Sitting of 15 March 1825

METROPOLITAN FISH COMPANY BILL.
Several petitions were presented against this bill.
Mr. Calcraftrose, to explain an inaccuracy into which he had fallen upon a former evening when speaking of this company. There were in fact three fish companies, whose objects were nearly similar, and in endeavouring to detect the

1021
real Simon Pure, he had happened to take up the wrong prospectus. The mistake, however, which related to the connection which he imagined to exist between this company and the Dutch fisheries was immaterial, and did not at all affect his argument against it. The effect of this and every similar company was, to take the bread out of the mouths of industrious individuals, and it was upon that ground principally that he opposed it. The public would derive no benefit from these companies, as they already procured fish at as cheap a rate as the nature of the commerce would allow. There were many respectable names attached to this company. If lord George Seymour, Mr. Mocatta, and other respectable persons chose to become fishmongers, he could have no possible objection; but he felt a strong objection to their uniting for the purpose of ruining the poor but honest and industrious individuals, with whose means of subsistence the monopoly of such a company would materially interfere.
Sir J. Yorkeagreed, that it was extremely iniquitous to interfere with the hard earnings of a class of persons whose calling was honourable, and of great anti-quity, as it was followed by the apostles.
Sir E. Harveycontended, that the House ought to protect those who were engaged in the fisheries; as they were a fine race of seamen, who would, when occasion required, be useful to our navy.
Mr. Curteisdenied that the new company interfered with the fisheries at all. They were purchasers offish, and would, therefore, be useful to those who were engaged in that trade.
Mr. Bernalthought the prospectus of the company a mere delusion.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, that the company had, in his opinion, been subjected to much undeserved obloquy. Those who formed it were most respectable. And what was their object? To give cheap fish to the inhabitants of the metropolis. Was there any thing reprehensible in such an object; and would it be contended that it was uncalled for? As far as his experience went, the practices of the fishmongers in London were occasionally most nefarious. He had been informed, that it was not unusual, when there was a superabundance of fish, to throw it into the river, in order to prevent the price which they had chosen to lay upon it from being lowered. The object of the company was, to counteract this system, by giving to the public the
1022
benefit of all the fish that came into the market.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that the effect of this bill would be a monopoly in the sale, and not in the catching of fish. An agent was appointed at a salary of 2,000 l. to buy up fish; and it was evident when so much capital was brought into the market, that fish would rise, instead, of becoming cheaper.
Mr. J. Smiththought that much good would arise from the establishment of this company.
Ordered to lie on the table.

THAMES QUAY.
Colonel Trench Colonel Trench moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for building a Quay and Terrace Carriage Road on the northern shore of the river Thames, from Craven-street, in the Strand, in the city of Westminster, or near thereunto, to Blackfriars Bridge, in the city of London."
Mr. Calcraftexpressed his unwillingness to take up the time of the House in opposing what many persons imagined to be a splendid improvement upon the banks of the Thames. A sense of duty must, however, compel him to do so, unless it was proved to him that the projected measure was not so destructive of private property as he was led to believe it was. He had been intrusted with a petition from a most respectable nobleman, whose property would he materially injured if the bill passed. This petition stated that the standing orders had not been complied with, as the prospectus detailing the number of feet which it was proposed to elevate the quay, together with the map and usual references, had not been deposited in the proper office. It further stated, that neither the petitioner nor his tenants, whose property was so materially involved in the projected scheme, had been served with the regular notices. These, if true, were strong facts; and of their truth no doubt could be entertained, when it was known that the petitioner was the duke of Norfolk. His property in Arundel-street, and other parts of the Strand, would be materially affected if this measure passed. In some parts the proposed elevation would reach to the first story of some of his tenants' houses; in others, above it. Under such circum-stances, he thought the noble duke and others concerned were entitled to a fair notice. With respect to the feasibility of the measure, he allowed that it made a

1023
very pretty figure upon paper; but, in his opinion, it was extremely improbable, if not altogether impossible, that it could be ever carried into execution. The sum said to be requisite was at first estimated at from 3 to 400,000 l. Now it was stated that no less a sum than 680,000 l. would be sufficient; and of this sum it was proposed to borrow 200,000 l., not from individuals, but from the liberality of the chancellor of the Exchequer. He had, however, too high an opinion of the prudence of that right hon. gentleman to imagine that he would lend himself to a scheme, which was nothing but a system of delusion from beginning to end. Taking the estimate of expense at even the highest rate, he contended that the sum of 680,000 l. would be totally insufficient, because they would not only have to construct buildings, but to buy up the interest of those whose habitations were to be taken down. The original plan, too, had been abandoned, because the duke of Northumberland and the earl of Liverpool had objected to it, on account of the inconvenience to which they would be subjected if it had been carried into effect. Why then, he would ask, was the duke of Norfolk to submit to an injury from which those other noble persons had contrived to be exempted? In his opinion, neither the duke of Norfolk nor the commonest beggar in the street ought to submit to injustice. This was a measure which could not be carried on without great individual injury; and he should therefore give his decided opposition to the motion.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that, when the project of the gallant colonel was first made known to him, he had felt extremely anxious to support it, conceiving, that if carried into effect it would greatly tend to the embellishment of the metropolis. He had since, however, upon consulting with his constituents, found that it could not be, accomplished without serious injury to many of them. The mud-dock contemplated would be a great nuisance, and was quite certain to create miasmata. He was therefore bound to oppose the measure; and he did so with the less reluctance, because, upon mature investigation, he could hot but see its utter impracticability.
Colonel Trenchsaid, he rose with considerable embarrassment to reply, to the charges which had been brought against a measure in which he was personally con-
1024
cerned, but which he could not but consider one of great utility, of paramount importance, and, indeed, he might add, of absolute necessity to this great metropolis. He owed it as a matter of respect and courtesy to the duke of Norfolk, to say, that nothing could be further from his intention than a desire to throw any unnecessary obstructions in the way of the noble duke or his tenants. But, in the course which they had been induced to adopt, the committee had not thought fit to act upon their own responsibility; they had consulted their legal advisers, and upon their advice they had acted. The object of the proposed measure was not the improvement of streets, but that of the navigation of the river. That the latter object would be effected, they had the opinion of the lord mayor and common council, who, as conservators of the river Thames, had carefully investigated the proposed plan, and expressed their decided approbation of its details, and their conviction that it would tend materially to the improvement of property upon the banks of the river. There were two classes; however, who, from different motives, were hostile to the proposed plan. The first consisted of those who were really apprehensive of injury to their property; and the second of those who, without apprehending any essential injury, raised a hue and cry, in order to enhance the amount of compensation for which they might find it convenient to apply. In no case, however, where property was not injured, was there any necessity for the service of a notice. With respect to the proposed plan, it was the anxious desire of the committee, that every care should be taken to protect private property, Looking at it in an ornamental point of view, nobody he, believed, would deny its importance. The Thames was a noble river, but its quays were a disgrace to the city through which it flowed. What a contrast did the quays of Dublin present! His hon. friend had with justice ridiculed any project whose exclusive object was ornament. But he trusted that he should be able to prove, that this measure was not only ornamental, but eminently useful. Upon this subject he could not refer to a better authority than that of an hon. friend of his, who, lately, in speaking of the proposed plan, and referring to the great increase of population which, within the last few years, had taken place in this country, had observed, that the Strand was the

