be recollected that the tumult which prevailed in 1820 had broke out in Galway, and had speedily extended itself through Mayo. The disturbances were attributable to what was called the system of Ribbon-men. They ran so high, that an hon. friend of his, the member for Galway, had found it necessary to move himself for the renewal of the insurrection act, and that the powers of the act should be extended to that county. The consequences were, numerous trials and convictions, with some executions.
886
Shortly after, proclamation was made by the principal police magistrate, offering an amnesty to the Ribbon-men, on condition of their taking the oath of allegiance, renouncing their secret associations, and delivering up their arms. A great many accepted the conditions, and since that time these counties had been remarkably tranquil; so much so, that the orderly conduct of the inhabitants had been much praised by the government of Ireland. He would therefore move, in the first place, for copies of the proclamation, and of every other document by which the arrangement had been effected. In November, 1822, the attorney-general of Ireland instituted prosecutions against some persons for administering illegal oaths to the Ribbon-men. Two were convicted, and remained in prison under sentence of transportation. A Mr. Bennett, counsel for one of the prisoners, informed Mr. Gregory, under-secretary to the lord lieutenant that he had communications of considerable importance to make upon the system of Ribbon-men, and requesting an interview thereupon. The letter was received by Mr. Gregory, who answered by another, dated Feb. 20, requesting Mr. Bennett to put his communications into writing. He did so, and he stated that the Ribbon-leaders of Meath, Westmeath, and Tipperary, were all ready to take the oaths of allegiance, renounce the societies, and give up their arms, on condition of government extending the amnesty to them. Receiving no instructions from the secretary, Mr. Bennett pressed for an answer which Mr. Gregory assured him he should have on the arrival of the lord lieutenant. In the mean time, a communication was made to the government by Mr. Lubie and Mr. Yore, two respectable priests, stating that it would be advantageous to the government to stay execution of the sentence on Thomas Hughes, one of the persons convicted; and that by giving time, they would be enabled to get at the secrets of the Ribbon-men though the examination of Hughes. No answer was returned to the letter, and Hughes was shortly after transported. In July following, Mr. Gregory was reminded by Mr. Bennett of what had taken place in February before; to which Mr. Gregory replied that he had no directions upon the subject from the lord lieutenant. Now, he (lord Althorp) was perfectly at a loss to account for the conduct of the Irish government in the affair. It appeared to

887
him extraordinary that they did not seize with eagerness so favourable an opportunity for putting down the disturbances and, restoring the country to tranquillity—that no advantage whatever should be taken of it. Probably the officers of the Irish government would be able to explain their conduct by satisfactory reasons. But candidly speaking, it did impress upon his mind strongly, that the explanation would not be very favourable to the character of the government. It was strange enough that no answer should have been returned to the communication called for by Mr. Gregory from Mr. Bennett, and still more strange, that they should not have preferred the conciliatory arrangements submitted, to the attempt of silencing the disturbances by the strong arm of the law. The government knew the effect of the step taken in 1820, that the line of conduct then adopted had produced no evil, and that the country had been tranquillized. It was desirable that this information should be laid before the House, that they might be enabled to judge if the disturbed state of Ireland could not be cured by adopting the conciliatory course, rather than by appealing continually to the force of arms. He could not anticipate the answer which would be given by the right hon. secretary for Ireland; but, in the hope that it would be satisfactory, he begged leave to move for, "1. Copies of any proclamations which were issued, during the year 1820, by Magistrates, or other persons authorized by government, in the counties of Mayo and Galway, offering an amnesty to the persons styling themselves Ribbon-men, on condition of their delivering up their arms, and taking the oath of allegiance. 2. Copies of any communications which have been made to the Irish government from the magistrates, or others, respecting the disposition of the people towards the government since the year 1820. 3. Copies of all correspondence which passed between Mr. R. N. Bennett and Mr. Gregory, during the year 1823, respecting Ribbon lodges. 4. Copy of a memorial to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, from the rev. Messrs. Lubie and Yore, in the case of Thomas Hughes, which was presented during February or March 1823."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he must oppose the noble lord's motion, because, although it was only for the production of papers, yet every one must see, that the real object was to censure the Irish government. He
888
would state the case as it had occurred. Every body knew that there was an association in Ireland called Ribbon-men; associated not for innocent, but for illegal objects; bound together for the most mischievous purposes; having in view nothing less than the subversion of the constitution of the country. From the very nature of the society, and from the secrecy observed with respect to its proceedings, it became a matter of great difficulty to bring crime home to any individual connected with it. In the beginning of 1823, however, it so happened that the Irish government obtained the means of bringing to trial a person, not a subordinate member of the society, not a man inadvertently drawn in to a participation of their guilt, but a man of great importance in the society, and allowed by every one to be a leader and a principal. This man was tried and convicted. After his conviction, a question arose, whether or not it was expedient that mercy should be extended to him. His majesty's government were petitioned in his favour on two grounds; the first, that the society to which he belonged was an innocent one; the second, that if he were pardoned the Ribbon-men generally, amounting to above 13,000 men, would give up their arms, and return to their allegiance to government. To such a proposition the government could not accede. As to the institution being an innocent one, it was the opinion of his hon. and learned friend that the institution was an illegal one; and its illegality was established by the verdict of a jury. The petition expressly stated, that Hughes was a leader of the party. Now, if there was any person more fit to be selected for punishment than another, it certainly was that man. The government were told that if the prisoner were allowed to go at large, he would harangue the Ribbon-men wherever he could find them, and promised, that through his influence the Ribbon-men would abandon their evil courses. Could such a proposition have been agreed to by government? Nothing was more distant from the mind of the noble lord at the head of the government of Ireland, than to administer the criminal law with harshness; there was nothing he more wished for, than to find out a ground for mitigating the severity of the law. But, though anxious to extend mercy even to the guilty, yet it was not to be supposed that he would be guilty of the puerile imbecility of aban-

889
doning the administration of justice, by agreeing to a proposition of the nature he had alluded to. On these grounds, the sentence of the law was carried into execution; and he was sure that the House and the county would agree with him, that it had been properly carried into execution.
Mr. Abercrombyagreed with the right hon. gentleman, that if the proposition made to the government of Ireland were such as he represented, the government were right in not acceding to it. The only point between them was, that the right hon. gentleman would not give the House the means of judging as to the exact terms of the proposition made. Let the right hon. gentleman, shew the House what the proposition was "No, I will not," said the right hon. gentleman, "but I call on the House to vote in the absence of that evidence." Now, before he could assent to the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, he must have the evidence before him. The application that had been made to government, was, he had reason to believe, without qualification or condition of any kind. The right hon. gentleman shook his head. There was, then a difference between them as to a matter of fact; which was, in his opinion, a reason for producing the evidence, which would put an end to that difference. He knew that his noble friend had seen the correspondence in question; and he was justified in saying that he had seen the answer of Mr. Gregory, the under-secretary; there did not appear on the face of it any condition or qualification. If the government had any other proposition made to them, containing the qualifications and conditions which the right hon. gentleman alleged, certainly they had acted wisely in not conceding any thing. But why not enable the House to form a fair judgment? Where could be the evil of producing the correspondence? Why should the government withhold papers which, according to the right hon. gentleman, would bring the government of Ireland triumphant out of the discussion? There were, in fact, two distinct statements made; the first was made by Mr. Bennett the barrister; the proposition was, after some time repeated, and the reply returned by Mr. Gregory was, that he was still without any authority from the lord lieutenant to return any answer from the government. The proposition, it was clear, did not appear a monstrous
890
proposition in the eyes of Mr. Gregory. He (Mr. A.) had reason to believe that he had given a true statement of the correspondence: and if so, it was clear that government were in the highest degree culpable in not having secured the opportunity afforded to them. It should never be forgotten that the root of all the evils which afflicted Ireland was, this,—that one part of the population of the country was arrayed in hostility against the other. He was equally hostile to the ribbon-men and the orange-men. He disliked both: he would wish to destroy both, they were both opposed to the law, to the peace, and to the happiness of the community. It was the bounden duty of a wise and honest government to avail itself of an opportunity of putting an end to either party. Here an opening did present itself to the government, of putting an end to the ribbon association; but of that opportunity they had not thought fit to avail themselves.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, he rose to notice some observations which had fallen from the noble mover, and from his hon. and learned friend. He did not pretend to be so well acquainted with the usages of parliament as they were; but, if he did not mistake it was not a matter of course that papers should be produced; in order to see if something might not be found in them, that would warrant a charge against government. Such a motion ought to rest at least on prima facie evidence, that the papers did contain matter sufficient to induce the House to question the conduct of the government? But, he would ask the House whether, in any thing that had fallen from the noble lord, there was any rational ground for presuming that the correspondence contained matter which would authorise an inquiry into the conduct of the government? He could not suffer the charge that had been made to pass by without bearing his testimony to the fact, that it was utterly impossible that there could exist in the breast of any man anxiety more intense or more sincere, than existed in the breast of the noble marquis at the head of the Irish government, to find out even an excuse to extend the mercy of the government in every case which could admit of it; but, in the case in question, mercy could not be extended consistently with the due administration of justice and the claims of the loyal and the well disposed part of the community. The persons who had been convicted were, in the opinion of the law

