Sitting of 23 March 1827

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Hart Davis roseto call the attention of the House to a subject, which was connected, in some measure, with its privileges. The hon. member held in his hand "The Times" paper of this day. He said, it was therein stated, that in the course of the debate of last night, a gallant colonel opposite had said, that "if he had been so disposed, he could have placed before the House some transactions in which he (Mr. H. Davis) had been concerned, which might bring a blush into his check." These, if not the exact words, were very like those used by the gallant colonel. Now, either the gallant colonel was acquainted with some circumstance of his life which deserved the terms in which he had spoken of him; or he had used those terms in consequence of the excitement to which debates in that House sometimes gave rise. He hoped, in the former case, the gallant colonel would, in justice to himself, state if he knew any such disgraceful facts; and if not, he trusted the gallant colonel would say that he had been betrayed, by the warmth of the debate, into expressions which he would not otherwise have made use of.
Mr. Calfraftobjected, that the contents of a newspaper should be quoted as an authority upon such a subject in that House.
Mr. Hart Davissaid, he was obliged to take some steps in the matter, and he should, therefore, move that the printer of "The Times" be ordered to attend at the bar of the House.
Colonel Daviessaid, he was ready to admit that he had used the words attributed to him, under very considerable excitement. That excitement was caused by what he considered a very irregular mode pursued by the hon. member, in alluding to circumstances wholly foreign to the matter then before the House. He had now no hesitation in saying, that any thing which might have fallen from him in the heat of debate was not intended by him to hurt the feelings of the hon. member, and he trusted that what he now said would be perfectly satisfactory to the House and to every body else.
Mr. Hart Davisexpressed himself satisfied with the explanation, and offered to withdraw his motion.
The Speakersaid, that the motion not having been seconded, this was not necessary. He was extremely glad of what had now been stated by both the hon. members. Of all the breaches of privilege which the House were called upon to punish in persons out of the House, none were so difficult to deal with as those which arose from a breach of the rules within the House. He thought the matter would rest very well as it now stood; but he trusted the House would permit him to remind it, that any deviation from the rules of debate was liable to produce misunderstandings, and to give offence often when it was by no means the intention of any party that offence should be given.

COURT OF CHANCERY BILL.
The Master of the Rollsmoved the further consideration of the report of this bill.
Mr. Abercrombyhoped the right hon. and learned gentleman would not press the proceedings on this bill in the absence of so many hon. and learned gentlemen, now on the circuit, who had taken a deep interest in the measure, and who were best qualified to judge of its practical effects.
The Master of the Rollssaid, he had no desire whatever to press the bill in the absence of those who might wish to express their sentiments upon it. If, however, the second reading was deferred until after Easter, he feared it would be too late in the session to forward its necessary stages through the other House.
Mr. Abercrombycould not see that there was any ground for apprehending such a result. Ample time, he conceived, would be afforded to the bill, if the second reading was deferred until after the holidays. He did not think that his learned friends, now attending their duty elsewhere, would be fairly treated, if they were not allowed an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon this bill before it passed into a law.
Mr. M. A. Taylorhoped that the right hon. and learned gentleman would yield to the suggestion thrown out, and consent to postpone the measure.
The Master of the Rollssaid, that the only object he had in view, was to render the bill as perfect as possible, and that every information should be given upon the subject. He had no wish to derive any benefit from the absence of any hon. members; but he thought that, on other grounds, he ought to be acquitted of all

5
blame. The commission upon the Court of Chancery had sat for two years, and the report of that commission had been two years upon the table of the House. Last session, he had moved for leave to bring in a bill, grounded upon that report; which had been abandoned. It was, however, well known, both to the House and to the profession, that the bill was founded upon the report, and he had already given an explanation upon that point. On the very day that he had taken his seat this session, he had given notice of his intention to bring in this bill, and when he did so, he had expressly stated to the House, that he did not act solely upon his own opinions, but upon the report which had been laid before the House. Gentlemen, therefore, had had every opportunity of considering the subject, not only with respect to its principle, but its entire details. So far was he from wishing to act otherwise, that when he brought in the bill, he had gone out of his way and got the principal parts of it printed and circulated amongst the members of the profession. They had now been a fortnight in the hands of members, and the House was in full possession of every thing which was necessary to be known. He was aware, however, that he must sometimes give way, not only to what was just and necessary, but to prejudice; and he should feel extremely sorry, that misrepresentations should go abroad, which would be the case, if he shewed any disposition to have the bill passed, without allowing every opportunity for discussion. He was desirous, as far as possible to guard against misrepresentation; and desirous, also, as well to promote the public advantage as to accede to the wishes that had been expressed upon the subject. He would postpone the further consideration of his bill to an early day after the recess; but he hoped that, when it was brought forward, every facility would be given to its progress, lest, if it should be brought into the other House at a late period of the session, that circumstance should afford the means of completely frustrating the measure. He feared there might be found those who were not very cordial supporters of the bill; and it might be alleged, that a measure of such vital importance should not be brought before the legislature, at a period when there was not a sufficient opportunity for its due consideration. The right hon. gentleman
6
concluded by postponing his motion to the 4th of May.
Sir J. Newportwas surprised to hear any apprehension expressed respecting the probable fate of that bill in the other House.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid it was immaterial whether the measure was postponed or not, as he doubted whether any benefit would result from it. Those who were at all acquainted with the business of the court of Chancery, knew right well that this bill was made use of as a tub to catch the whale. After the very little that had been done heretofore, he hoped hon. members would not place much reliance on any promises that might be made with respect to the effect of this bill on the proceedings of the court.

PENRYN ELECTION—COMMITMENT OF JOHN STANBURY.
The Speakersaid, he had to acquaint the House that the serjeant-at-arms had taken into custody John Stanbury. Mr. Wynn moved "That the order of the House of yesterday, on this subject, be discharged." The clerk then read the order of the House, that an Address be presented to his majesty, praying him to issue his proclamation for the apprehension of John Stanbury. The order was discharged.
Mr. Wynnmoved, "That John Stanbury, having absconded in order to avoid being taken into custody, pursuant to the order of the House, be for the said offence committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate, and that the Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."
Mr. Humethought that, previously to coming to any such resolution, the individual should be called in, and heard, if he had any valid excuse to offer.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that a report of an election committee had already declared, that he had absconded to avoid being served with a process to attend as a witness before that committee; and he had again absconded to avoid being taken into custody. There was a precedent for this course in a case that occurred six or seven years ago. If he had any explanation to offer, the regular way would be to do so by petition.
Mr. Humesaid, that the evidence on which the warrant was issued was ex parte, and he thought an opportunity ought to be given to explain. He would not, however, press his objection.
The motion was agreed to.

