Sitting of 7 March 1825

GAME LAWS BILL.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyrose, to move the second reading of this bill. In legislating upon this subject, it was, he said, proper to consider whether parliament could not give protection to the amusements of country gentlemen, without doing injustice to the community at large. The evils which resulted from the present system were many; but the most important was the great increase of poaching, which—such was the effect of the existing laws—was not looked upon as a moral offence by scarcely any portion of the community. How was that evil to be diminished? Severe laws, he was convinced, would be of no avail. It was necessary to generate a different feeling amongst the body of the people. That, then, should be his first object; and the next the opening of the market for the sale of game, and thereby destroying the monopoly which the poachers at present enjoyed. The existing system of qualifi-

951
cation to kill game was most absurd. To be qualified to kill game, a man must have an estate of in heritance, in his own or his wife's right, of the yearly value of 100 l, or an estate for the term of ninety years, of the annual value of 150 l. Those were the two principal qualifications: but, there was another curious mode of qualification, derived, not from any thing belonging to the person himself, but from the accident of birth. The eldest sons only of esquires, and persons of higher rank, were allowed the privilege of shooting. He proposed to remove all qualifications, the only effect of which was, to engender ill blood, and to give to every person who held land a property in the game which was on it, and a power to prevent any person from destroying it. He apprehended there would be no more difficulty in making game property, than fish in a river which ran through several estates. He certainly did not propose to make the taking of game a felony; but, there were many articles well protected by the laws, which it was not a felony to steal. He did not believe that the change in the law which he projected would increase the number of shooters. If the bill should pass, it would be necessary for an individual, after taking out a licence—he must go to the expense of that—to have the means of shooting. Under the existing system, many persons went out to kill game, who had no right to do so, and took the chance of being found out. When it was considered, that, according to the provisions of his bill, a person who went out to shoot must first purchase a certificate, and would in the next place be liable, if he were found shooting on another person's land without his consent, to be taken before a magistrate, he thought there was ground for presuming that the number of shooters would be much diminished. The great objection which was urged against the bill last year was, that it would have the effect of destroying fox-hunting—that was to say, that farmers and other small landholders, having property in the game on their land, would find it their interest to kill the foxes. But, when it was recollected, that foxes were generally to be found only in great woods and preserves, where they might be protected by those who thought it worth their while to preserve them, he did not think that that objection was entitled to much weight. He should, indeed, be sorry to do any thing to the prejudice of fox-hunting, which he
952
considered a most manly and truly English sport. Another objection to the bill was, that it would render game so common in the market, that country gentlemen would soon give up all idea of sporting. He did not believe that. For his own part, be could say, that he did not feel less pleasure in shooting woodcock or wild fowl, or catching a fish, because he could buy such animals in the next town. After declaring, that all the objections made to the bill were quite threadbare, he concluded by moving the second reading of it.
Sir J. Brydgessaid, that the present bill, as it seemed to him, instead of checking poaching, would go to encourage it. All that the poacher wanted was a free vent for his plunder, which this measure of the hon. member for Yorkshire went precisely to afford him. He was decidedly opposed to the bill, as far as regarded its effect upon the preservation of game; and not the less so, because it added a new felony to the Statute-book, in making night poaching a transportable offence. Under these circumstances, he should move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Lockhartwas surprised how any one could think that the measure before the House was calculated for the preservation of game. The effect of the bill would be, by making every land-owner a legal dealer in game, to render the small farmer's house a constant resort for poachers, and the man himself an agent for the sale of their commodity. He should have no objection to support a proposition for extending the existing scheme of qualification; but, for the bill of the hon. member, he thought it would create more crime than it would prevent. With respect to the right of preserving game, he thought it quite unreasonable that gentlemen should be asked to resign any right or property, purely because there existed, on the part of some persons, a disposition to violate or destroy it. He should certainly support the amendment.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, it was his intention to vote for the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire. When he looked to the antiquity of the game laws, and considered the great changes which had taken place with reference to that species of property, he could not but entertain a strong suspicion, that those laws required alteration. He conceived that there was no one circumstance