891
officers of the Crown, concerned in a dangerous and an illegal association. It was scarcely possible for the House to imagine the full extent of the danger, and the mischief, which a person in so humble a situation as Hughes had the power to effect. He had endeavoured to succeed with the lower classes in the city of Dublin, and in various parts of the country, in undermining their principles, their morals, their virtue, and their religion; to bind them by secret oaths to undefined objects, but tending to one certain point—the overthrow of the constitution, and the separation Of the two countries. Such schemes were chimerical and wild and hopeless; but they were not the less illegal, nor the less necessary to be checked. Hughes was put upon his trial, and a verdict, upon the clearest evidence, was found against him. After that proceeding an effort was made by him to escape the justice of the country: an application was made to the lord lieutenant, resting on no accredited mission, and coming merely from the counsel for the prisoner. It was, it would seem, expected that the lord lieutenant would enter into a treaty with a band of conspirators, which that counsel represented. The learned gentleman had fortunately failed in establishing his credentials. For if he had not so failed, instead of the government granting an amnesty, they would have had to have taken a proceeding of a very different nature. He did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the learned gentleman, or of the bar, of which he was himself a member; but he would venture to say, that there was no mode of application to government more vague or suspicious, than that made through the counsel concerned for the prisoners. The government of Ireland had already suffered very great inconvenience in consequence of having entered into a negotiation with that gentleman, in the case of a person who had been tried and convicted. He did not mean to say that there had been any misconduct on the part of that learned gentleman in the course taken by him in the case just alluded to; but he repeated, that much inconvenience had been felt by government, in consequence of having entered into a negotiation with him. The House would observe, that the documents asked for were not exclusively in the possession of the government. The noble lord who had made the motion, was well acquainted with that correspondence. He could have
892
wished that, being so in possession of them, the noble lord had stated the contents of them more in detail. If the noble lord had gone into a particular statement of the overtures that had been made, it would not, he apprehended, appear that the proposal made was unconditional. The persons who formed the association, were bound for illegal purposes by a secret oath. Now, if they wished to abandon the association, what was to prevent them from doing so? and what necessity was there for any stipulation with government? If they had arms, what could prevent them from giving up those arms? He would suppose that pardoning Hughes was not a condition, although the fact was otherwise; but he would suppose the case to be so—what other condition was annexed to the proposition? Why this: "If you," said the ribbon-men, "grant a general amnesty—ifyou undertake not to prosecute us—certain persons amongst us will not continue members of the association." In other words, "if you do not agree not to prosecute us, we will continue the association." If the government of Ireland had listened to such a proposal, they would have deserved to be laughed at—to be covered with eternal ridicule. Who were the parties? On the one side was the government—on the other the criminals. Where was the bonus? What was the consideration?—"If you," said the criminals to the government, "do not agree not to prosecute us, we will continue our illegal courses; we have been going on for months; we are avowedly an illegal association; our leaders and ourselves have been guilty persons, and therefore we will treat unconditionally with you, the government." Was the government to be bearded in that manner? Was a proposition of that nature to be listened to? If the government had entertained it, they would have disrobed themselves at once of power and character—they would have rendered themselves pusillanimous in the eyes of thebad—they would have forfeited the respect and confidence of the well disposed. It had been said, that the government, in not treating with these persons, had departed from the course which they ought to have pursued. If no condition were annexed, why was the application made? If the parties were anxious to take the oath of allegiance what necessity was there for any stipulation on the subject with government? The very fact of making the application at

893
all went to shew, that it contained conditions and qualifications. There was another circumstance: part of the system of the Ribbon-men was to get arms in their possession. He did not believe that they had been able to succeed in that object to any extent; some arms, however, they had got into their possession; but no proposition whatever was made to give up those arms. If any such offer had been made, it was certainly retracted, no arms whatever were given up, nor were oaths of allegiance taken. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend that no illegal associations of any description ought to be countenanced,—that every association that was against the law ought to be punished. It could be no excuse for the Ribbon-men, or for any other description of persons, to say that they combined for an illegal purpose, because they were exposed to the violence and insult of counter-associations, because against such aggressions there was no other defence than the law of the land. He deprecated as much as any man the Orange Association; but, resistance to the law must be met by the law, and not by lawlessness. Whether It Ribbon-men or Orange-men, if associations were opposed to the law, by the law they must be put down—by the bold, the fearless, the honest exercise of that power with which the constitution had entrusted the government of Ireland. He was sure there was not within the walls of the House one individual with the feelings of a gentleman and a man of honour, who would wish to humble the officers of the Crown for endeavouring honestly to discharge their difficult duties. If the House saw that there was any rational ground for an inquiry into the conduct of government, he would be the last man to oppose it; but, feeling as he did that it would not tend to that object, he must vote against the motion.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, that a proclamation of amnesty was distributed in his county, at the Catholic chapels by the Catholic clergymen. He could not agree to the motion, because he did not see that it would be productive of any good. Even taking the statement of the noble lord for granted, there was no ground for laying the correspondence on the table.
Lord Althorprose to reply. He said, that a copy of the correspondence in question had certainly been put into his hands. In that correspondence he saw no condition, no qualification whatever;
894
he saw, indeed, a distinct offer to give up arms. The right hon. and learned gentleman had said, that if there were no qualifications annexed to the proposal, it was not necessary to make any proposition. Did he mean to say, that the people, finding that, in the eye of the law, they stood guilty of felony, did not stand in need of the protection of government? He would now proceed to read the Correspondence which he held in his hand, and he would leave it to the House to form a judgment upon it. The first letter was written by Mr. R. N. Bennett on the 18th of February 1823, to W. Gregory, esq. and was as follows:
"Sir; I have a communication to make for the information of his excellency the lord lieutenant, relative to the illegal society of persons styling themselves Ribbon-men, of the county and city of Dublin. Do me the honour to acquaint me when and to whom this communication is to be made I have &c.
"R. N. BENNETT."
The next document was a letter, dated Dublin Castle, the 20th of February, 1823, written by Mr. Gregory, in answer to the foregoing; and was as follows:
"Sir; I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, which has been submitted to the Lord Lieutenant; and I am directed to acquaint you, that if you wilt be so good to commit to writing any communication on the subject to which you allude, and transmit it to me, it shall be immediately brought under his Excellency's consideration, I have, &c.
"W. GREGORY."
On the 22nd of February, 1823, Mr. Bennett wrote to Mr. Gregory as follows:
"Sir; I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 18th instant, requiring me to commit to writing the communication to which I alluded in that letter, and which I had to make on behalf of the Ribbon-men of the county and city of Dublin.—Having frequently been employed for them as counsel, I made use of the opportunities thus afforded me, to endeavour to ascertain the real objects of that society. I was assured, that the principle of their union was wholly defensive against the Orange party. They informed me, that the Ribbon system commenced in Armagh, where outrages of a very sanguinary character were alleged to have been committed against the Catholics, by the

895
Orange party with impunity; and this, it appears, created a bitter spirit of retaliation in the minds of the sufferers, which ultimately produced the Ribbon Association.—Persuaded that this was a correct representation of the principles and views of this body, and that they were not hostile to the constitution or the king, it occurred to me, that recent circumstances connected with the prosecutions of the rioters at the theatre presented an opportunity (if properly acted on) of reconciling this society to the government.—Under this impression, I succeeded in opening a communication with their leaders, principally through the medium of Thomas Hughes, now under sentence of transportation for administering the Ribbon-man's oath. In consequence of effecting this communication, two most respectable Catholic clergymen, distinguished for loyalty and intelligence, were deputed on their part to confer with me, on the subject; and, after several meetings, for some weeks past, I became fully convinced that there existed on their part, a sincere disposition to affectionate loyalty towards his Majesty and the present Government of Ireland. And, were all other proofs wanting, a circumstance occurred, during these conferences which appeared quite decisive. At that period some malignant and exaggerated rumours respecting the nature and extent of the king's late indisposition were industriously circulated in Dublin, on which occasion these clergymen informed me, that the despair of the delegates, from the Ribbon-men, was so excessive, as nearly to put an end to all further proceedings as useless. But, upon the assurance of his majesty's restoration to health, the matter was resumed with increased ardour and activity—I suggested to them the propriety, and, perhaps, importance at that time, of coming forward and offering to take the oath of allegiance, to renounce all secret associations, and to give up their arms; and I now have the satisfaction to state through their authorised agents, that these suggestions have been embraced with enthusiasm; and I am now commissioned by them to communicate to you, for the information of his excellency the lord lieutenant, that they are ready and anxious to come forward and subscribe to these terms upon obtaining amnesty.—I have to address you last—I am instructed to state, that the members of Kildare, Meath, West Meath,
896
King's and Queen's counties, and Tipperary, have desired to be included in this communication; and no doubt is entertained, that the whole body of Ribbon-men will follow this example. The number of organised Ribbon-men in the county and city of Dublin is stated to be 13,000 and those in the country very considerable. I have the honour, &c.
"R. N. B."
To that statement no answer whatever was returned. It was, the House would see, a communication which contained no condition; which claimed nothing but an amnesty. The next communication was a letter written to Mr. Bennett on the 28th of Feb. by Mr. A. Lube and Mr. W. Gore:—
"My dear Sir; a number of persons from different parts of the country, in addition to those we mentioned to you, have called on us to know what has been done relative to the proposition you made to Mr. Gregory, last week? We beg leave to state, that they are most anxious to carry that proposition into effect. We request that you will endeavour to obtain the answer of Government as soon as possible. With best wishes, yours, &c.
"A. LUBE. W. GORE."
"February 28, 1823.
"Sir,—Not having had the honour of receiving any answer to my communication of the 24th [this should have been 22] inst. relative to the Ribbon-men, and great anxiety having been expressed by these people for the determination of Government thereon, I think it my duty to call your attention to the inclosed letter from the clergymen to whom I before alluded. "R. N. B."
"To W. Gregory, Esq. &c."
"Dublin Castle, March 3, 1823.
"Sir,—I submitted your letters of the 24th and 28th ult, relative to the Ribbon-men, to the lord lieutenant, and whenever I receive his excellency's commands, I shall not fail to communicate them to you.—I have the honour &c.
"W. GREGORY."
"To R. N. Bennett, Esq. &c. &c."
"March, 1823.
"May it please your excellency from the moment that counsellor Bennett communicated to us the gratifying hope that it might meet your Excellency's benevolent views to extend your mercy, and bring under our most gracious sovereign's

897
protection the deluded Ribbon-men of Ireland, we lost not a moment in using all our exertions to bring about so fortunate an occurrence—an occurrence which we look upon to be of the greatest importance to this divided country. We can, with the fullest confidence, assure your Excellency, that these deluded men were by no means actuated by any hostile views to our most gracious Sovereign's, or your Excellency's mild and conciliating government; on the contrary, they re loyal from principle, and, as far as we could learn from them, their intention in this illegal association was, to protect themselves from a faction that persecuted and oppressed them. In our communications with them, we found them willing and eager to avail themselves of your Excellency's clemency, in procuring for them our most gracious Sovereign's pardon. And we beg leave to suggest to your Excellency, that it will serve, in a powerful degree, to increase their confidence in us, were your Excellency pleased, if not to extend pardon to Hughes, now under sentence of transportation in Kilmainham, at least to suspend his transmission to Cork for some time. He has greatly contributed to the change that has taken place in the sentiments of these misled men. In a word, we could have no communication with them were it not for him. Hoping that your Excellency will take this our bumble suggestion into consideration, we remain, &c
"A. LUBIE. W. GORE.
"To his Excellency, &c. &c. &c."
No answer was given to this, and Hughes was transported.
July 16, 1823.
"Sir—On the 24th (22nd), and 28th February last, I had the honour of submitting through you a communication to the lord lieutenant, from the Ribbon-men, and on the 3rd of March you informed me that whenever you received his Excellency's commands on this subject, you would communicate them to me. Having received no answer after such a lapse of time, I am apprehensive that this matter (under the pressure of important affairs) may have escaped his Excellency's recollection; I therefore beg leave to request you will call the lord lieutenant's attention to the subject, and acquaint me whether it is the pleasure of government to give any answer to the application of the Ribbon-men. Though they were ex-
898
tremely anxious to know the sentiments of government on their case, they did not wish to press for an answer, until certain discussions which have since occupied parliament had terminated. I have, &c.
"R. N. BENNETT.
"To Wm. Gregory, esq."
"Dublin Castle, July 22, 1823.
"Sir;—I submitted your letter of the 16th instant to the lord lieutenant, and have not any commands from his Excellency to return an answer. I have, &c.
"W. GREGORY.
"R. N. Bennett, esq."
After reading the correspondence, the noble lord proceeded to say, that he agreed with the attorney-general for Ireland, that to enter into any communication with the Ribbon-men, with a view to granting a pardon to Hughes, would have Been highly improper on the part of the Irish government; undoubtedly they did right in having the sentence passed upon, that individual put into, execution. If the present motion went to question the propriety of that act, no doubt it would deserve but little support; but the ground work of his motion was, to ascertain whether the government had acted properly in refusing to grant an amnesty to the Ribbon-men, who had come forward to take the oath of allegiance, to give up their arms, and to renounce their secret associations. It was, in his opinion, much to be regretted, that the Irish government did not embrace the opportunity that had been offered to them.
Mr. Grey Bennetsaid, he did not think that the right hon. gentleman and his friends on the other side, were aware that his noble friend was in possession of the correspondence; if they were aware of it, he did not think that what had passed that evening would have occurred. It was clear, that there was not a word in the papers which bad been read to the House respecting any conditions or qualifications whatever. Where the right; hon. gentleman obtained his information, it was difficult to ascertain; but did he mean to say that the documents referred to by his noble friend were not correct? Would the government of Ireland consent to bring forward further information? If not, it would show, that there was something to be kept in the back ground, and without the production of which the House ought not to be satisfied. It had never fallen to his lot to bear a more