GALWAY ELECTION—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
On the motion of Mr. Wynn, the order of the day was read for the attendance of Mr. French and Mr. Lambert at the bar. The right hon. gentleman suggested, that, as a charge had been made against Mr. French, that gentleman should be first called, that he might have an opportunity of explaining. Mr. French having been called in,
The Speakeraddressed him as follows: "Mr. French, I have to acquaint you, that yesterday a petition was presented to this House on the part of Mr. Thomas Lambert, complaining of conduct on your part towards him in the lobby of the House. The House is anxious to know whether you have any observations which you wish to offer to its consideration with reference to this subject?"
Mr. Frenchsaid, that some of his friends had already informed him that he had said that which was considered offensive to the House. If he had done so, he assured the House that he was sorry for it, and that it was under the influence of very strong feeling. Here the hon. gentleman paused for a moment, evidently much affected.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he believed the gentleman at the bar did not fully understand the object of what the Speaker had addressed to him. The object was, that he should state the facts as they occurred to him and not to offer any apology.
Mr. Frenchthen proceeded for a few minutes, but not a word of what he said was audible in the gallery. He appeared to be very much affected, and at last was unable to proceed.
There were now several cries of "withdraw," and the Speaker having intimated to Mr. French that he might retire,
Mr. Wynnsaid, that, under the feelings which the gentleman had evinced at the bar, he hoped it would be deemed that sufficient had now been done. At the same time he trusted that what had been done would be an example to others, that the House would, upon all occasions, be ready to extend its protection equally to all persons whom it might call before it witnesses. He then moved, "That Mr. French and Mr. Lambert be discharged from any further attendance."
The motion was agreed to.

CORN Laws.
Mr. C. Grantmoved the order of the day for bringing up the
8
Report of the Committee on the Corn Trade Acts. On the question that the report be brought up,
Lord Althorpsaid, that a mistake had gone abroad, arising out of a misrepresentation of what had fallen from him during one of the early discussions on this subject, which he was anxious to correct. It would be in the recollection of the House that on the second day of the discussion, he had stated that he was happy to inform the House, that, at the last market-day in Northampton, his constituents had generally expressed themselves in favour of the propositions of ministers with respect to the Corn-laws. This was what he had said; but he had been represented to have stated, that at a meeting of his constituents at Northampton on the last marketday, they had agreed to resolutions approving of the proposition of ministers on those laws. This he had not said; for nothing of the kind had happened. He had only stated what he had understood to be the opinions of his constituents; but it was fair to state, that their opinions on the propositions of ministers had since undergone a change on this subject, because, in all the discussions they had not been made acquainted with the real merits of the question.
Mr. Denisonwished to put a question to the right hon. gentleman, which he had asked on a former occasion, but which had not received an answer. He wished to know, whether the singular anomaly of taking the averages in the Winchester measure, and buying and selling according to the Imperial measure, were still to continue?
Mr. C. Grantassured the hon. gentleman that his not having answered his question proceeded from no want of courtesy to him, but was wholly accidental. With regard to the measures, the Winchester measure was that in which the averages were already taken by the existing acts; and, as no mention was made of any other measure in the resolutions before the House, it would of course continue.
Mr. Denison.—So that you take the averages with one kind of measure, and buy and sell with the other.
Mr. C. P. Thompsonwas anxious to call the attention of the House to the strange anomaly which this course would involve. In Mark-lane and other markets the imperial measure was generally used for buying and selling corn, Why, he

9
asked, might not the same measure be used for all the other purposes connected with this trade? if it made the difference of the fraction of a farthing in the amount of the duties, he would not press it; but as it made none, he hoped that, for the sake of convenience and uniformity, the one measure would be adopted in all cases.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer beggedto remind hon. gentlemen, that it was impossible, from the prescribed forms of the House, that any alteration could be made in the measure at its present stage. It was in the committee that any proposition to that effect must be originated. Any discussion, therefore, upon that point, must at present be premature and irregular.
Mr. Baringthought that the law ought not to be framed on the Winchester measure, whilst the averages were to be calculated by the Imperial measure, inasmuch as it would lead to infinite confusion and inconvenience. He repeated the recommendation which he had suggested on a former night; namely, that it would be better to raise the standard price to 62 s. and use the Imperial measure, than to leave it as it now was at 60 s., and use the Winchester measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied that any inconvenience would arise from the system embraced by the resolutions. As a proof of what he said, he referred to what had occurred since the issuing of the orders in council of the 1st of September last. Since that time a million of quarters had been imported, and the practical men had felt, no inconvenience from calculating the duty upon it by the old measure.
Mr. Calcraftcontended, that the inconvenience of the system would be felt in the home and not in the foreign trade. He thought that it would be best to revert to the Winchester measure. If the standard were taken by the Imperial measure at 62 s., it would be considered in the country as an additional boon of two shillings granted to the landed interest.
Sir G. Clarkdiffered from the hon. member for Wareham, upon the question of making 62 s. the standard price on which the averages ought to be calculated. If the act of parliament distinctly stated the object of the advance of 2s., he was sure the people would never mistake it. He thought the House ought to adhere to the Imperial measure, as it would save
10
them from the confusion created by frequent changes. The hon. baronet went on to speak of the very great confusion that had existed with regard to measures, before the act for the Imperial measure was passed, and of the advantages which had been gained by regulating the standard. If any other measure than the Imperial was in any way recognized in an act of parliament, it would operate as a virtual repeal of the act which had introduced it. He should be sorry to see such an event take place. To avoid such an evil, he should prefer adopting the proposition for an advance of 2s. on the calculations made on the Imperial measure; which he anxiously wished to preserve.
Mr. Davies Gilbertalso made some observations on the confused state in which the commissioners had found the measures in the Exchequer. He agreed that no inconvenience might arise from departing from it among merchants who had large dealings; but he was afraid that inconvenience would arise among uninformed persons, who were not so well able to calculate the difference between the Imperial and the Winchester measure. He thought that 62 s. should be fixed as the standard from which the duties rose and fell, and that the Imperial measure alone ought to be used. Besides, after the communications which had been made to foreign governments of the alterations we had introduced into our measures, and after the declarations which some of them had made of their willingness to adopt measures in uniformity with our own, he thought that we ought to adhere to the Imperial measure.
Mr. C. Grantthought that no practical inconvenience would arise from adopting the system marked out in the resolutions.
Mr. Baringexpressed his determination of taking the sense of the House on the suggestion which he had thrown out, on the very first opportunity which the forms of the House would allow him. The hon. member insisted very strongly on the gross inconsistency of calculating the duty upon one measure, and the price upon another.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, that, if calculations were made upon the Winchester bushel, the common people would think that the Imperial measure was abandoned. He wished an uniformity of measures to be established throughout the country, and preferred the Imperial to the Winchester

11
measure, as it was calculated on a more clear and intelligent principle.
The report was brought up. On the question that it be read,
Sir J. Wrottesleyremarked upon the inconvenience arising in his neighbourhood from the confusion of the measures. He was obliged to sell by the Winchester bushel of thirty-two quarts, and bought in one market town at the rate of thirty-six quarts, in another at the rate of thirty-eight quarts, and in another at the rate of forty quarts.
Mr. Warburtonrecommended, that the averages should be calculated not by the old, but by the scale of the Imperial measure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if an alteration was made in one instance, it would be necessary that it should be pursued with respect to every species of grain. The calculations now before the House were made, bona fide, according to the Winchester bushel; and an alteration of them would induce the inconvenience of a fraction. This would create very considerable difficulty to those concerned in the corn trade; because, to maintain the relative proportion, in the first instance, they would have to reckon not 1s. but 1s. and the thirty-second part of a shilling. If they altered the proportions, it would take a pretty considerable time before the measure was completed.
Mr. D. Gilbertsaid, that the fraction might, when grain was at a high price, be allowed to the importer, and when at a low price, to the grower.
Lord John Russelldid not think there was any magic in the numbers sixty and twenty, which should induce the right hon. gentleman to adhere to them, which would be the means of continuing the old standard, when a new one had been provided. It would be better to go through the calculations, and to make the Imperial measure the general standard. It was the measure recognized by the legislature, and it would be wrong to call on the country to adopt the old measure, after it had been, in a great degree, given up.
Sir G. Clerkthought there could be no difficulty in adopting the proposition of the hon. member for Bodmin. There would then, when wheat was above 60 s., be a small fraction in favour of the importer; and when below 60 s., a fraction against the importer, and in favour of the home-grower.
Mr. C. Grantconsented, as he saw there was a feeling in the house in favour of the adoption of the Imperial measure, to have the Resolutions recommitted.
The Resolutions were ordered to be recommitted on Monday.