953
which tended to call for that alteration so strongly, as the conduct of the game-preservers themselves. The mode of sporting, and the way in which game was preserved, were entirely changed within the last thirty or forty years. Almost every plantation in the country was converted into a preserve for game. Gentlemen were not now contented with sporting in the manner in which their ancestors sported. It was now a common occurrence for a single party to kill three or four hundred head of game a day. He had himself seen in a single larder a thousand pheasants, which were the produce of only three days shooting. What was the consequence of this change which had taken place in this mode of sporting? The increase of preserves, and the immense accumulation of game, had produced a corresponding change in the habits of the people. Almost every body of a certain rank in life now partook of game. In fact, it was considered a very unfashionable thing not to have a certain quantity of game at one's table. It was true, there was no legal vent for this enormous accumulation of game; but game, nevertheless, found its way among every class of society in the kingdom, which had any pretensions to elegance or conviviality. You might restrain the sale of game by legal enactments as much as you pleased, but it was idle to talk of preventing people from having game at their tables. Legally or illegally, people who could afford to buy game, would have it. It was impossible to deprive the 3 per cents consols of the luxury of eating pheasants. The interest of the game-preservers themselves called imperatively for some attempt to ameliorate the present system. It was not necessary at present to enter into the details of this bill; but he thought his hon. friend had stated quite sufficient grounds for its being read a second time. Whether it would be expedient to make game property or not, was a question which would be better discussed on a future occasion; but he thought no reasonable objection could be made to the proposition for giving to every individual the right of sporting on his own land, and of allowing others to do so, and afterwards of selling the game, if he thought fit. He would put it to hon. gentlemen, whether it was just, that any individual should have the right of preserving game, when, by so doing, the crop of his unqualified neighbour might be destroyed? He was persuaded
954
that the effect of the proposed alteration would be, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, to lead to a just compromise between the rich proprietor and his poor neighbour. The owner of two or three acres would gladly forego the right of sporting on his land, if his rich neighbour would give him a reasonable consideration for the waiver of his privilege. The way in which game was preserved furnished another, and a very good reason, for altering the existing system. Game was preserved in this country by an armed force, for it was, strictly, an armed force. He him-self preserved his game in what was considered the mildest manner. And, what was that manner? Why, he kept five or six keepers, with twenty or thirty attendants, who were subject to be called out, in case of any attack on the keepers, and, if necessary, to repel force by force. This was surely a most unsatisfactory mode of preserving any species of property; and necessarily introduced a great deal of ill blood between the game-preserver and the inhabitants of the district in which he resided.—Another mode of preserving game was by setting spring-guns. This showed, that, under the existing law, there was no safe or satisfactory mode of preserving a species of property, which could be maintained only by armed force, or by weapons, which might destroy the life of a human being; which life we had no right to take away. Looking, therefore, to the immense changes which had taken place in society, and especially with respect to this peculiar species of property, he thought it impossible for any man to contend, that the present system of the game laws was a satisfactory one; or that there did not exist the strongest reason for allowing this bill to be read a second time. There could be no doubt also, that an alteration was required in the law of qualifications. Under the existing system, the second and third sons of a qualified person might be violating the game laws at the very moment that he was enforcing them against others. But, even supposing the law of qualifications were so altered as to entitle gentlemen of the learned and liberal professions to kill game, it would be necessary to make an alteration in the landed qualifications for killing game. The law, with respect to qualifications, had been placed on a rational footing in Scotland; and in no country had game increased so much as in the lowlands of Scotland. There every