1025
main artery through which the great population of this metropolis discharged itself. This channel was, however, now nearly choked up, and another vent was requisite. Where could this vent be so well sought, as upon the banks of the Thames? With respect to the objection as to the increased expense, the original estimate was 400,000 l. For this sum it was intended to construct a plain brick-built quay. Upon consideration, however, it was found that for the additional sum, one of granite might be built, which would so materially add to the beauty of the city. For the difference between the sums of 400,000 l. and 688,000 l., it was not intended, as the hon. gentleman had intimated, to apply to the chancellor of the Exchequer; and to shew that it was no visionary scheme, architects of the highest character were ready to undertake the work, under a penalty, for the sum proposed. With respect to the alteration which had taken place in the original plan of commencing the undertaking at Westminster, he could assure the hon. member, that it had not been abandoned from any interference upon the part of the earl of Liverpool. It had been originally intended to stop at Waterloo-bridge. The true and real reason for the abandoning of that part of the project was, that it was calculated to injure Ludgate-hill and the other great leading streets. Another reason was, that at Craven-street they would have been in a hole 27 feet in depth; but an inclined plane of a short space would obviate that objection. He hoped that the House would consider the data upon which the bill was founded, before they came to a determination to reject it; and that could only be done in a committee. Much had been said about the invasion of private property, but it had always been the intention of the committee, that the rights of individuals, whether they were those of the first duke or of the poorest person in the land, should be scrupulously respected, and that ample compensation should be made for any injury that might result from carrying the measure into effect.
Mr. Crokersaid, the measure was described as one tending to produce great public advantages, but it was impossible to enter on the public portion of the subject, without looking at the anomaly of its having been brought forward in the shape of a private bill. It was sought to give it the colour of a public question, in order
1026
to avoid the necessity of giving notice to private individuals, whose rights or property might be affected by it. Thus it took either shape, as it suited the convenience of the projectors. At one time it was proposed as a public measure, in order to get rid of the inconvenience that would attend the consideration of it as a private question; and again it appeared in a private form to suit other views of its founders. He did not deny that the project was, in a great measure, of a public nature; but when hon. gentlemen came to that House and appealed to its fairness, its equity, and its candour, surely the individuals whose rights would be compromised by it, were equally entitled to its attention. The project would go to deprive those individuals of every advantage they possessed, except the actual ground; but it would be better to take from them the ground itself, than to leave it a burthen upon their bands, expensive and yet unproductive. He would give an example of the evils likely to result to persons having property on the banks of the Thames. An hon. friend near him possessed property on that part of the river by which the quay was to run., which brought him in at present 400 l. a year; but, since the project for a quay had been set on foot, he had received from his tenants notice of their intention to quit. Might he not, therefore, appeal to the candour and fairness of the House, and pray for the protection of his property? His hon. friend described the banks of the Thames as a disgrace to the city of London. But, did his hon. friend not know that there were differences of opinion upon most matters, and that upon that in question even poets differed from his hon. friend; one of whom, eulogizing the Thames, had said—"Whose waves are amber and whose sands are gold." His hon. friend had asked, "Are not the quays of Dublin beautiful? Certainly," they were very fine: but, was there no difference between the two cities? Did not the comparative absence of commerce from Dublin afford room for its decoration? A similar reference to the banks of the Seine, had been made by his gallant friend, to which a similar reply, or rather a stronger one, founded on the same cause, could be given. There was another consideration of extreme importance, which he wished to press upon the attention of the House. A very great work on the Thames was then in progress: he meant the re-

1027
moval of London bridge. According to the best opinions upon that subject, the effects of that removal upon the current of the river would be considerable. The opinions of the best engineers had been taken on the subject, but none of them, not even Mr. Rennie himself, although all admitted that an alteration would take place, could say what that alteration would be Therefore, as in four or five years the starlings of the bridge would betaken away, and the effects ascertained, would hon. gentlemen, to effect any object of taste or even of utility, commence such a project at the present day, rather than postpone it for four or five years? Although friendly to the scheme ultimately, be would appeal to the House and ask, would it sanction such an attempt, until the result of the one to which he referred had been ascertained; and encourage people to lay out their money in the construction of a quay, without knowing whether it could be useful? He should repeat, that although favourable to the scheme ultimately, he thought the House ought to take care that those individuals whose property might be affected by it should be indemnified; and that the project should not be commenced until the starlings of London bridge should have been removed. For these reasons, and to save expense to all parties, he thought the best mode would be to reject the motion for bringing in the bill.
Sir J. Yorkeargued against the measure, contending that it would create new nuisances rather than diminish those at present in existence.
The Hon. G. A. Ellisthought his gallant friend had not been fairly treated. He had heard many arguments in favour of the measure, but not one against it. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the bill to be introduced and printed; after which it might be opposed in the committee.
Lord Palmerstonthought the House ought not at any rate, to reject the proposition of his gallant friend in its present stage. The only question was, whether they should entertain the proposition. The propriety of carrying it into effect, and the particular mode of doing so, would he matter for future consideration. The bill was, in fact, of a public nature, and his gallant friend had been anxious to make it a public measure; but the forms of the House rendered it necessary for him to bring it forward as a private bill.
1028
The construction of quays on the River Thames would, in his opinion, be highly advantageous to the public. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, had urged rather a whimsical objection to the measure. He had argued, that it would be dangerous to construct a quay on the river, because the building of the new bridge would have the effect of contracting the bed of the river. If it were said, that, after the removal of London Bridge, the river would be increased in its volume, and that its banks would require to be extended, he could understand such anticipation as an argument against the bill; but he could neither understand nor admit the validity of an objection founded upon the contraction of the bed of the river. With respect to the necessity for the measure, he thought no question could arise, for he would call upon any hon. gentleman who should proceed from that House to the eastern extremity of the metropolis, through the great leading avenues, to say, was not the measure called for? If such hon. member were to go in his carriage, he would be obliged to proceed as if in a funeral procession; for any attempt to quit the line would be attended with imminent danger. He had heard of the confusion which followed the battle of Leipsic, where men, horses, and carriages were mingled together; but he could not conceive it possible that that scene could have equalled the confusion daily to be witnessed in the city. He thought any plan, therefore, which had for its object to establish an open channel of communication through the metropolis, was worthy of attention.—Having said thus much respecting the utility of the measure, he trusted he might be allowed to offer a few observations on its claims to support on another ground; namely, the ornament which the proposed quay would be to the city. There was no hon. member who heard him, and who engaged in periodical voyages to the out-ports of the metropolis, to indulge in white bait for example, who did not, in his progress on those little excursions, lament the appearance which the banks of the river presented. Every man who had been in Dublin and Paris spoke in praise of their quays, and drew comparisons to the disadvantage of London. Foreigners said—"Well, we have seen your town, but where is the Thames?" For all these reasons he trusted the House would agree to the, introduction of the bill, and thereby afford