899
lame and miserable defence, than that set up on the part of the Irish government.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he was very sensible of the advantages which Ireland had reaped from the able and persevering efforts of distinguished individuals immediately connected with England. He considered this circumstance a most fortunate omen for Ireland; and when persons of the rank, weight, character, and talent of the noble lord, devoted themselves to the discussion of questions of so much difficulty and importance, the result must be happy for the country whose cause he advocated. He felt himself in a distressing situation with regard to the present motion; for as he was convinced in his heart, that the noble lord had only the most enlightened and the best intentions he felt pained to be under the necessity of resisting it. He should not, however discharge his duty, if he supported the proposition. He did not think that the noble lord had made out any sufficient case for the production of the papers, and believed, that if the motion were carried, it would be injurious to the best interests of Ireland. As an Irishman, he had little reason to be well satisfied with the marquis of Wellesley; at least, his sanguine expectations as to what would be accomplished by his administration had been greatly disappointed: therefore, on this occasion he did not appear as the advocate of the Irish government, though he was bound not to allow false impressions to go abroad as to its measures. He was satisfied that in this case the Irish government had acted rightly; for he knew enough of the state of Ireland to be satisfied, that nothing could have been more unwise than for the lord lieutenant to capitulate with persons of such a description. When they came forward, talking of their arms, and boasting of their numbers, and when one of their leaders had been found guilty by an impartial jury, the government of Ireland would have compromised not only its own dignity, but the safety of the state, if it had at all listened to the terms alluded to in the papers. If he had been asked, he should have given his advice for that course which the government had most properly followed. He hoped the noble lord would not persist in pressing the House to a division.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that though the noble mover had made what was usually considered the concluding speech, yet the hon. member for Shrewsbury had subsequently drawn an infer-
900
ence, which, in some degree, changed the view of the question. The inference was, that because the letters and papers of the noble lord did not contain the statements made by the secretary and the attorney-general for Ireland, those statements were wholly without foundation. The noble marquis at the head of the Irish government, must of course be guided by circumstances; and it appear-to him (Mr. P.), that he had been completely warranted in refusing to extend the prerogative of mercy to the case of Hughes. It would have been a gross violation of his duty, and pregnant with the most injurious consequences to Ireland, if the marquis Wellesley had consented to any sort of capitulation with the offenders. But, after all that had been said about the papers which had been read, it might be exceedingly proper that the House should hear a little about one which had not been read; and it was the more essential that that paper should be noticed, in order that no erroneous impression upon this subject might find its way abroad. He would only premise that, if in this case, they were to call for statements made by the counsel for offenders, not a man would be convicted in Ireland for the future, without praying that the same course might be taken in his case; not a single conviction would be recorded without the preliminary step of that House being called upon to examine the diffuse, garbled, and ex-parte statements (for such it must necessarily be) of the prisoner who had been condemned, and the unsuccessful counsel who had defended him. Among the papers which had been brought under the consideration of the marquis Wellesley was one from a Roman Catholic barrister, a gentleman named Luke Plunkett.
Lord Althorp.—I have never seen it.
Mr. Peel.—Doubtless that was ample reason for the noble lord's not stating any thing about it to the House; but it was an equally ample reason for his (Mr. P's.) now bringing it to their notice. Mr. Luke Plunkett, on the 24th of February, stated, "that he had made it his business to see Hughes in gaol, after he had been convicted; that he saw him in the presence of the gaoler; and that he undertook to hold out some hopes of mercy to him on the part of government, if he would become the instrument of his associates giving up their arms; or, if not of giving up their arms, of inducing the leaders to come forward and submit," In

901
either of these cases Mr. Luke Plunkett, acting upon his own authority, had thought proper to hold out hopes of mercy. Why, what alternative did this proceeding hold out to the noble marquis, but to defend to the uttermost the sentence of the law and the province of government, which an individual had thus undertaken the conditional exercise of? But this gentleman, in another part of his letter, added—"as to Hughes, whatever may be his ultimate fate, do at least endeavour to exert your influence with the marquis Wellesley, that he may be detained at Kilmainham, till the transports which are to convey the convicts can come round to Cork." Now, when such an application was made, what did the noble marquis do? What did he know? Why, he knew that the immediate execution of the sentence upon this man would do more good, and produce more effect than any other measure whatever, and he immediately directed his removal from Kilmainham. Every body at all acquainted with the state of Ireland must know, that the least appearance of vacillation on the part of the government was always productive of infinite mischief. And, in what case was it called for in this instance? On behalf of some miserable and deluded victim to the arts and practices of others? No; but of the man who had organized the proceedings of his associates; who had been the originator of all these offences; and who had at last come under the hands of justice. And then, the proposition was made by an individual, who, without any authority whatever, had undertaken to hold out hopes of mercy to this man. Could it be doubted, under such circumstances, that the noble marquis was quite right in resisting every kind of attempt at what had been properly termed capitulation? And, what would have followed, supposing Mr. Luke Plunkett's proposition had been adopted? What would have followed upon such a promise of surrender of arms, made by such a party? Did not every body know what those arms would be? From his own experience he could suggest, that they might turn out to be stocks of guns without barrels, or barrels of guns without stocks. He felt perfectly sure, that the arms to be delivered up would have been perfectly useless, as they always were in similar cases; for they were generally such as had been kept for a long time in some bog, or out-house,
902
while those that could be of the least use, were retained and concealed. But, another passage that he should read would completely sustain the statements of his right hon. friend. Mr. Luke Plunkett proceeded thus:—"If Hughes should be be saved, or if his punishment should be commuted to imprisonment, I have no objection to accompany him to any part of the country where his influence and presence can be useful to put down that discord which has so lately raised its hideous crest, &c." He put it to the House, whether it would have been endured that Hughes should thus be elevated into the character of a negociator between the government of Ireland and these Ribbon-men, and be permitted to travel over the country with this Mr. Luke Plunkett, preaching to the people the propriety of their giving up their arms? The noble lord had read a paragraph from the communication of a Mr. Lubie, who was pleased to state that these men "entertained no hostile views against our most gracious sovereign." No hostile views! Why, they were found in arms—they were arrayed against the peace of the country; and yet this Mr. Lubie, in the amiable simplicity of his heart, could not imagine—not he—how it could be sup posed that they entertained designs of so dangerous a nature; or why, after the man had been put upon his trial and convicted, the government should not be called upon to account, for not having interposed, in such a case, the prerogative of mercy! To have entered into any negotiation, under such circumstances, would, indeed, have been so to have lowered the government of Ireland, as to render it unfit to preside over the affairs of that country. He could not for art instant suppose that the House would lend itself to the establishment of a precedent so fatal as that which would be set, if the motion of the noble lord were carried.
The gallery was then cleared for a division; but none took place, and the motion was negatived.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that if the House allowed the bill to go to a committee, he should supply two omissions, by introducing a clause respecting persons coursing, and another protecting the rights

903
of the crown, which some persons thought were not sufficiently provided for by the present bill.
Sir John Shelleyrose to give this measure his decided opposition. There were, he said, only two good grounds that could be assigned for repealing the old law, and substituting another in its place: it must be shown, either that the existing law was unjust and oppressive, or that it was inefficient For the purposes with which it had been enacted. Now, no one could deny that whenever any evils arose in the nation, whether real or imaginary, the right of petitioning parliament for a remedy was always resorted to. Had not the table of that House, for instance, groaned, session after session, beneath petitions for reform—petitions for relief from agricultural distress—petitions for remission of taxation, and a hundred other objects? But, inasmuch as, within his own knowledge, there had not been one single petition presented to that House against the existing Game laws, he was justified in assuming that those laws were not oppressive. It had been said, that this was a modified measure; but, let honourable gentlemen be assured, that if the barrier that now subsisted were once passed, it would be utterly impossible for them ever to return to the point from whence they had set out. Another bill after this, and another still stronger, would, in successive sessions of parliament, be introduced; until, at length, all restrictions would be done away with. He must be allowed very much to doubt, whether either his hon. friend (Mr. S. Wortley), or those other hon. members who were among the zealous supporters of this new measure, would be prepared to go this length. A law must be bad that was founded, as this would be, upon partial, or upon impracticable principles. An act of parliament might be passed for the general preservation of the game throughout the kingdom; but, how could it be possible to pass a law, intended to give a property in an animal which, by nature, defied all human control, and could never in that sense become property? He maintained, that they might as well bring in a law to limit and regulate the migration of woodcocks as one that should establish a right of property in the birds themselves. What property could there be in that which in the space of twelve hours might change its habitation four-and-twenty times? His hon. friend wished to assimilate the Game
904
laws of England to the Scottish Game laws; but, though the Game laws of Scotland might be extremely good for that country, where properties were usually large, and where there was a vast deal of waste land, they would be very inconveniently applied to England. In England, land was, generally speaking, so much subdivided into small properties, that it was mostly impossible for an estate to maintain so much game as to keep any thing like a property in it. The difficulty of breeding game was much more felt, therefore, in England than in Scotland, on account of the subdivision of land. But, suppose a person to be possessed of a little waste land upon the confines of a large preserve and an extensive estate, he would have nothing to do but to plant it, or even to sow it in a certain way, and he would find that he could by possibility convert his land to a better profit; for all the game would flock to his corn or his new plantation, and by this proposition they would become his property. But, suppose that parliament were to make game property, would it be just or fair that a man who might possess a certain number of acres should be said to have a property in more game than all his land would support? If the present measure were proceeded with, such a man would be able to possess hundreds of heads of game, whose own property might never have contributed a single leveret to the common stock. The chief argument in favour of the sale of game had been, that monied men ought to be enabled to buy it, and that their money would always procure it, under any circumstances. But, he would maintain, that if in England there was space for breeding a sufficient quantity of game to allow of the monied men laying out their money in its purchase, they ought to expend some part of their wealth in the purchase of land itself. Then they would know what amount of game they could raise; and with the other advantages of country gentlemen, they would acquire some knowledge of poor-rates and taxes. His hon. friend had proposed a very strong clause against the man who, being unqualified, was found shooting by day. To find a man shooting by day over his property was a circumstance that might ruffle the serenity of his hon. friend a little; but it was not a man of this description that did the mischief of which country gentlemen had sometimes to