955
individual possessing a ploughgate of land, or about thirty or forty acres, was allowed to kill game on his own property, and to qualify other persons to kill game on his own property.—He, however, would not disguise his opinion, that the provisions of the bill proposed by his hon. friend would not answer all the expectations of those who supported it. He did not think that any alteration which could be made in the game Jaws, would entirely put a stop to poaching. The poacher was actuated by two motives—the love of sporting, and the love of gain. The first of these motives would remain untouched, whatever law might be enacted; but the Jove of gain must be naturally interfered with by a bill which should legalize the sale of game, and enable a gentleman possessing a thousand pheasants, as in the case he had alluded to, to compete with the poacher in the market. The present state of the law offered strong and irresistible temptation to the poacher? Suppose the sale of grapes or pine-apples were prohibited in this country by legislative enactment; would not the effect of such a Jaw obviously be to tempt gardeners and servants to act dishonestly? What reasonable objection could there be to putting hares on the same footing as rabbits. He really could not account for the process of reasoning, by which a gentleman felt himself at liberty to sell a rabbit, while he hesitated to sell a hare. He himself had not the least scruple in disposing of his rabbits for a reasonable price; as all the gentlemen in his neighbourhood did. If the law enabled gentlemen to sell their hares in the same manner, he saw no distinction between the two quadrupeds, which ought to raise any insurmountable difficulty. When he was told, that the proposed alteration in the game laws would deprive gentlemen of the pleasure of sporting, he begged to recal to their recollection what the fact was with respect to woodcocks. No species of game was pursued with greater avidity, and yet woodcocks were sold every day in the week in Leadenhall-market. An hon. member had said, that this was matter of so much importance, that he (Mr. P.), ought originally to have taken it up. The fact was, that when he first came into office, he found the subject of the game laws in the hands of an hon. member, now lord Salisbury; it had been subsequently taken up by his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire, who had be-
956
stowed upon it a persevering attention' which entitled him to the highest credit He had given his hon. friend every assistance in his power, and he should support his proposition, because he thought the best measure that could be adopted, even with a view to the interest of the game-preservers themselves, was, to give to game the same sanction which was given to every other species of property. If the House should follow the course they did last session, and reject his hon. friend's bill, he should probably feel it his duty to submit to the House a proposition, which, without altering the law as to qualification, might legalize, for two or three years, the sale of game. He should propose such a measure, not certainly with any view to maintain the privileges of the game-preserver, but for the sake of the public interests; for if they could not obtain all the good proposed by his hon. friend, the most prudent course would be to take as much as they could get.
Mr. John Douglasopposed the bill, as tending to destroy all the game in the country. If people were allowed to purchase game openly, they would eat so much of it, that there would soon be none left. Eating game would become a custom; and people would look for their pheasant on the 1st of October, as regularly as they did for their goose on Michaelmas day. If foxes and other game were destroyed, country gentlemen would look to other sports, and would, very probably, dissipate their time and their money in those graves of property which were kept up in St, James's street.
Sir J. Yorkesaid, it must be evident, that the present restrictive laws on the sale of game did not prevent its being supplied in the largest quantities in the metropolis. It was proved before the committee up stairs, that two poulterers had said they could furnish the whole House of Commons twice a-week with two head of game for each member; and one of them added, that on one occasion, he had actually thrown a thousand head of partridges into the Thames, not being able to obtain a sale for them.
Mr. W. Peelopposed the bill, on the ground that much evil would arise from legalizing the sale of game. The proposed alteration of the game laws would, in his opinion, interfere with the recreations of the country gentlemen.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, that the law, as it stood, was extremely objectionable, since