1029
full opportunity to the examination of all alleged grievances, and the investigation of all claims to compensation. He hoped his gallant friend's plan would be carried into effect, and that it might be said of him, not, indeed, as was said of a Roman Emperor, that what he found brick, he left marble, but that he found the banks of the Thames covered with mud, and left them protected and embellished with granite.
Sir R. Wilsonsupported the motion, in the hope that, if the measure was found practicable, something might hereafter be done for the improvement of the suburbs; but, in giving it his support in the present stage, he begged to be understood, that if in its progress he found it likely to be injurious to individual interests, he would oppose it. As to what his hon. friend had said about the quays on the Seine and the Liffey, and of those rivers being but small compared with the Thames, he begged to remark that, if his hon. friend had been in St. Petersburgh, he would have seen one of the noblest rivers in the world adorned with quays which would be an ornament to any metropolis.
Mr. Secretary Peelfully concurred with his hon. friend that, until the removal of London bridge, the project then under discussion ought not to be attempted. His noble friend had said, that, if the effect of building the new Bridge were to contract the stream of the Thames, this could be no objection to the construction of a quay. But it was impossible to say on which hank this effect might be produced. He had himself seen a man standing on dry ground, under the fifth arch of Waterloo Bridge; and he believed that the tendency of the stream was, to recede from the Southwark side. The likelihood that the removal of London Bridge would tend to increase that inclination, was therefore deserving of attention. His noble friend said, look to Dublin—look to Paris; but the quays in those cities were built upon the natural banks of the rivers. That could not be the case here; and he should object to building into the Thames. If, as his noble friend had said, a foreigner at present asked, "where is your Thames?" where could it be found if the proposed plan were carried into execution? After going down towards the river from the Strand he would find an enormous granite wall, 30 feet high and 30 feet wide. Much had been said of the convenient approach to the city which the projected line of
1030
quays would open; but he doubted very much whether a person, having to go from Pall-mall to St. Paul's, would descend Craven-street, and proceed by that routed particularly as he would have to pay two turnpikes. He should request that the measure might be deferred until the effects of the removal of London Bridge were ascertained.
Mr. Baringconsidered the building of a quay on the banks of the Thames not merely a question of ornament, but a measure which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of facilitating the communication between the extreme parts of the metropolis. It must strike every man who had visited foreign countries, that the communication between the different parts of this metropolis was worse than it was in almost any city of Europe; and that the convenience of the inhabitants was less consulted in the greatest commercial capital of Europe than in many of the insignificant towns on the Rhine. He should give his support to the plan of the gallant member, not only because it was useful and ornamental, but because it was absolutely indispensable for the convenience of the metropolis.
The House then divided; For the motion 85; Against it 45: Majority 40.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS — PETITION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE AGAINST.
Lord Palmerstonpresented a petition from the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, of the University of Cambridge, against the concession of any further claims to the Catholics. The petitioners declared that, though their apprehensions on this subject had been often previously stated to the House, they had recently been much strengthened by the violent language used by the Catholics in this country. The petitioners discovered, both in that language and in the language used by the Catholics elsewhere, proofs of their entertaining principles hostile to religious liberty. They were convinced that if the concessions which the Catholics now asked were granted, they would lead to fresh demands. They also thought that the measures which they sought to carry could only be devised with the intention of producing a great change in the church establishment of England. They therefore prayed the House not to entertain the question, and more especially not to entertain that part of it which went to admit Roman Catholics into parliament.
Mr. W. J. Bankessaid, he should be sorry if this petition were laid upon the table in perfect silence, and without obtaining some portion of that attention to which it was entitled on account of the quarter from which it came. On a former night, when the absence of all petitions against these claims was alluded to, as a proof that a great change had taken place in the public mind upon this question, he had taken the liberty of warning honourable gentlemen not to lay too great stress upon that circumstance, as he believed many petitions were at that moment in preparation. In that belief he had not been disappointed. Indeed he had at the time information that the university which he had the honour to represent intended to petition. He would mention a fact connected with this petition, which might give it a stronger recommendation to the notice of gentlemen on the Opposition benches, than it would otherwise possess. Those who were at all acquainted with the institutions of our universities, were aware that it was but seldom that a layman filled the office of vice-chancellor. A layman, however, now filled it, and fully concurred in the prayer of the petition. It was consequently a petition which expressed the sentiments, not merely of the clerical, but also of the lay members of the university, and therefore might be received without exciting the sneers and laughters which had been excited by some petitions on the same subject, for no other cause that he could learn, except that they came from clergymen. He protested against the scoffs and scorns which were cast upon the petitions of the clergy. Considering their education, their rank in life, and their importance in the country, they were entitled to attention and respect. As they were the only class of men who had no persons to represent their interests in that House, it was unfair, impolitic, and unjust, to treat them with ridicule, when they presented to its consideration a humble but honest declaration of their opinions. They were, besides, the only class of men who were so treated; for if a word was said against the army, the navy, the law, or the commerce of the country, numbers of members belonging to those different occupations were ready to start up, and retort with interest the sarcasm on the offender. The clergyman, however, was obliged to silence, and could not defend himself by the eloquence of any of his brethren. He ought, there-
1032
fore, to be defended by the generosity of the House against sneers and sarcasms; which, if they meant any thing, could only mean that he ought not to come there as a petitioner. He contrasted the different modes in which the petitions of the Catholic clergy, and those of the established church, were received by the House. The former were heard with kindness and attention, and were made the subject of lofty encomiums: the latter were flouted and discountenanced, and all but laughed out of the House. He thought that hon. gentlemen would perform their duty in a more fair and candid manner, by listening to the arguments which the clergy urged against these claims, than by denouncing them without examination as absurd and ridiculous, and by assailing them with laughter as soon as they were brought into the House.
Mr. Humesaid, that no language had been used by gentlemen on his side of the House, which could warrant the hon. member in asserting, that there was a wish on their part to denounce and get rid of the petitions of the clergy. It would be preposterous for men who professed liberal principles, to adopt such an illiberal mode of proceeding. The hon. gentleman had raised a phantom, which had no existence but in his own mind, for the sole purpose of demolishing it after it had been raised. What he had said regarding the clergy on a former night, he was ready to say again. He had expressed his regret, that the clergymen of England, who were superior to the generality of the people, in education and rank in life, should be a century behind them in mildness and liberality of feeling. With christian charity always in their mouths, they ought to exhibit a little more of christian charity in their practice. Enjoying civil rights themselves, they ought not to seek to debar others from a full participation in them. If there was any difference in the attention which the House bestowed on the petitions received from the Catholic, and the established clergy, it was owing to this circumstance—that the former petitioned for justice, whilst the latter sought to perpetuate injustice.
Mr. W. J. Bankessaid, in explanation, that the remarks he had made were not so much intended to apply to what had been said, as to what had been done, by gentlemen on the other side. He recollected, that when an hon. member had presented petitions from the clergy of

1033
Essex and Ely against these claims, they were received with a sneering laugh, instead of the fair attention to which they were entitled.
Sir E. Harveybegged to observe, that when he presented the petition from the archdeaconry of Essex, which did equal honour to the hearts and heads of those who signed it, it was received with an uproar and clamour which was more worthy of a bear-garden than of the House of Commons.
Mr. Carus Wilsoncontended, that the ridicule thrown upon the petitions of the clergy was most undeserved, as they had always been the guardians of our religious rights.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he belonged to the University of Cambridge, and was most anxious not to speak of it in a disrespectful or disparaging manner. He allowed that the petition was entitled to every attention; but, at the same time, it ought not to be taken as speaking the unanimous opinion of the university. He knew that there were a great many of the resident members who dissented from its prayer; and he believed he might say, that among them were some of the most enlightened and popular members of the senate. With regard to what had fallen from the last speaker, about the clergy being the guardians of our religious rights, he thought it savoured more of a Popish than a Protestant doctrine. Every man ought to be the judge of his own opinions; and the best defenders of our religious rights had always been found in the lay members of the community.
Ordered to lie on the table.