905
complain. He was to be considered as doing no more harm, than one additional Sportsman coming down to his hon. friend's mansion. The mischief was always done by the poacher—the thief who snared his game by night. Did his hon. friend suppose that the poacher, if game were made property under this bill, would all of a sudden be conscience-struck, and reason thus with himself,—"As game is now property, I will not touch it, because I shall be depriving another of the value he is entitled to receive for it?" Would he not rather say, "As game can now be sold, I will get at it; and getting into some road or foot-path, I shall easily know where to meet with a dealer, who will purchase of me without a question?" Last year, he had entered his protest against the sale of game. He did not like to convert that into matter of poor paltry profit, which, under present circumstances, was a compliment both to the giver and to the receiver. He should, however, say no more at present on this part of the subject, except to remind the House, that the poacher would always undersell the fair trader; because he would continue to get his game by such means as enabled him, at a lower price, to realize a greater profit. The hon. baronet, after adverting to the great advantage which the kingdom derived from the residence of the country gentlemen upon their estates, expressed his unwillingness to consent to such an entire change in those ancient laws. He Would ask—had not this country risen to its highest pinnacle of glory during the existence of those laws? Let not the House be led away by a false species of philanthropy, to adopt so mischievous a measure. He was convinced that they would be doing no good by giving their sanction to it, except to the poacher, the thief, and the attorney [Hear! hear]. Upon these considerations, he begged leave to propose, by way of amendment, "That the bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
Mr. W. Peelrose to second the amendment, and expressed his opinion, that the making game private property was fraught with many difficulties. He was surprised that his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire, who was so little of a reformer in general, should have disposed in so radical a manner of the Game laws, by a bill which would annihilate all the Game laws in the country. Some gentlemen were so sanguine as to suppose that this bill would
906
put an end to poaching altogether; but they might rest assured, that so long as there was game there would be poachers, though he admitted, that this bill would in the end destroy poachers, by destroying the game. Some gentlemen would say indeed, that rather than have poachers they would have no game; but, because there were no poachers, there would not cease to be criminals. After a few years, when the occupation of poachers should be destroyed, was it supposed that those men would return to the habits of honest industry? He was persuaded that, if the House legalized the sale of game, they would do more to demoralize the people, than they could do by any other measure. It was said, that the gaols were now full of poachers. He knew that one quarter of the commitments in England were for offences against the Game laws; but he would predict, that if the present bill passed, for some years one-half of the commitments would be for such offences. He knew that some strong evidence had been offered to the House last year, to shew that the sale of game was now carried on to as great an extent as it well could be. But, to say the least of it, this evidence was suspicious as coming from interested persons; and, if the sale of game were legalised, it would still be the interest of buyers to get it from those who could supply it cheapest; and none could give it so cheap as those who stole it. As for the small landed proprietors, the preservation of game must be so vexatious to them, that, after a short time, they would give it up in despair. The great objection he had to the bill was, that it would destroy the noble amusement of fox-hunting; for, when to the other inducements to destroy foxes, the occupier of land had the additional one of preserving his game, the race would soon be extinct. If there were gentlemen who wished to turn poachers under this bill, and turn their partridges and pheasants into sixpences and shillings, he hoped they would be woefully disappointed. It had been said, that if they had no field sports they would have no country gentlemen. He would not go so far as that; but he would say, that any law that discouraged the residence of the country gentlemen on their estates, would have a most mischievous effect; and he begged them to compare Ireland with England, and those parts of Ireland where gentry did reside, with those where they did not. He knew

907
there were gentlemen who wished to try an experiment on the Game laws,; but he begged them to reflect that what they did must be irrevocable, and that it was as well to think of retracing their steps from the grave as to repeal this bill after passing it. He hoped that the reception given to this bill would be such, that legalizing the sale of game, or the making it property, would never again be mentioned in that House.
Mr. C. Rosssaid, that if he thought the bill tended to diminish the legitimate influence possessed by the country gentlemen over the lower classes, he should be one of its warmest opposers; but if it tended, as he believed it would do, to increase that influence, by removing one of the main causes of irritation, it was well worthy the attention of the House. The hon. baronet had inferred, that the Game laws were popular, because there had been no petitions against them: Now this was a most unfounded inference. It was unfortunately true, that the Game laws were very generally obnoxious; and that an habitual violation of the law in the case of poaching, as of smuggling, had ceased to excite moral reprobation. The legislature had had recourse to severe penalties against it; bill after bill had been brought in to prevent game from being sold, but without effect; and the question now was, not whether game should be sold or not, but whether they should legalize and render innoxious that traffic, which they found they could not prevent—whether it was not advisable to authorize that to be done, by law, which was now done in spite of all law? Considerable doubts had been expressed by some gentlemen, as to the correctness of the evidences that had been given before the committee last year, as to the extent of the sale of game; and he confessed that he himself had felt some suspicions as to its accuracy. But he had taken the trouble to examine the books of some of the poulterers, and he found the statements to the fullest extent confirmed. He had extracted from the books of one, by no means of the principal sellers, the numbers of game he had supplied, and the names of the persons to whom they were supplied. He found in one day he had supplied 100 head; in another, 135; in another, 228; in another 101, and so on. The books he had examined were made up previously to the parliamentary inquiry on the subject; so that there was no room
908
or temptation for falsification. But, it was not to London alone that the sale was confined; it extended to every considerable town, and indeed the system was spread over the whole country; and, as it had been strongly stated by one of the witnesses before the committee, if the laws were written in blood they would not be effectual, there were so many persons of great wealth, and yet of no landed property, who would have game; though the greatest consumers of all, created as it were by the difficulties thrown in the way of procuring the articles, were the tradesmen of London and of the great towns.—It was the duty of the House to try whether, by a revision of the law, they could not obtain the same advantages, and prevent the evils of the system. It was a primary principle of legislation, to consider the temper of the people upon whom the laws were to operate. What could be more unfortunate than a state of law, under which there was a continual struggle between the magistrate and the multitude, and an alternate series of victory and sullen submission? In all the trials under the Game laws, it was known what difficulty there was in getting convictions. There were continual appeals, not to the sober reason, but to the passions of jurors; and there were no class of crimes where the convictions were so few, in proportion to the number of offences. Under the present system, the poacher almost monopolized the market; and, if the sale were legalised, he would at any rate meet with a competitor on the part of the regular vender. But the game now procured by the poacher was even more than was wanted for the supply of the market; for a great deal so procured was kept by the poulterer until it was in a state not to be saleable, and was destroyed; because, from the illegal and uncertain manner in which it was obtained, the poulterers entered into contracts to take all the poachers might send. It was said, that if game were made private property it would rapidly disappear. But if they might reason by analogy—if experience might guide them—they might safely pronounce that there was no ground for such an apprehension. If they looked to the countries in which game was made private property, they would see that the game was not destroyed. If they looked to Germany, they would find that the quantity of game slaughtered in a day, was greater than in this country. If they

909
looked to France, of which he could speak from experience, he could assure them, that in those parts of it where game was not preserved at all, they would find more than in any county in England. In Scotland, too, where, if the sale of game was not permitted by law, it was connived at, there was no complaint of the deficiency of game; and it was necessary that some stronger difference should be adduced, than the alleged difference in the state of property, before he should consent to give up the inference drawn from the state of the law, and its results, in that country. He was not so sanguine as those persons were, who supposed that this bill would put down poaching altogether. Those who pursued it for their own gratification might still pursue it; but those who pursued poaching in order to sell game, would, he had no doubt, be driven out of the market. He was anxious to draw closer the bonds which united all classes of people in this happy country: he was anxious that the ground of dissatisfaction, whether real or imaginary, that was to be found in the Game laws, should be removed; and wishing by no means to encroach on the amusements or on the privileges of the country gentlemen, to whom the country was so deeply indebted for their zeal in repressing tumult at home, and in standing up against foreign enemies, he should warmly support the present bill.
Mr. Lockhartsaid, that when it was asserted that the Game laws were unpopular, he should like to know with what class they were unpopular; for certain he was, that he had heard more said against them in that House than he had in any other place. They were unpopular with the poachers, and never would be otherwise; but with other classes they were far from being unpopular. The bill before them was, they were told, to unite all classes of the people. He should be glad to know how this could be; for he never saw a bill more calculated to be unpopular, one that more rashly took away existing rights—or supported its provisions by more tyrannical and unconstitutional means. In the first place, without discussing the principle of making game property, or legalising the sale of it—he might observe that the first enactment of the bill was, to sweep away all qualifications at a blow. There had been objections to the principle of qualification; but, he did not hold vested rights in general, or qua-
910
lifications in particular, so lightly as thus to dispose of them. Those qualifications had their value; they afforded inducements to the acquisition of learning and honour, and to the perseverance necessary to attain the stations which conferred them. They were cheap incentives to exertion. The next clause was, to make the game the property of the proprietor of the land—so long, he supposed, as it stayed on the spot. The property of game, then, was not in the occupier of the land!—["Certainly not!" from Mr. Wortley]. What, then, became of the liberality of the bill, the person who fed the game was not to have the property in it? The person who had the property of the game then was, he supposed, looking at the bill as a lawyer, the person who was seised of the fee simple, or who had an estate for life in the land. Who, then, was to preserve it? The occupier was hot to preserve it, and the owner of the fee-simple had no right to do so, unless he was happy enough to be one of those overgrown aristocratical personages who had a given quantity of acres not yet named, but which he supposed would be a pretty large one, lying altogether, without so much as a single field intervening to break their continuity. Those who were happy enough to have lying together, a given number of acres, he supposed 500, might appoint a game-keeper; but the humble yeoman of 100 or 200 (or 1,000 acres, if they did not lie together) could not. If a lady were possessed of land she could not appoint a game-keeper—a difficulty which the gallantry of the hon. member for Yorkshire should have led him to avoid. When the odious task of arresting trespassers was provided for, the occupiers of the land, though they had no property in the game, might apprehend any person who trespassed on the grounds of the overgrown aristocratical persons he had described, if, upon being warned, they did not go off. They were to apprehend in this manner persons sporting in open day, and with their guns in their hands! Did the hon. gentleman think that this would be popular with his constituents or with any constituents living in towns? Those tradesmen and manufacturers who now could be, and in point of fact were whenever they were respectable, constantly invited by the farmers or land owners to shoot, would be liable to be apprehended as common felons, or rather in a manner still more summary than felons. Was