957
it operated to prevent men from doing what they pleased with their own property. Some gentlemen seemed to have great prejudices against any innovation on the game laws, because they looked upon the present state of things as perfectly natural, A friend of his, who had paid a visit to the continent, said to him on one occasion, "Could you believe it, sir John, they sell game in the streets abroad just like any other commodity?" Upon his asking him what he found extraordinary in that, "Oh," said his friend, "can you conceive any thing more unnatural?" Prejudices of this kind were not uncommon in that House. They had heard, a short time ago, gentlemen opposing the repeal of the usury laws, before they considered that 5 per cent was the "natural" interest of money; and they had also heard hon. members opposing Catholic emancipation, because, forsooth, Protestants were "naturally" opposed to the claims of the Catholics. These were prejudices of habit, and ought to be got rid of. He would support the bill, because it tended to put an end to poaching.
Sir Alexander Donexpressed his assent to the measure.
Mr. Pelhamconcurred in the propriety of passing the bill.
Mr. J. Martinsaid, he considered the bill in its present state exceedingly objectionable, but he should vote for the second reading, in the hope that the alterations which he required might be effected in the committee. Should this end not be attained, he should oppose the third reading.
Mr. Jamesthought, that the only just mode of legislating on the subject of the game laws was, to make game the property of those who had been at the expense of rearing it. He should, therefore, support the motion.
The House divided: For the second reading 82. Against it 26. Majority 56.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The report of the committee of supply was brought up. On the first resolution being read,
Mr. Humesaid, that, having been prevented from attending on the night when the Army Estimates were discussed, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few observations; because he conceived that the explanations given by the noble lord opposite were quite unsatisfactory. If the proposed augmentation were to be temporary, and were justified by real ne-
958
cessity, he should be as ready to support the proposition as any man; but, from the statement of the noble lord, the clear inference was, that the projected increase was to form the regular peace establishment, below which it was impossible the number could be reduced. The question, then, was, are we to be satisfied with the reduction of taxes which has taken place? The committee of 1817,whose suggestions the House had professed to follow, had recommended the reduction of the army to the lowest possible standard; and, in 1821, the House was so sensible of the propriety of the advice, that they had agreed, that the only mode of producing an economical change, and affording general relief, was by reducing our expenditure, or doing away with that absurd system, the Sinking-fund. Now, although it might not be possible to come down to the standard of 1792, still it was the duty of the House to approximate it, as nearly as possible; and he was quite prepared to show, that there was an abundantly sufficient force in our colonies, unless there was an anticipation of war. The large disposable force which parliament had given the government had enabled them to continue that odious and mischievous system of misrule in Iteland, which they had hitherto pursued instead of resorting to the wise and politic system, of concord and tranquillity, which would promote the prosperity of that country, and save to England the expense of ten thousand men. With respect to Gibraltar he differed from his hon. and gallant friend (sir R. Wilson). The state of that garrison was well known, both before and after the visit of his hon. friend. He found, by the last returns, that we had 3,900 men in that fortress; and, with such a force, considered it perfectly safe during a time of peace, when it was defended as much by the faith of treaties as by the force of arms. Another hon. gentleman, had said, that additional troops were wanted in our colonies. He should like to know in what colonies. Was it in the Ionian Islands, or at the Cape of Good Hope? He allowed that the condition of the Ionian Islands had been much improved since the accession of the present governor; but he still believed, that if Greece were free, the inhabitants would shake off our protection, in consequence of the insulting regulations with which it was accompanied. At the Cape of Good Hope we had a governor who was exciting discontent by the most arbitrary