CANADIAN WASTE-LANDS BILL.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonrose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the sale and improvement of Waste Lands in the province of Upper Canada. The principal features of the bill were those relating to the sale of lands, to the apportionment of lands for settlers, to the lending of money to settlers, and the means of providing them with food for a certain period. It was proposed, that a company which had been projected for the purpose of purchasing up those lands, should be permitted to purchase upon a valuation, to be ascertained by commissioners sent out to Canada for the purpose, two of whom were to be appointed by the Crown, and two by the Company. The estimates were to be made on the bases of the
1034
general value of lands now unreclaimed. They were now abroad, and the company had proposed to take up lands yearly to the amount of 20,000 l. In that estimate it had been stipulated, that they were not to overlook such interests in the territory as were vested in the church of Canada. To effect these purposes, the company were to apply to parliament for a bill of incorporation, and empowering them to make such arrangements to this end, as might be considered consistent with the general interests of Canada, and the empire at large. The precedent of the Australian company was that on which the Canadian Waste Land company was to be founded. Such was the general outline of the bill, and the project on which it was founded. When the bill should be before the House, it would be his duty more fully to explain its contents; and he trusted it would, on examination, be found, not only calculated to improve the condition and strength of our colonies in North America, but prove of great and general advantage to the empire.
Mr. W. Smithwas extremely desirous, that the bill should not be so incautiously framed as to injure or prejudice, the native Indians in the vicinity of these waste lands; as had been the case in the former arrangements made relative to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Mr. W. Hortonsaid, there was no reason to apprehend any such results from the enactments of this bill.
Mr. Humeexpressed his regret that, five years ago, when he had strongly recommended a change in the colonial system, some proposition of this kind had not been made. He had said then, and the result verified his prediction, that the system of emigration held out at the time, would be defeated by the bad system of the colonial authorities, the inordinate demand of augmented fees for individual profit—a system so different from that pursued by the United States in their sale of waste lands—and the other abuses which prevailed in British colonies. He could now support the arguments which be had used five years ago, by the official returns since received from Canada, which showed that out of 39,000 persons who had gone out, only a hundred families had been able to obtain a footing on the waste lands: so that the great bulk were actually deprived of the intended benefit held out to them in the first instance. If

1035
the present bill, then, were calculated to amend the vices and errors which were the reproach of the hon. gentleman's predecessor in office, it should have his approbation. He would repeat that, for the last twelve or fourteen years, the colonial system had been a disgrace to the government; so much so, that if there was a reformed House of Commons, he would impeach lord Bathurst for breach of duty, and move an address to the king for his dismissal. His reasons for such impeachment would not be confined to the mal-administration of Upper Canada, but to the general abuses of the noble lord's system in the Ionian Islands, the Cape of Good Hope, and the other settlements. That was his honest conviction of lord Bathurst's system; and that it ought to have led to a general colonial inquiry, to see if a more efficient check could not be put upon local abuses. Look, for instance, at the Cape, where the grossest and most glaring injustice was daily suffering—where British subjects were transported from thence to Botany Bay, under circumstances of the most aggravated oppression—and where complaints were daily made, which called for redress from any man who had a heart to feel for human misery. He wished it was in his power to do more than utter the language of complaint with reference to these abuses; and at least to remove the inefficient head of the department, who had applied no corrective to them. Respecting the present bill, he was anxious to know whether it was intended to cede or grant to the new company all the Crown reserves and church returns without qualification? Did they mean to sell the land, and leave the new purchasers to retail at their own prices? If they did, they were likely to create a private monopoly, as injurious as the previous system. In fairness, all this ought to be explained in the first instance.
Mr. Baringwished to know, whether this bill was intended merely to admit the principle of the proposed change of system, or to enable the Crown at once to execute it in all its details.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldwas of opinion, that the effect of what had fallen from his hon. friend, was, to create a greater impression in the House and abroad than possibly he himself intended. He had belonged to the committee appointed to look into the subject of Canadian settlers, and that committee had it in proof before them,
1036
that the settlers had expressed themselves in warm terms of gratitude to the Colonial government, for the care displayed by it in providing for their welfare, and for the happy condition in which they were now placed.
Mr. Gordonrose to repel some of the animadversions which the hon. member for Aberdeen had directed against the noble lord at the head of the colonial department. He could not help considering the use of strong or harsh language as peculiarly unseaonable, when the hon. member admitted that he had no objection to the proposition of the hon. Secretary. The main ground of charge seemed to be, that the measure now proposed had not been adopted years ago; but possibly want of capital or want of a spirit of adventure might have prevented their application before. As to the observations respecting the appointments of colonial governors, that was a cabinet measure, and lord Bathurst was not singly answerable. He would undertake to say that, in all the details of the colonial office, a strict scrutiny was resorted to, in order to ascertain the characters of the servants of government sent out to the colonies.
Mr. Brightsaid, that, as far as the principle of the bill went, it had his most hearty assent, as he considered it a matter of necessity, to advance the progress and increase the population of the colony of Canada; but he trusted, that the bill had been framed on the opinion and advice of the colonial legislature. If that had not been done, he hoped it would not pass this session. He did not know to what extent the grants of land in that country were to be sold; but if, unfortunately, those lands were not properly settled and cultivated, instead of a benefit the measure would prove an injury to the colony. He would recommend, that the 20,000 l. which it was proposed should be paid to the Crown annually, for a certain number of years, should be applied to pay the expenses of emigration to that colony.
Mr. Baringpressed upon his majesty's government the expediency of considering, in good time, what must, of necessity, be the future condition of Canada. It was impossible that it could very long continue to be a colony of Great Britain; for all experience proved, that no colony could, for any great extent of time, continue in that relation to the parent country, the productions of which were similar to the productions of the parent country.