911
the hon. member aware how the law stood as to the apprehension of felons? Was he aware, that if a man was not a con-Stable he apprehended a felon at his peril, and if there was resistance which occasioned death, it was only held to be manslaughter? Yet the hon. gentleman authorised any occupier of land to seize any trespasser with his gun in his hand. When they considered the difficulties as to determining what was a sufficient notice, and the disputes as to property, they might form some idea of the bloodshed and affrays to which such a power would lead. The professed object of the bill was, the better preservation of game, yet for this purpose it was notoriously unnecessary; for the game had, in fact, increased tenfold within the time of his own knowledge. There was some other object not avowed, he believed—the destruction of poachers; but there was nothing in the bill to make this attempt succeed, with the exception of the clauses respecting the punishment of night poachers on successive convictions, which, to be just, he thought worthy the attention of the House. If the present Game laws were unpopular from the narrowness of the qualifications, let the House enlarge them. Let them keep up the old qualification of land and rank, and add such others as might be deemed advisable. Let them admit the army, the navy, physicians, the bar, the clergy. For commerce, let them admit the heads of corporations, or let them give a qualification to a certain amount of personal property; but let them not pretend to give the property of game to the owners of the land, and thus break down ignominiously the property they had created, by disqualifying those owners from preserving it. Under the bill, no one was to be allowed to have snares to take game but a gamekeeper. What! was it meant by this that a man should not snare the game which the bill declared to be his property, or even his rabbits, which were eating up his crops? At present, the law was impartial, and declared, that no persons should have snares to destroy game, though gamekeepers who, partook of the poaching as well as of the preserving character, sometimes had them in defiance of the law.—He thought he had shewn sufficiently, that the bill could be papular—not with the occupiers of land, for it gave them no right to the game, not to professions, not to persons of small and divided properties, whose qualifica-
912
tions it swept away—but only to those who possessed a certain arrondissement of land, to whom the bill seemed intended ultimately to give a monopoly of game. What could be said, under the present bill, to persons possessed of allotments in common fields, who might have a thousand acres divided into two hundred slips? How would it be possible for them to pursue game, or to preserve it? If there was an ulterior object behind—if it were said, that game produced crime, and should therefore be destroyed altogether, he should be ready to meet that argument. They might then go deeply into the question, what sort of property it was fitting to protect against those who were below the law, how far the fruits of the earth, or the implements of husbandry, were to be left exposed to depredators, or to be considered communis juris, because they were exposed to lawless pilferers. He would not speak of the principle on which the Game laws had been maintained as conducive to the comfort of the gentry, and as preventing them from falling into the errors of the gentry of France who wasted their time in coffee-houses, without improving the health of their minds or bodies. But he would say, that, considering the difficulty of the subject matter, the Game laws were as perfect as could be expected. They afforded a healthy amusement to a greater body of people than would be done by the amending bill. They did not exclude the bar, the church, the farmer, or even the tradesman; for though in words they excluded them, where they happened not to be qualified, yet there were very few who were not invited, and who, where a litigious spirit had not sprung up, were not enabled to shoot. This system would be ill-exchanged for that boorish and churlish practice which prevailed abroad; where every man who went out of a town to shoot might have his gun broken by a gamekeeper, or be exposed to the more deadly quill of an attorney. He thought the existing Jaw with a few alterations, was as good a one as could be devised; and, as the proposed amendment was only likely to set the people by the ears, he should give it his decided opposition.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid:—As this bill, Sir, provides for an evil which I consider to be one of great magnitude in the present state of society, I mean the legal prohibition of the sale of game, I shall certainly give my vote for it, reserving to

913
myself the power of proposing such alterations and modifications, with respect to other clauses of the bill, as I may hereafter deem expedient. Independently of the expediency of the clause for legalising the sale of game, I am certainly of opinion, that the present state of the law, with respect to the qualifications of those who are entitled to kill game, requires alteration and nothing which has just fallen from the hon. and learned member for Oxford, has tended to change my opinion. I am persuaded, indeed, that if the hon. and learned gentleman were seriously to undertake the defence of the present laws, with respect to qualifications, he would find them teeming with so many absurdities, that he would be compelled to abandon the task, and to admit that the grounds for amending them were irresistible. He has said, that to alter the laws with respect to qualifications, would be to interfere with vested rights; but surely the notion of vested rights has never yet been pushed to this extraordinary extent. Can it seriously be maintained, that the admission of fresh persons to the right of killing game would be an interference with vested rights? The hon. and learned gentleman thinks, that the qualification ought to be limited to rank, to science, and to talent. But, does the present law admit science and talent to the privilege of killing game? How does the present law deal with the clergy, to whom the hon. and learned gentleman would give the privilege? A doctor of divinity does not by the present law, possess the privilege of killing game; he may indeed procreate a qualified person, but he is not himself a qualified person. The eldest son of an esquire, or person of higher degree, is a qualified person; and as a doctor of divinity is a person of higher degree than an esquire, he may beget a qualified man, but he has not himself the privilege of killing game. Men of science and talent, therefore, are not favoured by the present law; they are merely left to the melancholy privilege of begetting game-killers, who may be men of no talents at all. And, what is the state of the law as to qualification founded on property? Why, the second son of a man of 20,000 l. a year, is not by law qualified to kill game; the younger children of a man possessing the largest property in the kingdom, are not by law qualified to kill game on their father's own estates. Is it not a most absurd and anomalous state of things to see
914
men acting in the capacity of magistrates and enforcing the Game laws against others when theirs own sons are every day violating them? It seems to me that no gentleman who seriously weighs the two arguments to which I have adverted, can possibly resist a proposition for amending the laws with respect to qualification. The hon. and learned gentleman will recollect, that there is a material difference in the laws respecting qualifications in different parts of the United Kingdom. In Ireland, for instance, the law of qualification is founded on a different, and, in my opinion, a much better principle than in England; for in Ireland any individual possessing personal property to the amount of 1,000 l. is qualified to kill game. In Scotland any person may kill game, who receives permission from the proprietor of the estates on which he kills it. I do not advert to these differences of the law with a view of contending, that they ought to be introduced into England, but merely to shew, that the practice of the law is different in countries whose general customs are not very alien to our own.—With respect to the sale of game, the more I turn this question in my mind, the more satisfied I am, in the first place, that it will be for the interest of the game-preserver; and in the next place (which is a much more important consideration) that it is absolutely necessary for the interests and the peace of society, to remove the legal prohibition of the sale of game. In arguing this question à priori, let us look to the present state of society as compared with the state in which society formerly stood in this country. Our union with Scotland, and our subsequent union with Ireland, have compelled the residence in England of some of the greatest proprietors in those countries. An Irish peer for instance, residing in this country, has no legal right to kill game, for his Irish qualification does not give him the right; and, if the law were enforced against him, we should be in the situation of having invited him over to this country, and then depriving him of the privilege to which his rank and station entitle him. A foreign ambassador is not, by Jaw, entitled to kill game in this country. In short, by the existing law, Irish peers, Irish bishops, foreign ambassadors, and even princes of the blood, I believe, unless possessed of landed property, are all disqualified. If laws stand upon our Statute-book, which are practically evaded

915
and violated every day, this is of itself a sufficient reason for their repeal. I will ask, whether these laws are not perfectly inoperative—whether they are not constantly, notoriously, and openly violated in every great town—and whether it is possible, in the present state of society, that it should be otherwise? The constant violation of laws is a bad example. And, by whom are these laws violated? In general, by those whose duty it is to enforce the laws of the country. It often happens, that a gentleman who is occupied during the morning in enforcing the laws, himself sets the example of violating them in a subsequent part of the day. If the law really prevented the sale of game, there would be a ground for objecting to an alteration of it; but as it is notorious that it is wholly inoperative, this is one of the strongest grounds for its repeal. It may be said, that it is a mere speculative assumption to take it for granted that game is sold. What is the proof of it? Before the committee of last year, evidence of the constant habitual sale of game in London was produced, such as must have convinced any man, that game was sold as openly as any other article. But it may be said, that these persons were not examined on oath; that before the Lords they would have told a very different story; and besides, that they were persons interested in the sale of game. To meet these objections, Sir, and to ascertain in as satisfactory a manner as possible the facts as to the sale of game, I have felt it my duty to select four or five of the principal towns in England, and to ascertain the number of convictions which have taken place in those towns, for the selling and purchasing of game. I have not confined myself to a single year, but I have called for returns for the last five years, and I have selected places notorious for their hospitality. If any hon. member who represents any of those towns, will rise in his place, and deny that game is sold there, my mouth is closed; but if it be not denied, the House may, I apprehend, place some reliance on the fact of the notoriety of the sale of game. The first place which I selected was Bristol, where it will not be disputed, I believe, that the public exhibition and sale of game is notorious. From Bristol I received the following answer:—"I am directed by the Mayor, in reply to your letter of the 7th, to acquaint you, that no person has been convicted in
916
Bristol during the last five years, for selling or purchasing game." Here, then, there has not been a single conviction. I perceive, indeed, that the hon. member for Bristol smiles at the very supposition of a conviction for the sale of game at Bristol. From Liverpool the following answer was returned:—"In reply to the letter of Mr. Hobhouse, dated the 7th,I have to acquaint you, that no person has been convicted at Liverpool for the last five years for selling or purchasing game," From Manchester, the answer is—"In reply to your letter of the 7th, respecting convictions for selling or purchasing game before the magistrates, within the last five years, I have to state, that four persons have been convicted; three in the year1821, and one in the year 1822, all for selling game." From Glasgow the reply was—"The magistrates of this city, during the last five years, have not been called upon to enforce the Game laws in any one instance; offences against these laws are usually prosecuted by justices of peace in the country." If, therefore, in four of the principal towns of Great Britain, there have been only four convictions for this offence during the last five years, it cannot be denied, that the legal prohibition of the sale of game is utterly inoperative. In point of fact, game is already sold as openly as it could be if the law were repealed. The hon. and learned member for Oxford spoke of the heads of corporations. Is it conceivable, Sir, that, the head of a corporation—an "animal propter convivia natum"—could be restrained by any penal enactment from the indulgence of his appetite for game [a laugh]? If the law therefore, has fallen as it must be admitted to have done, into complete desuetude, it is desirable, as well for the interests of the game-preserver, as of the public, to legalize the sale of game. The poacher has two motives for poaching; one the pleasure of sporting which he shares in common with ourselves: the other the hope of gain. With the first of these motives, It is impossible to contend by legislative enactment, but we may control the other, by a measure which will diminish the illegal profits which the poacher at present derives from the exclusive supply of the market in large towns. If we permit the legal dealer in; this article to compete with the poacher, it cannot be denied, that such a measure will interfere with the profits of the poacher. I have myself seen in a single