959
proceedings, and who was compelling the most valuable part of the colonists to return home to England, to obtain shelter from his oppression. If fresh troops were wanted to confirm the authority of arbitrary governors, he for one should be unwilling to grant them. Indeed, be was of opinion, that if we tolerated the present augmentation of the army, we should never again hear a reduction of its numbers mentioned; but that the amount at which it was now fixed would be taken as the proper amount of our military force in a time of peace. Instead of increasing the regular army to 86,000 men, he would reduce it to 68,000 men; and by so doing, he would get rid of the window-tax, and have a considerable surplus to spare for other purposes. If we were to have an excess in any part of our armed force, it ought to be in our navy; which was our best and most effectual defence. An hon. member had said, that we ought to have our garrisons in a permanent state of defence, so as to be prepared for war. To this he would reply, first of all, that we wanted no permanent garrisons; and next, that he did not expect that we should speedily have occasion to go to war. We had had a twenty years' war, and he could not see any reason why we should not have a twenty years' peace. Indeed, he thought that the probabilities were all in his favour; since the world grew wiser as it grew older. To put his sentiments upon record, he should move a resolution, which he knew would meet the approbation of the people out of the House, whatever might be its fate with their representatives. The hon. member then moved, by way of amendment, "That, in the opinion or this House, it is not necessary, in a time of profound peace, to maintain, for the service of the current year, the number of 86,438 regular land forces, exclusive of those for India, and also exclusive of 9,000 Royal Marines; of about 7,800 of Royal Artillery and Engineers, of 53,258 enrolled Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers in Ireland; and of 55,000 Militia, and 43,000 Yeomanry and Volunteers in England, and of 3,000 Veterans; making, in the whole, 257,496 men actually in arms, or ready to be called out, if necessary, exclusive also of Colonial troops at Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope, and in Africa, amounting to about 4,000 men, not included in the above numbers."
Colonel Johnstonseconded the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at
960
such an unexplained augmentation of the army.
Mr. Wilmot Hortoncontended, that the proposed augmentation of the army was rendered necessary by the increased population of our colonial dependencies, and the increased duty to which some of our garrisons abroad had recently been exposed, in consequence of certain occurrences. Indeed, the duty which some of our colonial garrisons were obliged to go through was so harassing, as to be destructive of the health both of men and officers. The state of the West Indies rendered it necessary for us to have efficient garrisons in every island; and almost every governor had sent pressing requisitions to the government at home for an increased number of troops to defend them. The same was the case in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, where the military had to perform the duties of the police. Under these circumstances, he had no doubt that the House would see that this increase to the army was required by imperious necessity, and was not of a nature to excite fear in any friend of constitutional liberty. The hon. member had, as heretofore, alluded to the numerical military force of 1792; but he had overlooked the great change that had since taken place, not alone in the number of our colonies, in the increase of the population, and in the comparative military strength of other countries. These were considerations which the House was bound to bear in mind; and not the mere abstract question of the numerical difference between the establishments of 1792 and that called for by circumstances at this period.
Mr. Brightsaid, that if the duty to which our army was subjected was as harassing as it had been represented, ministers were deeply to blame for not having come forward before to relieve it. He did not, however, believe it to be so severe as to require this augmentation in time of peace. He recollected that, last year, 4,500 men had been voted, on the express ground that they should be sent to defend the West Indies. He wished to know whether that force had been sent there, and if it had, whether it had been found insufficient? He complained, that we had now been engaged in the Algerine, the Ashantee, and the Burmese war, without any information being given by ministers to the House. He contended, that the proposed ex-

961
tension of our army was utterly uncalled for, and that the circumstances of the country required a reduction of it, rather than an increase. Ministers, though they had gained, had not yet deserved any popularity by their reduction of taxation. In point of fact, they had not reduced the revenue by it; but had obtained the same revenue from a diminished taxation, in consequence of the spirit with which the people of England entered into all commercial transactions.
Sir R. Wilsonshould not have risen, had not his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, seemed to think him mistaken, when he said, that the present garrison of Gibraltar was inadequate to its defence. His hon. friend had said, that Gibraltar might as safely be left with its present garrison, since it was defended by the faith of treaties. It might be so; but he should think the government very criminal, if it left Gibraltar to that species of defence, while the French army were in possession of Cadiz, and a large French fleet was cruising in the bay. He believed his hon. friend had been at Gibraltar; but, if he thought it could be defended by 4,000 men, he had never looked at it with the eye of a soldier, or the knowledge of an engineer. He was quite as great an economist as his hon. friend, but he was a provident economist, and would spend 1,000 l. now upon our garrison, to prevent our spending millions hereafter.
Mr. Trantsaid, he had recently been at Gibraltar, and begged leave to add his testimony to that of the gallant officer, to the inadequacy of the garrison to perform the duties of the place.
Sir Charles Forbescontended, that we had been the aggressors, and not the aggrieved party in the Burmese war. The marquis Wellesley and lord Hastings were not men likely to permit themselves to be bullied; and yet they had both avoided a war with the Burmese, when there was great provocation to commence it. He maintained, that we had no prospect of succeeding in a war with that people; and said, that, even if we gained possession of the Burmese capital, we should have done but little to subdue the spirit of that gallant nation. He regretted that we had not sent 15,000 or 20,000 men to the East Indies; as the sending of such a force would place our empire in the east out of the reach of all danger. He complained of the manner in which the troops were sent to India. The vessels which
962
conveyed them to that country were noble ships; but then they were crammed and loaded in a manner which almost defied credibility. The "Inglis," had on board of her the other day 700 troops, and was so much crowded, that before she left the Downs, her captain requested, but in vain, that 100 men might be taken out of her. Intelligence had arrived that day of an accident which had befallen another of the company's ships, in which a similar number of troops were packed together; and had it not been for another vessel which fortunately came in sight, every soul on board must have perished. He could not but express his astonishment at a very singular practice of the East-India Company's sending out each ship singly, when they had two or three sailing about the same time to the same place of destination. It might have been expected that they would be glad to send them together, in order that they might afford assistance to each other in case of accident; but he believed that they were sent separately, with the express intention that they might not assist each other. His reason for thinking so was this:—Two vessels had sailed about the same time from China to England. In passing through the Straits of Sunday one of them got aground; the other quickly came to its relief, took out part of her cargo, and, by the exertions of her men, saved the vessel to the company. On his return home, the captain of the vessel which saved the other made a slight claim of 1,500 l. on the company for demurrage. The company refused it, under the idea, that one of its servants would never think of going to law with it for such a claim. The directors were, however, mistaken. The captain brought an action against them; and, instead of recovering 1,500 l. demurrage, recovered 12,000 l. for salvage. The company, therefore, determined that no two ships should ever sail again together, to prevent their ever being called upon in future to pay for salvage. The directors had a right, if they thought fit, to risk their tea in this manner: but they had no right so to risk the lives of the brave men who were going to fight their battles in India.
Mr. Lindsaystated, that the ships provided by the East-India Company for the conveyance of troops, were better and more commodiously arranged than those of the government at home, and had 18 inches room allotted to each soldier's birth, while 14 were only allowed in the