PROTESTANT DISSENTERS—TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS.
On the order of the day for the commitment of the Annual Indemnity bill,
Mr. W. Smith,before the Speaker left the Chair, observed, that he should not oppose the bill, though he considered this annual measure as an instrument of great injustice to the Protestant Dissenters, of which body he was himself one. For that reason, he was unable to hold any office, however insignificant, under the Crown, or to sit as a magistrate in any corporation, without violating his conscience. This was an exclusion hard, unjust, and unnecessary; and when he complained of it, he was told that he found his relief from all his grievances in this bill of Indemnity. This bill was the stalking horse, by means of which the Test and Corporation acts had been continued in existence for a century. If this bill had not been passed yearly, both those oppressive acts must long ago have been repealed.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he could not conceal his astonishment at the contrast which marked this bill, and the course pursued, as it regards the Catholic claims. For nearly forty years the Indemnity bill, which he characterized as a measure of the most barbarous legislation, had been allowed to steal silently through the House, without provoking a syllable in explanation of its objects, or in justification of the continuance of those penalties against which it professes to be a security. While the claims of the Catholics are urged, year after year, with the vehemence of party, enlisting in their support the mightiest powers of energy and eloquence; the real and substantial claims of the Protestant Dissenters, whose claims are founded in the immutable principles of the rights of conscience, and the inviolability of private judgment, are entirely disregarded. It was both false in fact, and injurious in its influence, to confound Catholic concessions with religious freedom; they had no connexion with that hallowed feeling. The claims of the Catholics rested altogether on the policy and expediency of them, and were remote from any sentiment connected

13
with religious freedom. Nothing could be more opposed to correct sentiment than such an union; and it was from this fact that the Dissenters were chiefly led to view all concessions to Catholics with well-grounded apprehension. For it was a peculiar property of the papal faith, that its articles and canons were in all times and circumstances unchangeable; and though persecution might assume in different ages various shades, still exclusion of all ecclesiastical rivalry, and the suppression of sectarianism, formed the basis of that uncongenial faith. It ought to be borne in mind, that it was owing entirely to the heroic and manly sacrifices of our non-conforming forefathers, that we were indebted for the great blessings of the Protestant ascendancy. Had not the Dissenters consented to the thraldom imposed by the Test and Corporation acts, the Catholics in the reign of Charles must have been ascendant in the cabinet and the field; and it would be the greatest stigma on the Dissenters, and a reproach to the parliament, were the Catholic claims conceded before the Dissenters were emancipated; and, for one, he should never be inclined to countenance the one, until the other was secured. He was bound to look at the conduct of parties in that House with extreme jealousy; as nearly forty years had been allowed to pass away without an effort in favour of the Dissenters. Honourable members might urge the millions who profess the Catholic religion, and the Dissenters might also recur to their numerical strength, did not their pretensions stand on the higher and better grounds of moral excellence, pure devotion, and a steady attachment to the civil rights of the people. What could be more preposterous or unjust than that two millions of well-informed persons should be precluded by law from filling stations in the corporate towns where they had earned and generously expended their fortunes, and whose municipal functions they are so well able, from education and character, to uphold and adorn? He trusted, therefore, that some sincere and speedy effort would be made to rescue the Dissenters, and the country, from one common charge of inhumanity and injustice. When he contemplated the peaceful tenor of their conduct, the sobriety and virtue of their lives, their cheerful and generous support of every object of utility or benevolence, and contrasted them, the Protestant Dis-
14
senters, with the turbulent and factious, and oftentimes seditious, harangues and movements of the Catholics of Ireland, who urged their members to terrify parliament into submission, on the pretence that giving seats in the senate to the famished crowds of that country, would relieve and remove all difficulties, he was at a loss to trace the wisdom of the statesman, or the calm reflection of philosophy. And the evil was the more palpable, because the Dissenters of Ireland were actually allowed to hold corporate offices, while they were guarded by penalties and proscription in this country. It had been said, that the Dissenters were generally unfavourable to the Catholic claims. He believed they were; and he had generally found that those amongst them who best understood the subject, and were the most deeply imbued with the spirit of religious liberty, and sensible of its blessings, were the most alive in their apprehensions on the subject. For they found it difficult to reconcile the security of spiritual freedom, with the bondage and superstition of Catholic dominion.
Lord John Russell roseto defend himself and the great portion of his friends from the imputation made upon them by the hon. gentleman who had just resumed his seat—namely, that, for the purposes of party, they brought forward the question of Catholic emancipation, while they did not equally insist on the restoration of freedom to the Protestant Dissenters. He was ready to declare, for himself, and on behalf of the great body of his friends, that, on the principle of general religious liberty, without any compromise or exception in favour of any one sect, he would give his support to any question that might come before the House. He would further state, that, on the subject of the Test and Corporation acts, some very respectable persons, Protestant Dissenters, had applied to him—an humble individual, undoubtedly, in that House—to bring it forward. He was asked, whether he was ready to move the repeal of those acts? He answered, that undoubtedly he would; but he added, that it was a question for them to consider what was the proper time for that purpose, and in whose hands they would place it. A noble friend of his, in the other House, had, in like manner, always stated his readiness to bring forward the question, when the aggrieved body deemed it expedient and politic to have it