917
room upwards of a thousand head of pheasants collected, which were not disposable for any useful purpose. All the friends of the owner of these pheasants were satiated with game; but, supposing him to have been enabled to send these pheasants into the markets, can it be contended that this would not have the effect of diminishing, pro tanto, the profits of the poacher, and consequently of diminishing the temptation to poaching? I do not mean to contend, that the legalising of the sale of game will put an end to poaching altogether; but it will certainly have the effect of materially diminishing it. Suppose a law were enacted by which rabbits, salmon, or any animals of the nature of game, were declared not saleable in the market, would such a law have the effect of giving increased protection to the proprietors of such animals? Quite the contrary; it would inevitably throw a monopoly into the hands of the illegal trader. The hon. baronet opposite thinks it very strange, that people who have nothing but personal property should complain that they cannot get game. "I never heard of any thing so unreasonable" (exclaimed the hon. baronet). "Why does not such a person go and purchase an estate, if he wants game? What has a man with nothing but personal property to do with game?" If we were to go into the question of right, the hon. baronet would find that his argument rested upon a very frail foundation. Besides, the argument, such as it is, is capable of an extension, which even the hon. baronet might not find perfectly convenient. Upon the same principle it might be said to one man, "what right have you to eat salmon? You have no river." To another "What right have you to indulge yourself with turtle? you have no West-India island." The hon. baronet, in consistency with his own principle, that none but the proprietors of the soil have a right to eat game, must forego the pleasures of salmon and turtle, unless he be the owner of the water which they inhabit. If the sale of game be legalised, I am satisfied that by far the greatest portion of the supply will be that which is derived from honest means. This has been the result in every instance of a similar alteration of the laws. Half a century ago deer-stealing was a very prevalent offence. At that time the public exposure of venison was an offence punishable by very severe penalties. But, since the repeal of the law
918
prohibiting the sale of venison, the legal trader has driven the deer-stealer from the market, and the offence is comparatively of rare occurrence.—It has been said, that one of the consequences of repealing the present law will be, to enable a man who has a few acres of land in the neighbourhood of a great proprietor, to sow buck wheat for the purpose of seducing the pheasants of his richer neighbour. What, I will ask, is to hinder a small land-owner from doing this in the present state of the law, and then employing a qualified person to kill the game which may come on his land? If he entertains any malignity against his rich neighbour, here is at once a mode of gratifying it, under the existing law. My hon. friend talks of the injustice of tempting away the rich man's pheasants; but, if we look to the strict justice of the case, is it perfectly just in the rich man to preserve game to eat up the poor man's crop? There would be much more justice in allowing the poor farmer to destroy a few of his rich neighbour's stray pheasants, as an indemnity for the injury which he must necessarily sustain from them. But, the alteration of the law will, even in this respect, be attended with the most beneficial effects. As it stands at present, the poor farmer has an interest in destroying as much of his rich neighbour's game as possible; but when he has a legal right to kill that which comes on his own land, the waiver of that right may be easily made the subject of pecuniary compromise between him and the rich proprietor.—My hon. friend urged another argument, which is certainly more forcible than any to which I have hitherto adverted. He contended, that if we legalize the sale of game, we shall lose one of the best means which we now possess of convicting poachers. Poachers, however, are much more frequently convicted for being detected in the act of killing game than for having game in their possession. It appeared from a return of persons convicted for having game in their possession, in Norfolk, Suffolk, Dorsetshire, and Sussex, that they bore no proportion to those convicted for being found out at night in the act of destroying game. If, Sir, I were perfectly satisfied that the present system of Game laws worked well, I should be the first to oppose any speculative plan of improvement; but I am satisfied that the present system does not work well. The number of commitments throughout

919
England for offences against the Game laws have amounted, in six or seven years, to upwards of 9,000; that is, about 1,200 a year. I believe that it is neither for the interest of society, nor for the interest of the game-preserver, that the present law, which prohibits the sale of game, should continue. I do not believe, that any legislative enactment would have the effect of preventing the sale of game. The effect of increasing the penalty has been tried and it has not succeeded. The wiser course, therefore, will be to suffer the legal possessor of game to enter into competition with the illegal possessor. I believe that this course will succeed; and, considering as I do, that the prohibition of the sale of game is one of the greatest evils arising out of the present system of the Game laws, I shall support the second reading of my hon. friend's bill, reserving to myself the power of giving a free opinion hereafter, as to other parts of the measure. I cannot help thinking that my hon. friend has, in many respects, attempted too violent a change in the laws, and that it would have been better to introduce a more cautious and gradual alteration of the present system. The expediency of adopting some alteration and modification of these parts of the bill, will be more properly discussed in a future stage of it.
Mr. Ridley Colburnethought that the expectation of underselling poachers by a repeal of the present law would not be realised. Pheasants and hares were already sold by poachers at two shillings, and partridges at six-pence each. As to the argument, that people would prefer dealing with the legal trader to buying their game of poachers, this was a distinction, with respect to property in animals feræ naturæ, which was not likely to enter the heads of purchasers. The remedy proposed was, he thought, of an extremely doubtful nature, as it would establish a legal market for the sale of game, without ascertaining the means by which the market was to be supplied.
Mr. Benett, of Wilts, said, he was so disgusted with the present state of the laws respecting game, that he Was prepared to consent to any change, conceiving that it must be one for the better. No man in England was fonder than he was of country amusements, and of foxhunting in particular; and, if he thought that the bill would have the effect of abolishing that sport, he would most stre-
920
nuously oppose it. That, however, would not be the consequence of the passing of the bill, which would merely remedy the defects of a system of laws, which had become the instrument of tyranny, and the cause of immorality. The laws relative to game had been passed in feudal times, when land-owners were tyrants, when commerce was but little cultivated, and when few persons were able to purchase game. They were not calculated for the present state of society. Merchants would have game on their tables, even if it were soiled with the blood of the poachers who procured it for them. Since, therefore, there was such a determination on the part of monied men to have game, he thought it was wise to allow them to procure it, without destroying the morals of a large portion of the community. Under the present laws, no persons felt an interest in the preservation of game, except the great land-owners; and their servants. The farmer, who had the best opportunity of preserving it, had no interest in doing so. The only way to put a stop to poaching was, to take away the inducement to commit the offence, by legalizing the sale of game, which would have the effect of reducing the price of that article so low, as to render poaching no longer a profitable employment. It appeared to him, that the present bill could in no way affect fox-hunting. Every fox-hunter was a trespasser, under the law as it now stood; and persons would have as much right to draw a fox after the passing of the bill, as they had now. For the reasons he had stated, he would vote for it.
Lord Miltonsaid, that the hon. member who had just sat down had expressed his disgust with the present system of the Game laws to be so strong, that any change must be an improvement. Now, he apprehended, that the general cause of that disgust arose from the enormous quantity of crime which they engendered. The great object of the House should be to diminish crime; and to this purpose all other considerations should yield. He thought the hon. baronet, the member for Lewes, attached too much importance to other considerations, such as the inducements to country gentlemen to reside on their estates. He was one of those who doubted very much whether those gentlemen were the most serviceable in their respective neighbourhoods, whose chief occupation and pleasure consisted in shoot-

921
ing game. With respect to that part of the measure which proposed to legalize the sale of game, it should have his hearty concurrence. He thought such an enactment highly advantageous, indeed loudly called for; because he could tell them, that, whether parliament did or did not legalise the sale of game, the public feeling of the country, and the general sense of mankind had already done it. And, if parliament did not consent to do it, the present laws would only remain a lasting monument of legislative folly. His wish on the subject was not to legislate at all: he wished to destroy the legislation which at present existed; he wished to take away the act of parliament which prevented the legality of the sale of game, together with its twin-brother in wisdom, the measure which was passed five years ago, to prevent the purchase of it. The efficacy of both those measures had been amply proved before the committee which sat on this question last year. It was very proper that the principles of a bill should be discussed upon the second reading, although at the same time there were many of its details which could only be understood in the committee. But he objected to the principle of the present bill, which went to change the right of property. He could see no good reason why there should be a transfer of the right of property from the lord of the manor to the freeholder of a few acres. They might talk as they pleased of the odiousness of the Game laws, they might call the lord of the manor by what name they pleased; they might call him tyrant, oppressor, remnant of the feudal system; but he contended, that this principle would raise up thirty tyrants instead of one: it would invest the proprietor of fifty acres of land with all the rights which the lord of the manor possessed at present; and, without meaning to speak at all harshly, he was inclined to think, that those rights would be exercised with ten times more vigilance, and ten times more oppression to the people, if they were vested in such proprietors, than if they continued to be vested entirely in one. It was in vain for gentlemen to suppose they could have game to the extent they had at present, without also the attendant consequence of poaching: it was, in fact, a necessary consequence of the system. From the facts which he had stated, gentlemen would, of course, draw their own inference; but he did not wish
922
it to be supposed, because he so far objected to the principle of the measure, that he was altogether adverse to some of its provisions.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he was not prepared to go to the whole extent of the bill; but, at all events, it was clear to him it would have the effect of doing that which had excited so much attention; namely, to diminish poaching; and would besides put the system upon something of an intelligible footing. It was obvious, that the amazing increase of game in this country, had increased the practice of poaching; and it was equally clear, that there must have been an increased demand for the article, or there would not have been such an increased supply. And, did not daily experience prove, that when a commodity of any description could be had by fair and honest means, it would find a much more ready and steady market? The receiver of stolen goods was not the first person to whom a purchaser would resort for any article he might require; but, if he was prevented by law from purchasing the article, then, as in the case of game, he would go to a person of that description. The article would not fail to reach those who had money to purchase it, and it was absurd to think of preventing it by legislative enactments. It had been stated by the hon. member for Oxford, that it was a peculiar hardship not to extend the right of qualification to lawyers, divines, and the heads of corporations. But, by this bill, the House gave them a great deal more; for they gave the learned doctors, both of law and divinity, as well as the right worshipful mayors of corporations, the power of eating that lawfully, which before was illegal diet; and, in his judgment, the lawyers, and doctors, and heads of corporations, would be much better pleased at receiving the privilege of eating game than of shooting it according to law [a laugh]. By legalising the sale of game, poaching would lose much of its inducement; and although he would not say it would destroy it in the first or second year, still, in that space of time, it would, he was convinced, considerably diminish the practice; and, by so doing, the House would remove a most disgraceful statute, and destroy a most prolific source of immorality. An hon. gentleman had asked, by whom were the Game laws called unpopular? He would ask in return, by whom were they styled