1037
It would, therefore, be wise to consider the propriety of doing that freely and in time, which might otherwise be accomplished after great bloodshed and expense. If his majesty's government lost sight of this important consideration, they would very much misunderstand the best interests of the empire. He begged of the House to recollect, that the colony for which they were then legislating was a narrow slip of land of from 1,000 to 1,500 miles in extent; that its inhabitants were both enterprising and ambitious, and thoroughly imbued with the feeling, common in the new world, for getting entirely rid of the dominion of Europeans. He thought, therefore, that this government should act in time; and he would recommend to them to call on the legislature of Canada to inquire whether they felt themselves strong enough to separate from the mother country, and desired to be set on their own legs. We should thereby ensure the good feelings of those whom we had nurtured and brought up until they could take care of themselves. By such a policy our commercial intercourse with that country would always be attended with advantages. It would also be an act of generosity consistent with the dignity of a great country. He did not think that the interests of either country were promoted by the present bill. It appeared to be brought in for no other purpose than to support a Joint Stock company, established to speculate on emigration.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonobserved, that the principle of the bill did not relate entirely to emigration. That was an incidental part of it.
Mr. Baring.—It was to further the views of a Joint Stock company, which was to pay the government 20,000 l. for fifteen years, amounting in the whole to 300,000 l.: a sum which, he believed, all the waste lands, in Canada, would not produce, if put up to auction to-morrow. That company, therefore, would be more intent on getting back its 300,000 l. than on advancing the interests of Canada. He therefore, as at present advised, could not see how the bill could tend to the improvement of that country. He would suggest, that a land-office should be opened in Canada, as had been done in America, where individuals might go and purchase whatever quantity they wanted; and that all land should be put under the management of the local legislature. Such a step would inspire confidence and attachment
1038
in the Canadians to a much greater extent than the present bill would do; which he could look upon in no other light than as a Stock Exchange speculation. But, if the present bill were persevered in, a clause should be introduced, that all lands that were not cultivated after a certain number of years, should be surrendered back to the Crown. The country would then have some security, that the monopolists would not hold the land for ever.
Mr. Robertsonsaid, that in the event of a union being formed with America and any of the continental powers, against this country, it would require an immense force to protect Canada; which might, after all, be of no avail.
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, he had been most anxious to supply all the information in his power, relative to the proposed plan, and he must remind the House, that there was an indefinite extent of fertile land, sufficient to absorb the exertions of any amount of population that might be sent there. The object of the bill was chiefly to place the company in the character of an individual; to enable it, as an individual, to make its bargains in Canada. The framers of the bill certainly contemplated that a large influx of capital into that country, applicable, according to the directions of government, must prove of immense service to it; and it was unquestionably a part of the stipulation, that all those lands which were not settled within a certain period, should be given up to government. Under those restrictions, the company was entitled to settle the lands in whatever way it pleased-The government contemplated the system of purchasing lands, as the most beneficial to the colony, and as a means of introducing wealth into it. With regard to the question of emigration, that was not to be carried on by government; but certainly the colony did not require that poor people should emigrate there, they wanted capital. But he must say, that if the House desired to see the details of the measure, it was competent to any hon. member to move for papers; and then, if any thing objectionable was discovered, there would be some ground for complaint. That could not be considered a monopoly where an equivalent in money was given for the land. The land was to be purchased on a fair valuation, and he did not think that any more satisfactory mode could have been adopted. In whatever point of view he looked at it, he con-

1039
sidered it as a most advantageous measure. The bill was not a consequence of the rage for speculation. It had been introduced early last session; and one of its great benefits would be, that this country would be relieved from a considerable annual burthen. It was, after all, a mere question of sale; and we were not bound to sell more than we could get a good price for. The purchasers were bound to colonise it, and to make good roads. Many persons of consequence residents in Canada, were parties to the measure. Many members of the Canadian legislature, who had been examined with respect to it, were perfectly satisfied; and calculated that it would produce all the beneficial consequences that had been anticipated. He must here be allowed to say a few words in answer to an attack that had been made against the Colonial department, by the hon. member for Aberdeen. Could the hon. member, from his own knowledge, speak as to the merits of any of the facts which he had advanced? If he could not, he had no right to come forward with such direct charges. He could not conceive on what authority he had made his statements. The hon. member was bound, in justice to his own character, after dealing in such sweeping generalities, to come forward with some charge, on which he might be specifically met. The noble earl at the head of the Colonial department deserved the thanks of the House and the country; and the removal of the restrictions upon trade, as well as the just principle of colonization —which were now acted on—entitled that office to approbation; and ought to be sufficient to protect them from the unfounded charges of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Humeappealed to the House, whether he had not brought forward specific motions from year to year, instead of indulging in idle declamations.
The bill was then brought in, and read the first time.

IRISH BANKERS CO-PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
Sir George Hillrose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to render more effectual the provisions of an act passed last session to amend the 21st of Geo. II. relative to Co-partnerships in Banks in Ireland. As he did not expect any opposition to the measure, he should content himself with making a few observations. The Bank of Ireland was established in 1781, and
1040
had been continued subsequently by various statutes passed for the renewal of its charter. Previously to 1821, no desire had been expressed on the part of the public, that the bank should forego any part of its privileges. About that period, however, the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country had so greatly increased, as to induce a wish that they should forego some peculiar advantages which they had hitherto enjoyed. An agreement was, in consequence, entered into between the Bank and the Treasury, by which the public was relieved from the monopoly. Until last session, however, no attempt was made to take advantage of the agreement of 1821. It was not his intention to contravene this agreement. The most convenient way would be, to permit him to bring in the bill, and then the Bank and the other parties interested, would have a fair opportunity of stating their objections. There was more capital in Ireland than people were generally aware of. Many millions had been lately transferred there from this country, and the exports of last year amounted to no less than 14,000,000 l. No further proof was wanting of the necessity of increased facilities in the banking business.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, he could not omit that opportunity of expressing his conviction of the importance of the proposed measure. He had himself presented no less than six petitions, praying the protection and countenance of the House for the establishment of provincial banks in Ireland. No subject had, for some time back, more completely engrossed the attention of the people of Ireland than this All parties, Protestant and Catholic, were only of one opinion; and that opinion was founded not alone in the advantages expected from an improved system, but in dire experience of the great mischiefs occasioned by the failure of the banks in the south and south-west of Ireland some few years back. These establishments, hitherto, were founded on principles subversive of public credit and of national prosperity. It was necessary, therefore, that parliament should step forward to oppose some check to so great an evil. So great was the want of confidence occasioned by the frequent failure of private banks, that they had almost totally disappeared. There were not, throughout the four provinces, more he believed, than ten-In England the number of private banks was 530, and in Scotland 128. To these

1041
establishments the prosperity of Scotland was in a great measure attributed; and he wished, therefore, to see the joint-stock principle introduced into Ireland. It could not fail to operate as a powerful encouragement to the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests. It was by no means his wish to trench on the just privileges of the Bank of Ireland; but that establishment must not expect too much from the country: they must not suppose that commerce, trade, and manufactures, were to be sacrificed by a too close adherence to the technicalities of the law. He did not think that their conduct merited so great a sacrifice. When the utmost distress prevailed in Ireland, the Bank did not come forward as they should have done: they made no efforts to relieve the country from the difficulties which weighed it down. It was but lately they had begun to adopt a more liberal manner of conducting business. They did not reduce their discounts last year, until after he had given notice of his motion. It was only since that time they had begun to turn their thoughts to the establishment of provincial branches of their own concern. Every thing they had done, conducive to the advantage of the country, had been extorted from them, by the fear of losing some of the advantages they enjoyed. The measure proposed by his right hon. friend would prove a substantial benefit to Ireland. It was only by removing such monopolies that she could enjoy all the advantages of the Union. He trusted, the chancellor of the Exchequer would see how beneficial the measure was likely to prove. The encouragement that would thus be given to manufactures and commerce could not fail to improve the Exchequer; and by that means, in connexion with the effects arising from liberal commercial principles, enable him further to relieve the burthens of the country. It was not a false prediction to assert, that not one representative from the country, except perhaps his interests were involved in the Bank of Ireland, would oppose the establishment of provincial banks, or be merely lukewarm in supporting the principle.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, the conduct of the Bank of Ireland had not been such as to induce any gentleman to be backward in expressing his opinion. Their conduct had been improper, and inconsistent with that which they ought to have pursued for the interests of the country. Whenever they
1042
applied for a renewal of their charter, he hoped all these circumstances would be remembered, and that they would induce parliament to look more narrowly into the policy of granting such monopolies. He could offer no opinion on the measure now proposed, not being acquainted with the details; but, as far as it went, he believed it would be useful. In consequence of the system lately pursued, the number of banks in Ireland had been greatly reduced, and the trade of the country had suffered in proportion to that reduction. He would ask the chancellor of the Exchequer, how far he considered it expedient to keep the law of England different from the law of Ireland with respect to banking regulations? For himself, he could not understand why one system was to be continued in Ireland and another in. England. He trusted that on the present occasion, the House of Commons would act with that consideration for the general welfare of Ireland, which the situation of that country demanded, and not allow themselves to be swayed by any private or partial feelings, in favour of any body of persons, however privately respectable they might be.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was as sensible as any man could be, of the imperfect state of the present banking system in Ireland, and no one was more anxious than himself, that a revision of that system should take place. He was most anxious to afford any assistance in his power for the attainment of that object, and he assured the hon. baronet, that in affording that assistance, he would not allow himself to be acted upon by any partiality for any body of persons. In truth he felt none. He was only anxious that, in introducing any measure of this description, they should avoid trenching upon, or in any way violating the charter and compact held by the Bank of Ireland. That charter and that compact he could not allow himself to violate, either directly or indirectly, without the most solid and sufficient grounds. He was the more anxious to be clear upon this point, as his hon. friend (Mr. Dawson) appeared to hint that the conduct of the Bank of Ireland, not being what he wished it, that body might be treated in a manner different from, that to which a different line of conduct would entitle them. With his statement he could not agree. It might be that the, Bank of Ireland did that which many other bodies had done, namely, look