15
discussed. His hon. friend, the member for Norwich, could testify to that fact. Having given those assurances, why were they to be taunted with party designs, and factious views, in bringing forward the claims of the Catholics? What interest had they but in the general prosperity of the empire? Yet it was urged as a charge against them, that they brought forward the question, which, having the name Popery attached to it, was exposed to prejudice; while, it was said, they neglected the cause of the Protestant Dissenters, against which the same prejudice did not exist. What reason could they have for following the course imputed to them? They could bring forward the claims of the Dissenters at any time, without exciting any angry feeling, or reviving any ancient prejudices; but there were not the same urgent reasons as in the case of the Catholics. The tests exacted by law from the Dissenters against the national religion, he was free to admit, were the most absurd, the most odious, and the most disgusting, that were exacted by any legislature. One instance he would cite—that of requiring them to take the sacrament against every feeling of their conscience, which, he would not hesitate to declare at once an act of mistaken policy, and a profanation of religion itself. Yet, he would say, that the grievances of the Protestant Dissenters were not practically so great as those of the Catholics. The proof of this fact was before him. All the Catholics in the kingdom were excluded from parliament; while his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, was able, though a Dissenter, to take his seat. The law, indeed, was founded on principles of persecution, but the annual bill of Indemnity, in fact, gave that relief to the Protestant Dissenters which was denied to the Catholics.
Sir Robert Wilsonsaid, that the hon. member for Colchester, had put the saddle on the wrong horse. The reason why the claims of the Dissenters had not been discussed was, that they had not asked for relief. If they had been practically excluded from the pale of the constitution, there would have been as many petitions from them as from the Catholics. He confessed, however, that he thought it ungenerous in the Dissenters to withdraw their auxiliary support from the Catholics. The main body of the Dissenters were certainly more opposed to the Catholic claims than even the members of the
16
established Church. The exceptions, he knew, were many and honourable; but he believed he had spoken correctly of the great body. On the other hand, that what he called the government opposition to the Catholic claims rested not so much on the fear of the admission of Catholics to that House, as on the fear that the concession to the Dissenters of all their rights and privileges would be a necessary consequence of the emancipation to the Catholics.
Mr. Van Homrighaddressed the Speaker, but the impatience of the House rendered him inaudible. He complained of this inattention. He remarked, that he might have made a few observations to the House before, but this was the first time he had formally addressed them. He was sure, more loyal subjects than the Catholics of Ireland could not be found, and they had been so from the earliest days of antiquity. At the time of the Revolution they had sworn allegiance to a king to whom they faithfully adhered. It had been his fortune to see the descendants of those men who fought at the memorable battle of the Boyne, collected together on the same spot, to offer the demonstrations of loyal attachment to their present king; and he was sure that his majesty would, if he were asked the question, be ready to declare that a more loyal body of men than his Irish Catholic subjects did not exist. It was quite ridiculous to say that the Catholics were not worse off than the Protestant Dissenters. Let them be placed on the same footing—let them have an annual Indemnity bill likewise, and they would ask no more. The true way to judge of the Catholic, at least the way he judged of them, was by his own feelings. "If I were a Catholic," concluded the hon. gentleman, "I declare I would never be satisfied until I had completely succeeded in vindicating my claim to equal rights with the rest of my fellow-subjects."
Mr. Warburtonreminded the hon. member for Colchester, that the removal of disabilities from one class of subjects, did not necessarily imply the propriety of removing similar disqualifications from another class.
Mr. W. Smithtrusted that the hon. member for Colchester's representation of the Dissenters would not be taken as a just or fair view of them. He was willing to believe the statement of the gallant member for Southwark, as far as it was the

17
result of his own observation; but he must deny such to be a fair representation of the feelings of the Dissenters. He thought they felt too much for the cause of civil and religious liberty, not to wish that the cause of Catholic emancipation should succeed.
Mr. Hume,seeing the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, very attentive to the debate, wished to put a question to that right hon. gentleman, for whose sincerity he had the highest respect. In the course of the late discussion upon the Roman Catholic claims, the right hon. gentleman had stated, that he was a sincere friend of toleration and of civil and religious liberty, and that he was willing to concede every thing, save and except political power. Now, the right hon. gentleman was aware that the Test and Corporation acts were repealed Ireland, and that Protestant Dissenters were permitted to sit in that House. He wished to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would give his support to a bill for annulling. those tests altogether?
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he thought it rather hard that he should be punished with a question, because he happened to be paying attention to the debate. In the first place, he would say, in answer to the question put by the hon. member, that during the debate upon the Catholic claims, he had not said one word on the subject of the Protestant Dissenters. What he had said upon that occasion applied to Roman Catholics, and was to this effect, that he would resist any measure for giving them political power, but that he was willing to admit persons of that belief to the enjoyment of all the privileges to which the law entitled them; and that in such cases he would make no distinction between them and Protestants, each having equal qualifications as to moral character, and professional skill. He did not think it necessary at present to say a word respecting his opinion of the tests, as they affected Protestant Dissenters—sufficient, for the day was the vote thereof; and that evening he intended to vote for the bill, which he looked upon as a measure of relief. He could not agree in what had fallen from the hon. member for Southwark, that a measure of relief ought not to be granted to the Dissenters, because they had not presented petitions in favour of the Roman Catholics. Such a ground for refusing to afford the Dissenters relief,
18
appeared to him to be the most extraordinary that could be assumed. His reason for not entering into the general question, whether or not the Test and Corporation acts ought to be repealed, was two-fold: first, because no notice had been given of the intention of any hon. member to discuss that question in any stage of this bill; and secondly, because it appeared to be the disposition of the House to concur in this measure without discussion; the more particularly, as it was understood that it was the intention of the noble lord opposite, to bring the general measure under the notice of the House, in a distinct and separate shape. When that should be the case, he would be ready to state his opinions upon that question, but until then he should decline giving any answer to the question put by the hon. member.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that as the hon. member for Bridport had made some allusions to his constituents, he must beg leave to offer a few observations. The greater part of his constituents were Protestant Dissenters; and he was of opinion that not only they, but the great body of Protestant Dissenters in England were opposed to the Roman Catholic claims, from a firm conviction that the conceding of those claims, would be injurious to civil and religious liberty. Whoever cast his mind back to what took place when those acts were passed, would find that the Protestant Dissenters of that day, had placed themselves under the thraldom of those acts, for the purpose of saving to the country the benefits of Protestant principles and Protestant liberality; and, at that period, it was understood, that the Dissenters were to be relieved, as speedily as possible, from the operation of those acts. Among those of the Protestant Dissenters, who opposed the Catholic claims upon the ground already stated, were to be found men whose general information was such as entitled their opinions upon such subjects, to considerable respect.
Sir R. Wilson,in explanation, observed, that what he had said had been misunderstood by the right hon. Secretary. What he had said, and what he now repeated, was, that the Protestant Dissenters were satisfied to remain in an inferior situation, provided, by doing so, they could prevent their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects from enjoying the privileges of the constitution. Of the minority of two hundred and seventy-two, upon the late

19
discussion of the Catholic claims, he could not help saying, that the members who composed it had given the most disinterested votes that had ever been given in that, or any other parliament; because, by voting in support of the late measure, they had excluded themselves from all the advantages which, in all probability, would result from voting the other way.
Lord Rancliffe,in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Colchester, must say, that among his constituents, whom he had now represented in three parliaments, there were many Protestant Dissenters who had given him their votes upon the ground, that he was the friend of religious liberty to the fullest extent. No question had ever been put to him by any of his constituents, as to the vote which he intended to give upon the Catholic question; and, he would say, that he had, by his vote in support of the motion of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, supported the cause of civil and religious liberty.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had a decided opinion upon the Test and Corporation acts, and should bring forward a motion upon those acts, if the Protestant Dissenters should think it to their interest that he should do so; but, otherwise, he did not intend to make any motion upon the subject.
The bill then went through the Committee.