963
British service. It was also an arrangement with the former to allow one-third of the troops to be always on deck. He hoped his majesty's government would unite with the East-India Company in doing something handsome for the ship which had so providentially rescued the crew from the outward-bound vessel, the Kent, which had unfortunately taken fire at sea.
Lord Palmerstondenied, that the object of the proposed increase in the army was to extend the patronage of government. With regard to promotions, they would be made without any regard to interest, and with the view of promoting those officers only whose service entitled them to it. The lieutenants who had been promoted were those of seventeen years standing. This was sufficient to prove that the charge was undeserved. As to the garrisons on foreign stations, he was willing to rest that question on the testimony of the hon. and gallant officer (sir R. Wilson), on whose opinion he was sure, both the House and the country would place the fullest confidence.
Sir R. Wilsonasked, whether government would effect the arrangement which he had suggested on a former evening, with respect to the quarterly payments of wounded officers on half-pay.
Sir C. Longsaid, that since he had the honour of holding the office which he now filled, the number of pensioners who were paid quarterly, instead of half-yearly, was doubled. It did, however, so happen, that the class of officers alluded to by the gallant member, had not received their pensions quarterly; but, if any one of them had only communicated their wishes to receive it four times a year instead of twice, to the proper quarter, he had no doubt that the intimation would have been complied with. He had taken measures to carry such an arrangement into effect: but it would not be practicable to have it commence before the 24th of June. He took that opportunity of expressing to the hon. and gallant officer how much indebted he was to him for the suggestion.
Lord Miltoncould not approve of the present estimates, which exceeded, by half a million of money, and 12,000 men, the estimates for the year 1823. This augmentation was attempted to be justified upon the apprehension of impending dangers from abroad, which were, he thought, quite unreasonably felt by some
964
honourable members. Did the colonies now require treble the amount of force which Mr. Pitt thought sufficient in the year 1792? He certainly thought not; and believed that it would look much better in the eyes of foreign powers, to place the strength of Great Britain upon the foundation of her national wealth and prosperity, instead of the numerical amount of her military force. He should therefore protest against this uncalled-for increase of the standing army.
Sir F. Ommanneystrongly recommended that the quarterly payments to wounded officers should commence forthwith, instead of in June.
The House divided: For the original resolutions, 102. For Mr. Hume's amendment, 8.

List of the Minority.

Bright, H.

Palmer, F.

Howard, H.

Wood, M.

Hutchinson, C.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Milton, lord

Johnson, col.

Monck, J. B.

Hume, J.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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