1043
to its own interests without consulting the interests of the public; but this was no reason why it should be deprived of its privileges. If it was shewn to him that the Bank of Ireland had acted contrary to the objects for which it was instituted; if it was shewn to him that that body had violated its charter; then he would say that it would be right to consult the general interest of the country, without taking that body, or the compact entered into with it, at all into consideration. But, such was not the fact; at least they had no evidence of that fact before them, and therefore they were bound to give all parties fair play and an impartial hearing. Anxious as he was to support any measure which had for its object the improvement of the trade and commerce of Ireland, he, nevertheless, could not consent to any measure which went in direct violation of a charter-right. He could not think it would be advantageous to adopt any such measure under circumstances which would neither be beneficial to the public nor creditable to the legislature.
Mr. Spring Riceconcurred with the chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking, that if there was any thing in the terms of the charter of the Bank of Ireland to preclude the introduction into parliament of this or any similar bill, the fact of there being such a condition would of itself be a valid objection to the present motion. But, when the right hon. gentleman adverted to considerations of an equitable nature in favour of the Bank, he must beg leave to quote a principle that he had often heard contended for, and that was, that whenever a party set up an equitable construction, he must come into court with clean hands, by showing that he had done his best to fulfil the expressed conditions of the contract. But, up to a very late period, what had been the conduct of the Bank of Ireland? It had been, to refuse those advances or accommodations, without which business must always languish, however unexceptionable might be the security tendered, unless the parties concerned happened to be engaged in the trade of Dublin itself. If they belonged to Cork, for example, or any of the southern districts, however highly respectable they might be, the parties must establish an agency in Dublin, before they could obtain any such advances. Now, the Bank of Ireland did no business at all of this kind under 5 per cent.; the charge of the Dublin agency was about one per cent, more
1044
and, what with postages, brokerage, & c, the accommodation to such parties could only be obtained at the rate of nearly 7 per cent. It was the jealousy which the Bank of Ireland felt of the introduction of English capital and capitalists into Ireland, that alone induced it to take any adverse steps to such a measure as this. As to English capital, he did not augur all the benefits which the hon. gentleman anticipated from its introduction, so much as he looked forward to the happiest results from the circumstance of that English capital being to be managed by English capitalists. That circumstance would introduce into Ireland those habits of good faith, regularity, and punctuality in business, which its commercial transactions did at present so much want. Upon this principle it was, that he felt chiefly induced to give his vote for the measure.
Mr. Trantrose to state a fact that had occurred not long ago, which went to prove how necessary some measure of this nature had become. A relation of his had a few hundred pounds to remit to England. He happened to reside a hundred miles from Dublin; and there being no private bank between him and that capital, through which he could remit the money, he was absolutely obliged to travel thither with it in his own pocket.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldexpsessed his approbation of the measure. When the Banks failed in 1817 in the south of Ireland, the Bank of Ireland made no exertion to alleviate the distress that followed. They were deaf to the application of many country bankers, who offered good and solid security, though it was not of such a nature as to be immediately convertible. The establishment of Joint-Stock Banking companies could not interfere with their charter; for it was proposed to establish them only in those parts which the Bank seemed to think entirely out of their province. They discounted no paper from the province of Munster, or from any part of Ireland, unless indorsed by a person resident in Dublin. They were told of the capital that existed in Dublin. If there was capital there, it was certainly— the most inert capital he ever heard of. It shewed no life until this measure had been suggested; and then, all of a sudden, they heard of some charitable intentions on the part of the Bank towards the south of Ireland. Nothing could be more advantageous than the introduction of English capital. There was not at present

1045
sufficient circulating medium for the purposes of internal trade. In the south and west of Ireland banking had been established on the most injudicious and ruinous principles. He hoped that a better system would now be introduced.
Mr. Sneydvindicated the Bank of Ireland from the imputations thrown upon it.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald,in explanation, said, that at a period of great distress the Bank of Ireland did not afford the relief it ought to those banks that could have given ample security.
Mr. Sneyddenied this statement.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