SPRING-GUNS BILL.
Mr. Tennysonmoved the order of the day for a Committee of the whole House upon the bill for prohibiting the use of Spring Guns. Having, he said, on former occasions, stated the grounds upon which he had recommended this measure to parliament, he should not now enter into an elaborate exposition of the principle, or dwell upon the mischiefs ensuing from the practice, against which the bill was directed. Those mischiefs were perfectly notorious. Since the last discussion on this subject, a multitude of dreadful accidents had occurred. He concluded that the object of those who set Spring-guns was to destroy and maim mischievous trespassers—but he could not accommodate the patrons of these machines by stating, that even in one of those instances this end had been answered; for the death or mutilation inflicted in all the cases which had come to his knowledge, had fallen to the lot of in-
20
nocent individuals. But it was not necessary to insist on that which was the known result of the practice: the House had merely to consider, whether these horrors ought longer to be endured, or should straightway be put down. It was matter of new astonishment to him, every time he reflected upon the subject, that in a country blessed with an organised system of law and jurisprudence, there should exist such a practice, or any necessity for argument respecting it. It would be a strange anomaly, if, in such a country, a man should be allowed, upon his own authority, to seize upon an offender within his own domains, and sitting in judgment in his own case, subject him to the punishment which the public law of the country had annexed to the offence; but yet, supposing that to be warranted, there would, in the case supposed, be a specific individual accused, a hearing, an examination of testimony, a deliberation, a conviction, a judgment, and an execution, all in orderly sequence, and the punishment would be that which the law had proportioned to the crime. But, in the case of a Spring-gun, the castigare preceded, and frequently superseded, the audire. The punishment was not addressed to a crime, but to a civil injury, a mere trespass, for which, in most cases, the injury being nominal, more than a farthing would scarcely be given as damages. Neither was the punishment applied to a specific trespasser, but to any person, trespasser or not, who might happen to be walking in that direction, to meet the possibility, that such person might be an individual actuated by some lawless intent. Again, as there was neither crime nor culprit, so neither was there hearing, inquiry, or deliberation; they were identified with the judgment and the execution by the summary discharge of the indiscriminating machine employed, which, to complete the anomaly, administered as a punishment the arbitrary and unmeasured infliction of the party upon whom the trespass was committed. Of course, a gentleman who should deal justice in this way to his neighbours by the simple old fashioned process of a pistol discharged by his own hand, or that of an intelligent deputy, would himself be dealt with, at the next assizes for his county, by the common hangman. But, if this measure were rejected, he hoped some member with more influence than himself would move for a

21
bill to remit the punishment of death, and, on the contrary, declare lawful, all regular, well-considered and deliberate murders, committed by esquires and gentlemen of note upon poachers and others, being wilful and mischievous trespassers on their property. Thus we should at least escape from the evil of which he chiefly complained—the slaughter and mutilation of individuals perfectly innocent. At least, the punishment would then be inflicted on the real trespasser; and, although it might be a visitation somewhat harder than the laws had yet sanctioned for trespassers, even in pursuit of game, still we should at length know what we were about. Seriously, he would ask, whether it would not, in fact, be better to invest a being endowed with powers of discrimination with an authority of this description, than to leave the matter to these irresponsible and undistinguishing engines? or, would it not be more expedient at once to denounce the pursuit of game upon another man's land as a crime, and attach to it even the punishment of death or mutilation, to be inflicted in the ordinary course of justice, than to attain the end of so punishing it in this underhand, uncertain, and, in every way, objectionable manner. The truth was, that the use of these machines enabled lords of manors to deal with poaching as a capital offence; and while we declaimed against the old laws of France and other countries on the subject of their Game-laws, we must perceive that the feudal nobility there had nothing in comparison with this privilege. He was ashamed to say that it was a practice peculiar to this country. The rankest weeds were sometimes found on the richest soil, but, if suffered to remain, they became ruinous to its wholesome produce. Did our boasted code require such an auxiliary as Spring-guns—an auxiliary which must tend to exasperate and brutalize the people? If certain gentlemen thought proper to congregate large quantities of game, this was a self-indulgence, a mere luxury. Was a self-indulgence, a private luxury, in which the public did not at all participate, to be protected at this rate? Was an idle fancy to be defended at such an expense of blood and principle—at the cost of the lives and limbs of a considerable number of his majesty's subjects annually, and those not the individuals actually guilty of interfering with these
22
amusements? Oh—but gentlemen would quit the country if they were not permitted to preserve game after their own fashion! Yet, gentlemen of fortune and devoted sportsmen appeared to live happily in those districts where Spring-guns were not used. Neither did lord Suffield, or Mr. Coke, who refused to employ them, quit the country; indeed, their estates had the reputation of being better stocked with game than any other in the kingdom. But, if there were gentlemen who would run away unless they were allowed this indulgence, such gentlemen could not too soon take their departure, for they must be nuisances to any country in which they resided. In his judgment, the man who would deliberately expose his fellow-creature to death or mutilation for the object of increasing his breed of pheasants, disgraced the high character of an English country gentleman. When he pictured to himself a game-preserving, 'squire—one of these anthropophagi, sitting in his hall, surrounded, like an Ogre, by death-dealing machines, so arranged upon his territories as to spring upon and kill, or maim any one, whatever his purpose, who might unwarily approach, and thus setting the laws of God and the feelings of mankind equally at defiance—he could not avoid thinking that such a being entered into the class of a demon, and deserved the execration of his species. It appeared that Spring-guns furnished a cheaper mode of preserving game than that number of gamekeepers and assistants required by lords of manors with extensive districts. But, whatever the cost might be, it was one which should be borne by the individual preservers of game themselves, and not by society at large. Was the cost which this practice imposed upon the public, the cost of so much human blood annually spilt, in order to secure a private indulgence to the game-preserver and none to the public who could not participate in it, even by purchasing game—was this cost, he would ask, that which it was either just or expedient to pay in order to prop up a vicious, distorted, and notoriously defective, system of Game-laws? If that system were such as to prohibit all legal means of supply for a natural and increasing demand, which the reiterated efforts of the legislature had failed to stifle;—if thus the supply were forced through illegitimate channels, and the poacher rendered necessary to the