923
popular? By the consumers of game (for consumers they all knew did exist) they were styled unpopular. They were styled unpopular by all those who looked upon them as an excitement to crime; in fact, they were styled unpopular by all those who were anxious to promote the industry and the morals of the people. If, therefore, the proposed measure were only a change from that which at present existed to any thing better, it would be so very important a change in the system, that the House was bound to adopt it.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyreplied. He said, that the object which he had in view in introducing this important measure was, if possible, to satisfy the minds of the majority of the people of England, who saw nothing in the present laws but injustice. Questions of this sort ought always to be considered with reference to some general principle; and, if game must belong to some one, reasoning from analogy, in whom ought that right of property to be vested? As the law now stood, the right of property was given to those who had no power over the land in which the game might happen to be. It had been said, that this right should belong to the lord of the manor; but this bill would regulate the matter in what he considered the fair and ordinary course, for it would confer the right of game on those who held possession of the land on which the game was found; and he thought that when a man disposed of his land, the regulation of the right of game was a fair matter of bargain between the owner and the occupier of the land. It had been urged, amongst other things, that he would endanger his popularity with his constituents, by the introduction of this measure. On that subject, he could only say, that he had too good an opinion of the understandings of his constituents, to suppose that this bill would render him unpopular amongst them. If he should incur unpopularity he should certainly lament it; but his rule of conduct in that House, and elsewhere, had been, to do what he conceived to be his duty, and trust to the consequences. But, in fact, what was it he proposed to do? It was to give to every man in England, no matter how humble his condition, the right of shooting, wherever he was allowed. It had been objected to him, that he would take away vested rights; and an hon. friend had complained of the hardship of not extending qualifi-
924
cations to particular classes of persons, amongst whom were included the members of the learned professions; but, according to the bill before the House, there was no member of the universities, no head of any corporation in England, who might not take his morning's walk, and bring home game either to consume, to sell, or make a present of to his neighbours. That was the very principle of the bill; and a vested right he proposed to take from no man. An hon. friend had remarked, that the trespass clause was a severe one. He was free to admit that it was so; but it was incumbent upon the House to give the owner of the soil adequate protection when his rights were invaded. The bill enacted, that no man should trespass on the land of another, but that if a man so trespassed, and refused to go off the ground when requested so to do, he was then, and not till then, liable to be seized. If a property were once established in game, and any man might come on the land of another, and remain there after warning to depart, it would be absurd to say that property was protected. There could be no protection to property, if persons had the power to walk out of large towns and trespass upon that property with impunity. The hon. baronet, the member for Lewes, had asked, "Why do you wish to change these laws, since no petitions have been presented on the subject? But he could assure his hon. friend, that it was his fault that one at least had not been presented; for he had received a petition from his own county to present to the House, which was neglected by accident; and but that he had stated that the subject had already occupied the serious attention of the House, other petitions would have been presented; for he had received offers of them without end. "But," said his hon. friend, "you have as much game as you require." Admitted. There was as much game in the country as could be desired; but his complaint was, that the system of preserving that game was a curse to the country. He was himself a game-preserver, and was as fond of country sports as any man; but the preservation of game was to him an annoyance so great, as almost to amount to a desire to abandon it altogether. He had experienced a dreadful accident on his own ground; for an honest and gallant fellow had lost his life in a conflict to preserve his game; and he could assure the House, that his feel-

925
ings on awaking in a fine moon-light night, were sometimes not of the most pleasing description. Once give game the quality of property, and let the right of that property belong to the occupier of the land, be the individual ever so humble in life, and he was persuaded that a different feeling would be introduced into the country. The moment you allow game to be legally purchased for domestic purposes, the practice of poaching must diminish; or human nature was not human nature. His hon. friend had made an objection which he considered a strange one; namely, that these wild animals could not be made property. But, was there not property in animals just as wild? Pigeons, for instance? If I shoot a pigeon belonging to another man, I can be compelled to pay that man half a guinea for it. But, said the hon. gentleman opposite, "How would the case stand with respect to the trespass, if you fire at a bird and wound it, and it falls in another man's ground?" Why the law would then be just as it was now; you could not pick it up without committing a trespass. It would belong, as a matter of right, to the man on whose land it was found. He considered that the mode in which these laws were sometimes enforced, rendered the residence of some gentlemen upon their estates an evil and not a benefit; and if a gentleman could not prevail upon himself to reside in the country, without the powers which these laws allowed him, he was not so sure that his residence could be very serviceable. He had been told, that this bill would not abolish the practice of poaching. He was no Utopian, and was not so little acquainted with human nature, as to suppose that, as long as there were things to be stolen, there would not be persons to steal them. But, his great object was, to promote a different feeling with respect to these matters; so that a man might say to a poacher—"What right have you to come upon my land and carry away that which I may take to market and obtain money for?" And, in addition to this, another valuable object would be attained; namely, the removing the odium of enforcing these laws. His noble colleague had complained, that he had not gone far enough, and would wish to abolish these laws altogether; but if the House proceeded to that extent they would find, that until all the game in the country should be destroyed, the crime of poach-
926
ing would rather increase than diminish. It was exceedingly difficult to render a bill of this description perfect in the first instance; but he was neither disposed, on the one hand, to reject any suggestion or amendment that might be proposed, or to adhere tenaciously, on the other, to any of the clauses that might appear objectionable. All he wished was, that the House should go into a committee, and he should then be happy to attend to any suggestions. The magnitude of the evil was such as loudly to call upon the House, to see whether they could not frame a law that would satisfy the nation at large, and take away from the country gentlemen the reproach of endeavouring to uphold a system of tyranny.
The House divided: For the second reading 105. Against it 37. Majority 68.

WELSH JUDICATURE BILL.
Mr. Jones having moved the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Allendescribed the proposed measure as being trifling in its remedy, and likely to be most pernicious in its effects. The defect of the existing system was, that it was opposed to the due administration of justice. The evil of the present jurisdiction arose from the extraordinary number of the Welsh judges, and the want of employment for them. He had a strong objection to the intermediate employment of the Welsh judges as counsel, and to their liability to form personal connexions, as agents to noblemen and others, which must derogate from the dignity of the judicial situation. He also thought, that so far as property was concerned, one great evil was, the difficulty of procuring special juries, a privilege only to be obtained by motion in open court, and then, when the assizes in some places lasted only two days, it was impossible to summon the special jurors within the time required by the law. The hon. and learned member entered into a technical statement of the different duties that attached to the judges in the principality of Wales, as at present constituted. He said, he should recommend that the courts of Westminster-hall should be thrown open to Wales, as it was to the people of England, and that the decisions of the courts of the principal^ should be open to revision. He would get rid altogether of those vagrant courts of chancery, which were only employed in injunctions and discoveries,

927
without at all leading to any useful practical result. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
Mr. Jonesdefended the principle of the bill, and contended, that its provisions would be extremely salutary. He maintained that the courts of chancery in Wales, instead of being an evil, were the best part of the local jurisdiction. There was not a single county in Wales in favour of the abolition.
Sir C. Coleapproved highly of part of the bill, but thought that the principle of it was not carried far enough. The same reasons which were deemed sufficient to disqualify the judges of England from sitting and voting in that House, surely ought to be sufficient to disqualify the judges of Wales also. If any member would move a clause disqualifying the Welsh judges from sitting in that House, he would give it his cordial support.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion, that the best thing that could happen to Wales, would be the abolition of the present jurisdiction, with a view to assimilate the Welsh jurisdiction to that of England; but that could not be accomplished without many concurrent measures. The English judges had quite enough to do at present; and it would be bad economy to appoint two judges, who would only have to officiate for six weeks in the year, and that too in a particular part of the kingdom. He was anxious that the bill should proceed to a committee.
The House then divided. For the amendment 19; against it 42 Majority, 23. The bill was then read a second time.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc.

Monck, J. B.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Russell, lord J.

Buxton, T. F.

Rice, T. S.

Cromptom, S.

Sykes, D.

Evans, W.

Smith, J.

Grattan, J.

Smith, R.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Webb, col.

James, W.

Whitmore, W. W.

Kennedy, T. F.

TELLERS.

Lamb, hon. G.

Allen, J. H.

Lennard, T. B.

Hume, J.

MUTINY BILL—FLOGGING.
The report of the committee on this bill being brought up,
Mr. Sykesrose to express his strong abhorrence of the practice of military
928
flogging, which he considered as nothing else than an anatomical experiment upon a living subject. The principal defence which had been offered in favour of it rested upon the assertion, that as a punishment it had been long in use in the British army. In point of fact, that was no defence at all; for instead of being one of those practices which were sanctified by time, it was only one of those barbarous relics of a barbarous age which ought to be abolished immediately. It was excruciating in point of suffering, degrading in point of feeling, and unnecessary in point of discipline; and, as the chief effect of it was to deter those persons from entering into the army whom it would be most desirable to allure into it, he trusted that the noble lord would consent to abolish it, and would turn his humane mind to devising some other effectual punishment to be substituted in its stead. It was said, that without the lash it would be impossible to prevent drunkenness among the soldiery. Now, if honourable gentlemen would consider the manner in which the army was recruited, they would see the very curious nature of this argument. First, the men were tempted into the army by having liquor given them to excess; and being so enticed, they were then soundly flogged if they dared to take it in a similar manner afterwards. It was likewise said, that at present this punishment was very seldom inflicted. If that were the case, what objection could there be to abolishing it altogether? He must confess that he felt strongly upon this subject, in consequence of a circumstance that had happened three or four years ago, in the immediate neighbourhood in which he lived. A soldier, who waited on the mess of his regiment, stole, or was said to have stolen, certain spoons belonging to it. A court-martial was summoned to decide upon his offence—a circumstance on which he should only remark, that it placed the man's prosecutors in the singular situation of his judges. The court martial was held, and the soldier was convicted—justly, he had no doubt—of the robbery laid to his charge. He was sentenced to receive four hundred lashes. The punishment, or he should rather say a part of the punishment, was inflicted; for the man's body was lashed, till the surgeon declared that it was not safe to lash it any longer. In a day or two afterwards an order came for the regiment to move its quarters. The weather