IRISH BUTTER TRADE.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, he should have contented himself with merely moving for copies of ail memorials that had been presented to the Treasury, relating to the Butter Trade of Ireland, if the extraordinary interest which this subject had excited in that part of Ireland with which he was connected, had not appeared to require of him a few observations upon the matter. It might be remembered, that he had been before called upon to present a petition on this subject; and he would now beg to assure the House, that it was a subject of much greater importance than it might be at first supposed. The butter trade was carried on in Ireland to such an immense extent as to form an export of the annual value of about 2,000,000 l. When he stated that this trade was principally carried on by a great number of small farmers and merchants, the House would see that the matter became one still more important for their consideration. In the year l8l2, the trade was unfortunately put under a number of very vexatious and mischievous regulations, specified in an act of parliament then passed. Before that act of 1812, other acts had been made, also of a prejudicial nature in themselves; but then, they had not been enforced. In 1812, a bill was introduced—notwithstanding his utmost opposition, and the necessity he felt himself under of repeatedly dividing the House upon it—which subjected the butter trade to a whole series of such vexatious regulations, of which the principal ones were these; that every cask of butter should be sold in a public market; that a public officer, called a taster, should taste the butters, and mark, in open market, their respective qualities. The result of this arrangement was, that if the taster chose to mark a cask, "second quality", he dimi-
1046
nished its value as much as ten shillings per cwt. If he marked it "third quality", &c. he reduced it five shillings per cwt. more. Now, hon. gentlemen would observe how serious a difference this must make in the price of a cask, which on the average was about 4l. sterling. And they would see, too, what a dangerous sort of power this was to vest in one officer; whose office, by the by, hardly any respectable person could be found to take and the consequence was, that it fell, usually, into very unworthy hands. To make up the large amount of this export, equal in value to nearly 2,000,000 l. worth of butter, no less than 700,000 casks must undergo this operation of tasting. It was impossible for him to describe to the House the extent to which gross corruption and practical oppression took place under a system thus requiring every cask of butter to be publicly tasted by the tasters. Upon this tasting there was a fee of two pence per cask to be paid, which two pence the merchant deducted from the proceeds in his account-sales, and undertook to recover again of the buyer. But under various pretences of weighing, branding, &c. this charge occasionally rose to 5d., 7d., 11 d., and even as high as five-and-twenty-pence per cask;—a loss which the poor farmer, on whose account it was sold, had to sustain. There was an officer also appointed, under the act of 1812, to mark and brand on the casks their capacity and weight. But he had discovered, from various sources of information, that it frequently happened that the officer, whose duty it was so to brand the casks, accepted bribes from interested parties, and left his brands in the hands of the coopers themselves. In short, both in this matter, and in respect to the weighing in the market, the greatest corruption prevailed in the markets in Ireland. He did trust, therefore, that the Treasury had already made up their minds as to what course they would take in respect to this important subject, after the memorials which had been already presented to them, and especially after the notice which had been given by the hon. member for London to introduce a bill for the better regulation of this trade. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the House copies of all memorials that had been presented to the Treasury, or the Board of Trade, respecting the butter-trade of Ireland, since the 1st of January, 1824."
Mr. C. Grantthought the hon. baronet had stated quite enough to convince the House, that the present regulations of this important trade had led only to fraud and collusion. They had been, as might be expected, discovered to be quite inefficient for the purposes which they were intended to effect, and productive of much mischief that had never been anticipated. He could not help thinking that these regulations were quite of a piece with the system of marking and branding the Irish linens, which had been so utterly ineffectual to advance the welfare of that trade.
Mr. Humeexpressed his entire concurrence with the right hon. gentleman. Since the repeal of all the laws about branding the linens of Scotland, its trade had very much improved; and he wished the linen manufacturers of Ireland could be prevailed upon to try a similar experiment.
Mr. S. Ricesuggested that, after the admission of the right hon. gentleman, it might be quite enough for his hon. friend to apply directly to the Treasury and the Board of Trade.
Mr. Dawsonhoped, that the linen trade of Ireland, which was going on in an extremely gratifying manner, would be suffered to remain as it was.
Mr. Grattanhoped the House would not hastily adopt any measure, but give all parties a fair trial.
Mr. T. Wilsonwas inclined to think the subject before the House was a proper one for inquiry before a committee.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldargued, that there was an absolute necessity for an alteration in the act. By one of its clauses, butter could not be sent to the Cork market, except in a firkin which had been made in Cork. The consequence was, that the whole province of Munster must have firkins manufactured in Cork.
Sir H. Parnellreplied. He contended, that it was not necessary to go into an inquiry on this subject. The absurdity and evil of the system were too manifest to require any investigation. Was the House, in 1825, to be called upon to inquire, whether the value of a cask of butter ought to be fixed by a public officer? He should fail in doing his duty if he did not impress on ministers the necessity of granting relief to hundreds, nay, thousands of people in Ireland, who were oppressed by the present system. Those persons in Cork, Limerick, and Dublin, who supported the present system; were interested individuals
1048
who derived large incomes from weighing butter. As interested parties, their opinion ought to be received cautiously. In 1812, the existing measure was carried by the then chief secretary for Ireland. It was an act of government; and that being the case—the government having imposed on the country this extensive system of corruption and oppression—who were the parties to be consulted for the purpose of getting rid of it? Certainly, the government. He therefore cast it on his majesty's ministers to remove immediately this obnoxious measure.
The motion was agreed to.

SPRING-GUNS-BILL
The order of the day was moved for committing the-Spring-Guns bill.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that, previously to going into the order of the day, he wished to, present for a first reading a bill intituled "An act for making feloniously stealing vegetable productions larceny." This bill was occasioned by the conduct which had been pursued the other night by the noble duke, who, acting with more zeal than discretion, proposed a clause for prohibiting the setting of spring-guns in gardens. Their lordships would recollect, that this was going beyond the object of the bill he had introduced; the provisions of which extended only to plantations, and places for the preservation of game. The clause of the noble duke would, however, put the question on a very different ground from that in which he wished to place it; as it went to the total abolition of spring-guns in every case. He must again say, that he was sorry the noble duke's zeal had carried him thus far, because, if he should succeed in introducing his clause, it would induce many noble lords to oppose the passing of the bill. Though the noble duke was accustomed to scenes of horror, no one would presume that he had therefore become hardened to human suffering. Neither did he mean to accuse him of acting with insincerity in this business; but the argument which had been used in support of the clause certainly was a most strange and inconsistent one, as it had for its foundation the fewness of the accidents which the noble duke alleged arose from the use of spring-guns. Now, that there was little risk of an innocent person being injured by spring-guns could scarcely be an argument for prohibiting their use in enclosed gardens. Supposing, however, that the noble duke were insincere, then he must acknowledge that human ingenuity could not have fallen on a better mode of defeating the bill. He was unwilling to attribute any thing unhandsome to the noble duke. It did, however, seem, that that noble person was practising a ruse de guerre; which was certainly quite in his own way, but which hardly ought to be carried on in parliament in such a case as the present. The number of accidents occasioned by spring-guns set in plantations was notoriously great; and though the noble duke was

1015
just the man to stand in the breach where danger was, he hoped he would not throw himself into the breach to defend spring-guns. To employ artifice to defeat the bill, was not what he should expect from the noble duke. If that noble person now resorted to artifice, when did he learn to employ it? He could see no traces of it in his conduct on other occasions. At all events he must have acquired it since the date of the Convention of Cintra which he had signed at the head of a victorious army. He hoped, however, that the noble duke would not insist on carrying a clause which would defeat the object of the bill. With regard to the bill he now proposed for a first reading, if it should be agreed to by their lordships, it would then become his duty to introduce another, for prohibiting the use of spring-guns in gardens. As to the frequent occurrence of accidents by spring-guns, that was a fact which could not be doubted. During the last week he had received an immense number of letters, the writers of which expressed their astonishment that the noble duke should be ignorant of the mischief done by spring-guns. Three cases had recently come to his knowledge; but he would not at present trouble their lordships with the details.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he did not rise to defend himself against any insinuations which the noble lord had thrown out respecting transactions in which he had been engaged — insinuations which were perfectly unparliamentary [hear, hear]. He said perfectly unparliamentary, as they had no relation to the subject under the consideration of their lordships, but to his conduct before he was a member of that House. To such insinuations, he would make no reply. But; with regard to the bill in question, he must say, that he did think it contained a very unfair insinuation against country gentlemen, who might wish to preserve their game by spring-guns, rather than by gamekeepers, because the latter mode was not so consistent with their fortune as it might be with that of the noble lord opposite. He thought it was not right for the House to suffer such an insinuation of cruelty against the country gentlemen to pass. That he did intend to oppose the bill when he came down the other day, he would not deny; but, when he heard the statement of legal authorities made by the noble lord on moving the second reading, he reconsidered his opinion, and
1016
came to the conclusion, that if the principle was right, it ought to be extended further. On the meeting of the House he had stated, that he would propose the very measere which he had moved in the committee; and, if he was not greatly mistaken, the noble lord then said he had no objection to it in principle. He wished to deal fairly with the noble lord, and would tell him, that if the bill were made applicable to garden grounds, it would be lost; but that was no affair of his. The fault was theirs who introduced a measure of such a nature, that when it was proposed to extend the principle, it was found to be so unfair that it could not be applied beyond an individual case. Whenever the measure came to be considered in the committee, he should insist upon its being made applicable to all enclosures on this principle, that small country gentlemen should not be deprived of the only means they had of protecting their game.
Lord Suffieldhoped their lordships would allow him to vindicate himself against the charge of having done any thing unparliamentary. In the discussion of a public measure, he thought it perfectly fair to urge the argument which he had employed; the tendency of which was to show, that if the noble duke was taking a by-way in order to defeat the present measure, such a course was not to be expected from him, and that an open opposition would be more consistent with his character. As to what the noble duke had said of the necessity of spring-guns for preserving the game of country gentlemen, that reminded him of his having often heard the same arguments in private; but he must say, that he allowed it little weight. He should be sorry if what he said gave any offence in the quarter he alluded to; but it did appear to him, that country gentlemen not being able to preserve game legally, was no reason for permitting them to preserve it. illegally.
Lord Malmesburysuggested, that the measure should be confined to prohibiting setting spring-guns, except during the' night, and at certain distances from the public road. With these limitations, the bill might be made general. There was some difficulty in knowing where to stop, and how to distinguish between covers, orchards, and gardens. He bad never set spring-guns himself, and never would.
The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that