23
wants of the public—were the consequences resulting from the necessity thus absurdly created, to be counteracted and repressed by the outrageous violence of Spring-guns? Some gentlemen pleaded motives of humanity for the use of them, contending, that they rendered nocturnal conflicts with game-keepers less frequent. But, in those conflicts, the game-keeper was paid for the risk he incurred, and the poacher was, actually, the party engaged on the other side; whereas, the Spring-gun almost uniformly mistook its victim. Besides, the sum of mischief arising from Spring-guns was infinitely greater than that arising from such conflicts, without referring to the general principles upon which those machines were objectionable. If the Game-laws were altered, so as to furnish a legal supply of game to the market, these conflicts would cease with the existence of that flagrant description of poacher which now infested the country. There were some gentlemen adverse to the present system of Game-laws, who thought they must not put an end to Spring-guns until the whole of that system was reformed; on the ground that they were necessary to resist the arms of poachers, to which, they admitted, it gave birth. But he reasoned in an opposite direction, and he would invite those gentlemen to consider, that Spring-guns were equally the fruit of that degenerate tree—the offspring of that vicious parent which they were anxious to destroy. If this parent were deprived of the support which it derived from its monstrous progeny, it would be a material step towards its own destruction; for, when gentlemen, who were found to cling to the old system, were deprived of the aid they now derived from Spring-guns, they would be driven to a rational reform of that system, which, in reality, generated the depredations of which they complained.—On these grounds, and those which, on former occasions, he had urged, the hon. gentleman implored the House to concur with him in putting an end to a practice which degraded and disgraced the character of this country, and was utterly incompatible with every principle on which the institutions of a civilized people ought to be founded.
Sir J. Shelleycontended, that the hon. and learned gentleman's measure was, in fact, an attack on gentlemen who wished to preserve their plantations and woods. The words of the bill went to prevent the
24
setting of Spring-guns in Woods and Plantations; but no mention was made of gardens, orchards, and other inclosures, so that a school-boy might be shot for going into an orchard and stealing an apple, while the thief and the poacher might enter a gentleman's pleasure grounds without apprehension, and commit what depredations he pleased. The hon. gentleman's bill was founded upon a false principle. It would be admitted, he presumed, that it was better to prevent a crime than to punish it. Now, his firm conviction was, that the terror of these machines prevented a great deal of crime. For his part, he never set them up himself, but he put up a board to say he had done so [a laugh]. The fear of these machines, he was persuaded, was extremely salutary. The hon. member had called the gentlemen who set Spring-guns on their estates demons and Anthropophagi. These were hard words certainly, but he could assure the hon. member, that such was the salutary influence of fear on rogues and depredators, that he knew an instance in which a board with the words " are set here," had had all the effect of the usual notice about steel-traps and Spring-guns, and had struck such terror into the minds of the poachers, that his grounds were never visited by them. He could not help thinking that this was an instance in which a hard word was turned to better account than that which the hon. member had applied to country gentlemen. The hon. baronet proceeded to read a letter from the proprietor of extensive plantations in Ireland, in which it was stated, that the setting of Spring-guns on his estates had put an end to the depredations and outrages which had previously been committed on them, and that no loss of life or other inconvenience had resulted from the practice. In fact, the bloody battles between poachers and preservers of game scarcely ever took place where guns and traps were set. He never knew an instance in which they had occurred. He had certainly heard of some accidents having happened; some persons had, undoubtedly, been caught in these traps [hear, hear! from Mr. Tennyson]. The hon. and learned gentleman cheered, and with reason; for he was going to state that he had heard, the other day, of two lawyers having been caught in a trap [a laugh]. He agreed this was a melancholy occurrence; but then it was so rare an

25
event for a lawyer to be caught in a trap, that he hoped the House would not support the hon. and learned gentleman's bill on that ground. He should not follow the hon. gentleman in the vast variety of topics he had introduced; but he trusted the House would see the expediency of preserving plantations against depredation, and that they would therefore oppose the measure.
Lord Blandfordthought the House would not act wisely, if they removed the protection afforded by the salutary terror which the setting of Spring-guns occasioned. If this measure were agreed to, armed bands must be marshalled against the midnight invaders of property, and the conflicts of the two parties would produce much more human suffering than ever had resulted, or ever could result, from the setting of Spring-guns. He had himself, for several years, made use of these instruments for the protection of his property; and, as he considered the objections urged against them to arise from a kind of morbid sensibility, he was determined to give the present bill his decided opposition. Looking at the question, indeed, upon the point of humanity, he felt convinced that the aggregate amount of human suffering would be, under the provisions of that bill, if it received the assent of the House, infinitely greater than any that could be produced from an occasional casualty under the existing system.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that, although he approved of the principle of the measure, as he would show by the vote he intended to give that night, he nevertheless felt himself bound to express his very strong doubts with regard to the practical consequences likely to be produced from carrying the principle into effect. He was by no means satisfied that the taking away the protection afforded by Spring-guns would not have the effect of increasing the tendency to commit crimes, by increasing the temptations to incroach upon property. Resistance would then ensue, and conflicts would be the consequence, to an extent as great, perhaps, or greater than before. In a society, constituted like the present, he thought they ought never in that House to discuss a question on mere theoretical principles, without looking at the effects that were likely to flow from their adoption. Agreeing, therefore, as he would, with the prin-
26
ciple of the measure, he doubted its, effects; and the longer he lived, he was the less disposed to predict what would be, the consequence of any measure founded even on the best principles, without waiting to ascertain its practical effect; and he could not divest himself of a fear, that there might be ultimately an increase of crime by the adoption of the present bill, from an addition to the temptation to commit offences against property. When, however, he saw the consequences arising from the placing of Spring-guns in unenclosed grounds, and when he heard of the daily accidents and misfortunes arising from the use of them in general, he felt that he could not any longer defend the continuance of such a system, and that it was better to run the risk of an experiment, even upon a theory, than suffer it any longer to exist; and he felt that the consequences of the change, whatever they might prove, must be less pernicious than if the laws, under which such things happened, were permitted to exist. When he looked to the practical consequences of the present state of the law, he felt convinced that the punishment intended to be inflicted upon trespassers by Spring-guns seldom or ever fell upon tile guilty. The poachers, he believed, seldom or ever suffered. In most cases, the punishment fell upon the totally innocent, or upon the keeper, and the persons who had placed them for the protection of the game. He would vote, as he had said, for the bill; but he gave that vote and that assent qualified by his expression of an apprehension for the consequences, and with an opinion that some relaxation of even a very good principle would be ultimately found necessary. He repeated, however, that when he looked to the mutilations and the calamitous results which arose from the use of Spring-guns, he could not refuse his assent to the bill. The right hon. gentleman then alluded to the arguments which had been used by the hon. baronet and others with respect to the influence produced upon the minds of the poachers by the dread of Spring-guns, and observed that the hon. baronet might still continue to use his in the same manner as before [hear! and a laugh]. There were several portions of the bill to which he objected; such as allowing Spring-guns to be placed in an open field, and some others of that kind. He did not see how or why Spring-guns