929
happened to be very sultry, and owing to the march, irritated the wounds on the man's back to such a degree, that they became inflamed and subsequently mortified. The man of course died. A coroner's inquest was held upon his body; and the verdict returned by the jury, after a considerable examination into the subject, was, "Wilful murder, committed by some person or persons unknown." But, though it was now three or four years since that verdict had been given, no proceedings had been taken upon it from that time down to the present [hear, hear]. He should like to hear from the noble lord opposite, whether there was any truth in the statement which had been made by an hon. member on a former evening; namely, that when a soldier was punished in the Guards, part of his pay went to the hospital, and part to the fund set aside for the officers' dinners? [Cries of No, no.] He should be glad to hear that such a practice did not exist; but he must again ask, was it the practice, or was it not?
Colonel Dawkinssaid, that he was not in the House at the time when the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) had brought forward his charges against the regiment to which he had the honour to belong; but, as they had been again referred to, and as they had already appeared in print, he was anxious to say a word or two regarding them on the present occasion. In the first place, he must inform the House, that in the seven battalions of Foot Guards, corporal punishment was scarcely ever inflicted: and, in the next place, that the regimental returns proved beyond all controversy, that in the last twelve months only one man had been flogged in the King's Mews. What, then, became of the stories which had been industriously circulated, regarding the frequent punishments which took place in those barracks, and which were described as so distressing to the ears and minds of the neighbouring inhabitants? In the battalion of Grenadier Guards which had been stationed there for the last six months, there had been only one instance of corporal punishment; and in the battalion of Coldstream Guards to which he had the honour to belong, and which had been there for the six months previous, there had been no instance of corporal punishment whatever [hear, hear]. With regard to the statement of the hon. member for Aberdeen, that when a soldier was
930
under punishment, his pay went to form a fund for the officers' dinners, he would content himself with giving it a positive contradiction. He would, however, tell the House what became of a man's pay whilst he was under punishment. The House would recollect it was only 13 d. a day. Now, of this sum, 6d. a day went to his gaoler, and the other 7d. was not drawn, as was supposed. The gallant officer, after congratulating the country on the diminution of corporal punishment in the army, and after attributing it to the liberal regulations of the duke of York, concluded by stating his conviction, honestly and fearlessly, that corporal punishment, in its restricted present state, was essential to the discipline of the British army.
Mr. Humecontended, that the diminution in the number of military floggings was not so much owing to the regulations of the duke of York, as to the exertions of his honourable friend the member for Westminster (sir Francis Burdett). It appeared to him to be a contradiction in terms, to congratulate the country on the diminution of corporal punishments in the army, and yet to say, that the army could not exist in a state of discipline without it. With regard to the pay of the soldiers under punishment, he would merely ask one question. Was it, or was it not paid into the stock-purse of the regiment? The noble lord opposite had said, that it was so paid; if it was not, he (Mr. H.) was not to blame for the mistake which he had committed.
Sir H. Hardingealso referred to and denied what the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) had said, on a former debate on this bill, that the cries of the soldiers flogged in the Mews-barracks had been drowned in the roll of the drums. The fact was, that, during the last year, only one instance of the kind had occurred, and that flogging was abolished in the Guards, excepting under very extraordinary circumstances. With regard to the contemptible charge which had been made upon the officers of the Guards, and that too in no very delicate terms, for the pay of the men was said to have gone into "the pockets of the officers," [hear, hear]—with regard to that contemptible charge, he, too, must be permitted to say a few words. He did not suppose that it had originated with the hon. member for Aberdeen; he had doubtles received it from some slanderous

931
military informer, who, to the baseness of being an informer against his own comrades, added the further baseness of having given the hon. member for Aberdeen false information. At the time the charge was first broached in the House, he was not able to give it that direct and positive contradiction which even then he knew it to deserve. But, he was now better informed upon the subject; and he could inform the House, that the money in question went neither into the pockets of the officers, nor into the stock-purse of the regiment. If, by any fault of the quartermaster, it had been accidentally thrown into the stock-purse of the regiment, surely that would not justify any man in saying, that among the officers of the Guards there was a trafficking in military justice. The average quantity of stoppages in a year, in each battalion of the Guards, amounted to about 15 l. which, divided among the officers, would only give a small pittance to each. Was it likely, then, that a captain in the Guards would be guilty of trafficking in military justice, to obtain 25 s. or any subaltern to obtain about 9s. a year? The idea was too ridiculous to be entertained for a moment. The gallant officer then proceeded to observe, that it was most unpleasant to the officers of the army to be obliged to witness the infliction of this punishment: but, unless the gentlemen opposite would propose some effectual substitute—something that would preserve order amongst the soldiers—he, as an officer, must conscientiously declare, that he could not, consistently with his duty, consent that the discipline of the army should be risked by giving up the present system. But, at the same time that he made this declaration, he felt himself bound to say, that he was as sincere a friend to humanity as any of the gentlemen who took the other side of the question.
Mr. J. Smithdeprecated the attachment to cruel punishments which prevailed in this country. If they turned their eyes towards France, they would find thirty millions of people governed by law, without any flogging, torture, or personal suffering, except the brand on the shoulder. As they went through the streets of Paris, they might see men undergoing the operation of being branded, without any manifestation of pain; the mark being made, he believed, with some sort of corrosive liquid. It was certainly in our power to improve our own system
932
by adopting the practice of those whom we too often affected to despise. Our army was taken, as the noble lord had observed, from the great mass of the people; but, within the last six or seven years, that people had made a progress in intellectual improvement, which no one could conceive who had not actually witnessed it. This was more especially the case with reference to the manufacturing districts. In those districts, scarcely a man could be met with who did not know how to read. They did not confine their reading to religious books, but perused philosophical and scientific works. He would ask, whether such men as these, when they entered the army, were fit objects for corporal punishment? When gentlemen contended for the system of flogging, he demanded, whether they had tried any other mode for the preservation of discipline? The answer was, that they had not. Now, he would tell them, that until they had tried the experiment, they were not competent to judge of the effect which a milder species of punishment would produce. He stated this from a sense of duty; and, so long as he had a seat in that House, so long would he endeavour to put an end to the infliction of torture on any man for any species of crime. With respect to an observation of his hon. friend the member for Westminster, it appeared to him that it had been very much mistaken. His hon. friend had said that the beating of the drums in the morning was associated in the minds of the inhabitants with the idea of corporal punishment; but he did not assert, that corporal punishment was constantly taking place in the barracks.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, it was rather unfortunate for the position of the hon. gentleman, that the reveille had not been beaten in the morning for a considerable period.
Mr. J. Smithknew nothing of the facts-. He only stated what he believed his hen. friend had said.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that a representation similar to that of his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had been made to him last year.
Colonel Townshendsaid, it had been customary formerly, to beat the drum in the morning. But, without any application from the inhabitants, and merely from a spontaneous anxiety for their comfort, for the last six months the reveille had not been beaten. When

933
the hon. gentleman said, that whenever the drum was beaten it was associated with the idea of flogging in the minds of the inhabitants, he was entirely at a loss to understand the meaning of so extraordinary an assertion.
Mr. R. Martindefended the vote he had given on a former night, in favour of the bill, as it stood. It was admitted on all sides, that the practice of flogging was very much diminished. This was owing to the exertions of the commander-in-chief, who had always expressed it as his opinion, that when the custom of inflicting corporal punishment prevailed to any great extent in a regiment, the discipline of that regiment must be bad. He would not vote for taking away the power of inflicting that species of punishment where it appeared to be necessary. He thought it was much better to leave the business in the hands of the commander-in-chief, who would deal with it as his kindness and humanity dictated.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that his sentiments had been mistaken on one or two points. He was supposed to have said, that this privilege of flogging was a necessary prerogative of the Crown. He had not made any such observation. His position was, that the legislature had recognized the king as the head of the army and navy; that to him was intrusted the sole command and government of the forces by sea and land; and that therefore it rested with the Crown to determine by what code of laws those bodies could be best governed. The hon. member for Nottingham had argued, that corporal punishment was peculiarly unfit for persons reared in the manufacturing districts, because in general they had received some degree of education: but it should be observed, that where large masses of people were collected together in the manufacturing districts, they had not the same simplicity and innocence of manners, which distinguished the agricultural part of the population; and that therefore punishment was more likely to be deserved by the former than by the latter class. He knew that the best proof of the good order and discipline of a regiment was to be found in the infrequency of corporal punishment. Let it, however, be recollected, that he had never contended for frequency of punishment, but had merely argued for the propriety of asserting the power. Much praise had been bestowed on the French army, which, it
934
was said, was governed without punishment, whilst ours was subjected to corporal correction. The conduct of the French army, however, when it retreated from the Peninsula into the south of France, proved the necessity of having recourse to that species of punishment. Their conduct, when they arrived in France, was of the very worst description. They plundered their fellow-countrymen without mercy; they burned villages, and carried devastation with them, wherever they went. Such of the in habitants as had it in their power fled with their property to places of safety. Such was the description of their conduct given by a French officer; who had also stated, that the British army exhibited a perfect model of good order and discipline and were hailed as deliverers.
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that what he had said on a former night was, that it was represented to him that when corporal punishment was inflicted at the barracks, the drums were beaten to prevent the cries of the sufferer from being heard; On that occasion, a gallant officer had expressed his surprise by gesture, and he (Mr. H.) had said, across the table, "not lately." He had been told, that the noise of drums in the morning alarmed the inhabitants, who thought that they were beaten during the infliction of corporal punishment. Such had been their impression; though, no doubt, from what had been said, they were mistaken. The alarm, however, which had been excited in the neighbourhood of the King's Mews, proved that the place selected for barracks was a very unfit one. On one occasion, most certainly, corporal punishment had taken place. It was seen from the tops of the houses; and the story, greatly exaggerated he supposed, immediately got abroad. The consequence was, that whenever the drums were beaten afterwards, it was supposed that an infliction of corporal punishment was going on, and that the sound of the drums was introduced to prevent the cries of the soldiery from being distinguished. With respect to the observations which had fallen from the noble lord on the subject of the retreat of the French army, he thought the circumstance scarcely justified them. It was, he ought to remember, a beaten army, without stores or provisions, and which was obliged to supply its wants by any means that chanced to present themselves. But, what was the case with the British army in the retreat under sir John Moore?

935
He had been told by British officers, that the discipline and good conduct of the French had been admirably preserved, while the English army abandoned itself to every species of disorder. The manner in which the British army was governed, reminded him very strongly of a story of the Dey of Algiers. Certain individuals wished him to abolish the custom of impaling and roasting: but he refused, observing, that hanging and decapitating would produce no effect at all, and therefore he was obliged to terrify his subjects by the occasional application of impaling and roasting. In the same way that the lash, it appeared, was kept in terrorem over the British army. The noble lord seemed to think that British soldiers would be good for nothing, if that remedy for insubordination were not sometimes applied. For his own part, he did not think the lash was calculated to increase their martial spirit, or improve their moral conduct.
Sir A. Hopedid not understand his noble friend to say, that the use of the lash was necessary. He had merely argued, that it was proper, for the discipline of the army, that the power of inflicting punishment should exist.
The report was agreed to.