1017
the first bill to which the noble lord had called the attention of the House was that which proposed to make stealing in gardens larceny, and to the motion for reading that bill a first time he had no objection. The noble lord had also given notice of his intention to bring in another bill, to prohibit the setting of spring-guns in gardens. He certainly could not see much reason for shooting a man for stealing fruit, any more than for stealing pheasants, and he was therefore in favour of the prohibition; but he thought that the better way of accomplishing this object would be that suggested by his noble friend; namely, the ingrafting a clause on the other bill, which was to be committed.
Earl Grosvenorwished their lordships to consider, as they had all agreed to the principle of the measure, whether it would not be better to pass the bill in the form in which it had been originally introduced, than with the amendment of the noble duke. Those who thought with the noble earl, that the principle of the bill should be extended, might then give their support to the bill for prohibiting spring-guns in gardens, which his noble friend had promised to introduce. He hoped their lordships would not, by adopting the amendment, defeat a measure, the principle of which they universally approved.
The Marquis of Salisburydid not see the expediency of having separate bills, when all the points might be incorporated into one enactment. He thought that amendments might be introduced for enabling gardeners to protect their property without endangering the lives of his majesty's subjects. As to the measure proposed by a noble earl for setting spring-guns only in the night time, he did not consider that it could be attended with the desired effect, for great depredations might be committed in the open day
Lord Suffield, in reference to the debate of a former night, observed, that his course of proceeding had been misunderstood by some noble lords. It was then proposed to extend the principle of the Spring-gun bill to gardens; but to obviate this difficulty in the progress of that bill, he promised to bring in a specific bill for the protection of gardens. This promise, as their lordships now saw by the bill just read a first time, he had endeavoured to perform. He could also lay before their lordships, if necessary, a statement of the law relative to gardens; some of the absurdities of which had been described on
1018
a former evening by the learned lord on the woolsack, and also by the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, He put it to their lordships, whether the bill ought not to be read a first time and then left on the table, as an earnest of that more general system of legislation which was in contemplation.
The Duke of Wellingtonbegged to remind the noble lord, that he had opposed neither the second reading of the bill, nor its going into a committee, and as yet he had not heard any opposition to the clauses which he moved to be included in it. The noble lord would find, on investigating the matter, that many accidents had been prevented by these instruments, and much property saved from depredation. If country gentlemen were deprived of the use of them, they must employ more gamekeepers and watchmen to protect their property, which would be attended with greater expense and with a greater loss of life.
Lord Ellenboroughthought, that if upon any occasion it had been expedient for the House to negative the first reading of a bill, the present was one which seemed more particularly to invite that course. He had no doubt that the loss of human life would be much greater after the bill should have passed, than it could be under the state of things which existed at present. If their lordships had resolved to legislate against all the accidents by which the lives of men were endangered, there could be no limit to the task they had undertaken. He believed that the number of fatal accidents which happened every year from the careless laying about of loaded guns, without the most remote intention of doing mischief, was far greater than those which happened from spring-guns. He wished, at least, that some exception should be made in favour of such places as were surrounded by continued fences, and which, therefore, could not be entered under any misapprehension, nor indeed with any but a felonious intent. The gardens in the neighbourhood of London principally owed their security to the engines which were set in them; and, whatever might be said in favour of the principle of the bill, he had no doubt that its practical consequence would be, to lay the whole of those gardens in particular open to the depredations of the thieves with which London abounded.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that the

1019
subject was one which required the attentive consideration of their lordships, and wished that a general bill should he brought in to embrace the whole of the objects which it was intended to effect by the several measures at present before the House. In order to accomplish this, he would suggest to the noble mover, the propriety of contenting himself with having the bill now read for the first time, and postponing the committee, by which an opportunity would be afforded for the consolidation he recommended.
The Lord Chancellorthought that, whatever might be the advantages of the consolidation suggested by the noble lord, they could all be obtained by means of such alterations as might seem necessary in the committee. The law as it stood afforded some protection to the owners of gardens and orchards. By an act, as old as the reign of queen Elizabeth, robbing orchards was made an offence; but, owing to the youth of the persons by whom it was most commonly committed, the provisions of that act were rarely carried into effect. An act of the late king had provided against trespasses committed in gardens, by subjecting the offenders, in the first instance, to a penalty of 40 s.; in the second, of 5l.; and in the third, to transportation. Still, however, it seemed desirable that the law upon these points should be made more clear and simple; and to effect this an opportunity would now be afforded, if it should be their lordships' pleasure to go into the committee.
Lord Hollandthought, that none of the objections which had been urged should induce the House to refuse the committee. It was acknowledged on all sides, that there were many difficulties in the way, which his noble friend had endeavoured to remove by the several bills he had now brought and intended to bring in. If it should appear in the committee, that the same object could be gained by a less cumbrous mode of legislation, and that the difficulties could be removed with equal certainty, his noble friend would, he was sure, readily acquiesce in any measure which the committee might be enabled to discover. At all events, their lordships would, by this means, be put in possession of all the points of the subject; and the result would probably be, that some plain and simple enactment would be agreed upon.
The bill was then read a first time. After which, the House resolved itself into
1020
a committee on the bill brought in on a former occasion.
The Earl of Liverpool, in accordance with what had fallen from him on this and a former evening, moved an amendment,. in order to render needless one of the bills brought by lord Suffield, by rendering the measure against the setting of spring-guns and steel traps in game preserves, general, and making it illegal to place them in gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, for the protection of property.
Lord Ellenboroughcontended, that gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, ought to be excepted from the operation of the bill, inasmuch as the owners of property in them had no other means of protecting it, but by destructive engines of this sort, set rather in terrorem, than with the intention to inflict bodily injury.
Earl Grosvenorwished the bill to continue in its original shape. If it were altered as proposed, he feared it would not pass the other House of parliament.
Lord Hollandwas of opinion, that the owners of gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, were entitled to some protection.' If it were not given them by making stealing in them larceny, he thought that within walls, or where the fences were sufficient, they ought to be allowed to set spring-guns and steel-traps.
The Earl of Harrowbysupported the amendment for making the law general, and not applicable merely to game preserves.
The Earl of Liverpooladded, that his reason for making the law general was clear. Steel-traps and spring-guns endangering life, were not a proper protection for property, and therefore he wished that their use in all situations should be discontinued.
The committee then divided on the earl of Liverpool's amendment. For the amendment 28; Against it 5; Majority 23. It was accordingly carried.