27
were not to be placed in an enclosed field, and yet allowed in an open common; but as these defects, if they were defects, might be remedied in the committee, he, would conclude by expressing his cordial assent to the hon. gentleman's motion.
Mr. P. Mildmaywas sorry that he could not arrive at the same conclusion as the right hon. gentleman. He was convinced that, so far from diminishing the amount of crime, the repeal of the Game-laws would have the effect of increasing the crime, and those conflicts which produced such unfortunate results, in a most alarming degree. Some hon. gentleman had stated, that the offence of poaching, and the committals for stealing game were much fewer in those counties were Spring-guns were not placed, than where they were in general use. Now, he had moved for some returns on the subject, which showed, that in those counties where Spring-guns were not used, the committals were much greater than in others. He was convinced, indeed, that great mischief rather than benefit would accrue to society, from any change of the laws respecting the protection of game, and he therefore felt himself bound to oppose the committal of the bill.
Mr. Charles Barclaysaid, that in a great part of Suffolk, the county with which he was acquainted, there were no Spring-guns used. In Norfolk, the owners of the largest estates, Mr. Coke and lord Suffield, adopted no such means of security, and yet their property was protected. The question seemed to him to resolve itself into this: whether they were entitled to set Spring-guns to destroy a man for the purpose of preserving a pheasant or a hare? He himself had set Spring-guns, and did now; and he would tell the House the result. The very first person who came in contact with one of the wires, was his under-keeper, who, in chase after a woodcock, quite forgot what had been set. The gun went off; the man stumbled over the wire and fell. As he thought himself shot, he did not attempt to stir, but laid still, expecting to die every minute; finding, however, that he was still alive, after a little deliberation, he turned round, and finally called out to his companion not to be frightened, for that he was not dead. It was not, however, so improbable a thought; for the man had seen the guns loaded with an immense quantity of powder and shot,
28
not knowing that he (Mr. Barclay) constantly ordered his head-keeper to draw out the shot. The next person who was near falling a victim to them was his wood-keeper; who complained that he, by accident, went into the park, and trod upon one of the wires, and that it would have been a very hard thing for him to have been shot. A number of similar instances had occurred, whilst he had never remembered a poacher having been wounded by a Spring-gun, although they frequented woods where guns were set.
Mr. J. Grattansaid, that Spring-guns were nearly unknown in Ireland.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the hon. baronet who had argued the most strongly for setting Spring-guns, had acknowledged that he himself had never set them—a fact which was better than a thousand arguments. If a street was said to be continually infested with thieves and housebreakers, was that a reason why a cannon should be discharged down the middle of it by way of clearance? This was, however, the principle on which Spring-guns were defended.
Colonel Frenchsaid, he was determined to oppose the bill, not only because he felt that its principles were founded upon a feeling of morbid sensibility, but because he thought that the favourers and supporters of the new system of philosophy and of political economy seemed to forget, that the honest English country gentleman, though he might not have the same knowledge of philosophy and political economy as they had, yet formed in himself the very subject and essence of the English character. He would propose, whatever became of the bill with regard to England, that Ireland and Scotland should be left out of the sphere of its operation. In the first place, there was little or no game in Ireland; and in the next, the arms which must be put into the hands of the keepers, in the event of Spring-guns becoming illegal, would form a temptation to the commission of murder, in order to get possession of them. It was usual in that country to plant many thousand acres with young trees; and he knew many instances in which parties of one or two hundred persons had gone into one of these plantations, and destroyed the greater portion of the trees: Spring-guns had, however, been placed in these plantations, and no individual had ever since ventured to commit a trespass.
Mr. Saundersonshortly opposed the bill, and moved as an amendment, that it be committed on that day month. He did not object to all its details, but he would prefer considering its provisions as an amendment to the bill on the Game-laws, which it was probable they would have to consider when it came from another place.
Sir R. Heronhad no objections to Spring-guns, when placed in houses and gardens, and other places where such a protection was necessary; but he contended that they ought not to be placed in fields or woods, where a man might happen to go for very justifiable purposes. He would, however, rather relinquish the protection afforded by Spring-guns, than be a witness to the consequences which resulted from their indiscriminate use.
Mr. W. Duncombeopposed the bill, but had no objection to the use of Spring-guns being prohibited between the hours of sun-rise and sun-set. By the adoption of that amendment, he thought the objections to the use of Spring-guns would be rendered nugatory. It was very well for hon. gentlemen to say that other means might be resorted to for the protection of game; but it ought to be recollected, that every man could not, like lord Suffield or Mr. Coke, afford to keep an army of twenty or thirty game-keepers to keep his preserves. That House, in legislating, ought to look at the condition of the middling class of landowners as well as the higher; and consider what was necessary to the preservation of their property. Spring-guns were, however, to be defended upon a principle of humanity. They prevented the frequency of those deadly conflicts which must result from a withdrawal of the protection hitherto afforded the preserves of game; and upon that ground he would oppose the bill.
Lord Sandonsaid, he had that night heard two arguments adduced against this bill, which, he trusted, he should never again hear mooted upon any occasion. The first literally went to support the use of Spring-guns, on account of their superior cheapness, in sacrificing human life, and shedding innocent blood. And the second, the absolute necessity which would be imposed upon gentlemen who had preserves, of maintaining additional game-keepers, if these instruments were dispensed with. To the first argument,
30
no reply could be necessary. To the other, he would only answer, that if gentlemen were so eager to maintain the possession of an expensive and fatal luxury, they could hardly complain of the hardship of being compelled to make more extensive and legitimate provision for its preservation [cheers].
Sir Edmund Carringtonsaid:—I hold myself bound, by the law of England, to support this bill. On the legality of the act of setting Spring-guns or man-traps in woods or plantations, to preserve them from the apprehended invasion of poachers, or of other trespassers, there is no express statute; but all the analogies of law, as well as all the feelings of humanity, are in opposition to the practice. The poacher is a mere trespasser, and liable only to be dealt with and punished for a trespass; could the proprietor of the soil, if he met the poacher, even armed, and at night, presume at once to shoot him through the head, or to maim, or to disable him? Could he presume to delegate such an authority, or to issue such a mandate to his keeper, or his woodman? Would he venture, even on the notice which warns all invaders from his territory, to add the threat, that his keepers had orders to fire upon, or to despatch the trespasser? Would such a notice be endured for a moment? And shall he delegate to accident a power which he neither dares to execute in person, or to delegate to any moral agent? Shall he make chance his proxy, for the purpose of murder, or of man-slaughter, or of mayhew? But, Sir, by the law of England, as in all manly and consistent reasoning, where the direct performance of an act is forbidden, its execution by indirect means is forbidden also. If, therefore, the setting these engines of destruction be an unlawful act, what is the situation, and what the peril, in which a gentleman places himself by authorizing or commanding the resort to so desperate and so forbidden an expedient? Admitting that he is absent at the time, that he is ignorant of the explosion of the instrument, yet, by the very orders he has issued, he becomes a principal in the offence; for, by having laid the means of destruction, which have taken effect in his absence, and without his specific knowledge, he is constructively present, and personally responsible to his country for the offence of which he was the cause, and of which it was his duty to foresee

31
the natural consequences. We all know with what anxious caution the law surrounds the life of man, even where the person slain has been the original aggressor; how minutely it exacts, that the object of attack shall not have exceeded the limits of a just and necessary defence, and that the right to slay his adversary ceases with the emergency that alone could authorize it; no suspicion, no fear of future attack, will justify the killing an adversary to prevent his mere apprehended hostility, even to the life of another: the law provides its safeguards, and interposes its protection, and to the law alone must resort be taken for the securities it can and will exact. In the language of the Roman orator, "Quis hoc statuit unquam, aut cui concedi sine summo omnium periculo potest, ut eum jure potuerit occidere, à quo metuisse se dicat, ut ipse posterius occideretur?" These, Sir, are the principles of our law, and not of the law of England only, but of those systems of general law which have been so admirably expounded by Grotius, and the great jurists who, like him, have enlightened mankind on the principles of moral action, and the sanctions of legal and social responsibility. On these principles, and for the safeguard even of those who, from inadvertence, or from too eager a regard to the preservation of a favourite property, have been led into what I consider an unauthorized usurpation of the powers of prevention or of vengeance. I shall vote for going into the committee.
Mr. Ridley Colborneobserved, that if the bill had only gone to restrain the setting of Spring-guns to the night season, and to making the setting of them by day illegal, it would have had his full and entire concurrence. Another principle on which he was disposed to support, to a certain extent, the use of Spring-guns, was this—that it was much better to employ them than to resort to the only other alternative which their disuse would leave for the protection of property; namely, the increase of that numerous armed force which was at present scattered over the country for its security. If there was one part of our existing system of Game-laws which more disgusted him than another, it was this extensive force; and the direct operation of the hon. gentleman's bill would be to increase its extent, and to multiply those murderous conflicts which were already too frequent. He could
32
assure the House, that many friends of his, resident in his own neighbourhood, had started with a firm determination never to employ Spring-guns for the protection of their grounds and game; but, in consequence of the terribly mutilated and wounded state in which their game-keepers often returned from some accidental collision with the poachers, they had been reluctantly compelled to resort to the use of these machines.
Mr. Wynndeclared his firm belief to be, that if they should continue to make it legal to set Spring-guns by night, they would continue to be set also by day. He had never known an instance where accidents had happened in the day time from Spring-guns being unawarely trod upon by unoffending parties, in which it did not appear that the keepers had promised to take them up in the day time, and to keep them down only at night: and there could be no doubt that gamekeepers would always contrive to employ them as much as possible. Then, as to the principle of their employment at all, it should be remembered, that the offence against which they were meant to guard was but a trespass on a certain description of property. Now, however excessive the degree of punishment, as compared with the nature of the offence, might be, which these Spring-guns inflicted, there would be something in the argument, as to the necessity of their employment, if the guilty only suffered by them. The contrary was, however, notoriously the fact; for hardly an instance could be cited in which the offender was the victim. But then it was contended, that the knowledge of their being set in grounds operated to deter the guilty from trespassing; but if the innocent were to suffer, in order that the guilty might be alarmed, that House would never sanction the use of such weapons. This argument, therefore, fell to the ground. Some hon. gentlemen had supported the use of Spring-guns, by the example of flogging, of which they observed, that though it was not very pleasant to any party who was subjected to it, it might, and did, undoubtedly, deter others from committing offences, for which they would be amenable to the same penalty. Now, this attempted analogy appeared to him to rest on no better grounds of reason, than the ancient practice in this kingdom, according to which, the tutors of princes never punish-

33
ed their royal pupils for their delinquencies, but whipped some innocent boy, who was substituted for the royal pupil. No doubt, the notion was, that the royal pupil would be deterred from a repetition of his fault, by witnessing the punishment inflicted on account of it; but what could be said of the principle, upon which the innocent substitute was made to undergo the infliction? He confessed he had heard no argument sufficient to justify the continuance of the practice in question, after all the calamities which their experience had shown to result from the setting of these guns. For his own part, though much attached to sporting, he should be wretched indeed, if a poacher, however determined or inveterate in his pursuits, should be mutilated in the act of trespassing upon any property of his; and still more so, if that poacher should lose his life, from the explosion of a Spring-gun. In conclusion, he could attach no sort of weight to the suggestion, that the committee on this bill ought to be delayed until after the consideration of the Game bill; and, therefore, he should give the motion his most cordial support.
Mr. Denisonprotested, that no person was more convinced than himself of the utility, and, indeed, essential necessity to this country, of country gentlemen living upon their estates, exercising a generous hospitality, and maintaining with their tenantry every sort of reciprocal good office. It was with this conviction that he rose to vindicate the country gentlemen from the imputation which had been very freely cast upon them, in the course of the debate, that they were obliged to have Spring-guns and armed bands, both of them frequently destructive to human life, for their amusement. For himself, he could only say, that he had never used the one or the other; and yet if any hon. gentleman would do him the favour to visit him in the season, he would show them as much sport as if he had been one of the strictest preservers. If, however, there really were country gentlemen, who could not reside upon their estates without Spring-guns and bands of armed men for their amusement, the sooner they left the country the better. They had much better come up to town at once, and put themselves under the protection of the watchmen, who were the armed keepers of Berkeley and Grosvenor squares.
Sir R. Fergussonsaid, he would give
34
the bill his hearty support. He had had some experience as to the effects produced in his neighbourhood by Spring-guns; and he could state that the only instance of individuals being previously hurt by them had been in the case of gentlemen and gamekeepers by whom they had been set. He had never heard of a single accident happening to a poacher. He would add, that the whole tenor of this discussion inspired him with the conviction, that some alteration in the Game-laws was absolutely necessary. A bill upon this subject was at present in progress in another House, which he hoped would pass there by a triumphant majority, and come down to this House, where it would also receive every support.
Lord Althorpobserved, that, singularly enough, the whole discussion upon this motion had turned, not so much upon the question of the expediency of employing Spring-guns, as on the necessity of preserving game. Now, fond as he was of field sports, and disposed as he might feel, under other circumstances, to preserve game, God forbid that, while the punishment of offences against this property was so excessive as that which the use of Spring-guns entailed, he should sanction the preservation of that species of property! He thought the setting of Spring-guns was at variance with the sound principles of English law. One of those principles was, to establish a due proportion between the punishment and the crime; but here a punishment of mutilation, and in some instances of death, was proposed to be substituted for what was nothing more than a trespass. He hoped, therefore, that instruments would be no longer permitted, which gave a sanction to inordinate punishment for a minor offence.
Sir H. Viviansaid, that, in his opinion, this was a question between the employment of Spring-guns, and the employment of a great additional force of gamekeepers; and as his mind was made up as to the alternative, he should oppose the bill.
The question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
the House divided: Ayes 104; Noes 42.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Lord Kinghad several Petitions to present from that people, who stated themselves to be the most wretched, the most ill-used, and the most oppressed, people in Europe; namely, the Irish Roman Catholics. Wretched, however, as they were, he did not think there was any hope of removing their grievances; for, as the noble and learned lord on the wool-sack had really stated, this House had repeatedly rejected every specific proposition, and the other House had come to a sweeping resolution not to listen to or consider their complaints. It had been stated that there was a great deal of harmony, good-will, and friendly feeling in Ireland. Yes, he believed there was just as much harmony and good-will as there was between oil and vinegar. The antagonist principle was in great force in that unfortunate country. Landlords were set against their tenants. The population were against the property of the country. The parsons were against the priests; and hatred existed in every possible shape. He did not know what was to be the future plan of government with respect to Ireland. No one had ventured to point out what government intended to do; but when they should bring forward a plan, what was to be "the instrument?" to use a Cromwellian phrase. The instrument of government, he believed, would be the cannon, that ultima ratio of Protestant
2
ascendancy. The Catholics thought Protestantism a job in Ireland, established by a variety of laws, the worst of which was by far the Select-vestry act. The Protestants thought that the Catholic religion was idolatrous: so that one part of the community considering as imposture the religion of the other part, and the other part of the community considering the established religion to be a job, was what he considered to be a pretty state of things. The noble lord then presented petitions from the town and vicinity of Wexford, against the Select vestry-act, and in favour of Roman Catholic emancipation.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, he gave the noble lord credit for the sincerity of his efforts, but he could never admit that the manner in which he made those efforts was at all calculated to allay the feeling of irritation, or to produce the effect which he wished to produce. He never could hear it quietly stated, that there was no hope for the Roman Catholics. He not only hoped, but was convinced that the measure which was the object of the noble lord's efforts must, at no distant day, be granted.
Lord Kingsaid, he had not stated any thing with regard to the hopes of the Catholics. All he had said was, that he himself entertained no hope whatever of their cause. if he looked to the late decision of the other House, he should find it far less conciliating than any thing that had fallen from him on this subject.
Ordered to lie on the table.