Sitting of 6 May 1828

FRAUDULENT DEVISES—LIABILITY OF REAL PROPERTY.
Mr. Sugdenrose to move for "leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act of the 3rd of William and Mary, chap. 14th, for the Relief of Creditors against Fraudulent Devises, and a similar Act of the 4th of Anne, relative to Ireland." The hon. and learned gentleman went into an historical review of the law of Devises, from the enactment of the law called Statute Merchant, passed in the reign of Edward 1st, for the assurance of debts, which he observed proceeded on the basis of the old law of that day, evidently founded on the still older system of the feudal law. That law had been framed with reference to the exigences of the times, and like most laws thus judiciously framed, it had, either by the ingenuity of the judges, or the consent of the people generally, been accommodated to the improved state of society, and generally acted on since. By this law, an attempt had been made to render the property of the higher orders extra-commercial; which, in effect, proved a public benefit to the community. At that period the existence of a great public debt was unknown in this country, spreading itself over a large portion of the property of the community, and the enactment he contemplated would have been almost needless. Since that period, the state of society and of property had materially changed; and this change had produced an impression on his mind, that it would be wise to extend the statute of king-Edward, for the assurance of debts, which now only affected landed property, to property in the funds; for why should a man who was possessed of large property in the funds, be allowed, as he was at present, to live in prison, rioting and wasting that property in defiance of his creditors, and defeating the intentions of the legislature? The object of this bill was, to render the property of any man dying in the possession of a large sum of money or funded property, liable to the payment of that person's debts, though in the hands or possession of the heir or a devisee. Our law knew of but two sorts of debts—specialty debts, and debts on simple contract. Estates descending to the heir were bound by specialty debts; but in case of a devise to a stranger, if the party possessed himself of the property under the devise, and spent it before this action was brought by the testator's creditor, no remedy remained for the

369
creditor, as in the case of an heir similarly circumstanced. And this, because the former took by devise and not as heir. In order to amend the law in this respect, the act of the 3rd of William and Mary was passed. The bill he should propose to introduce would be framed so as to give, in these cases, the same remedy and assurance for debt against the devisee as against the heir at law. The act introduced by that eminent and justly-esteemed lawyer, sir Samuel Romilly, had totally failed of its effects. He was bound to state his own sentiments upon the subject, and he would venture to assert, that a more mischievous measure had seldom been introduced, for altering the practice of the court of Chancery in equity cases. By the 47th of the late king, facility was given to obtain execution, in cases of the decease of debtors possessed of real property. By that law, if a man died a bankrupt his simple contract debts could be recovered out of his real estate. The measure introduced by sir Samuel Romilly tended to increase the costs of the court of Chancery; as otherwise it would be impossible to proceed under it. But when a person did so proceed, he was stopped at the very threshold by an inquiry, as to whether the deceased was or was not a trader; which inquiry had the effect of still further increasing the expenses. It was a singular fact, that the law of the present day stood precisely as it did in feudal times, with respect to infant heirs. The guardian now, as then, received the produce of the lands, and might be looked upon as the owner of the ward and lands, until the infant became of age; and in case of an action being brought against a minor, he was allowed to plead his non-age in stay of the action; so that a creditor in such a case might be deprived of all remedy for twenty years. His object was, to remedy the evil by taking away this shield, and thereby prevent the delay and expense which took place in the suits of creditors. Another point upon which he proposed to make an alteration, which he considered of great importance, and which, if adopted, might be looked upon only as a preparatory step to a still greater and more important alteration in this branch of the law, went to enable the infant to consent to a sale for the payment of creditors, instead of pleading his non-age. As the case now stood, a court of Equity would
370
sell an estate in cases where the infant was under twenty-one years of age; but after a man had paid his money, they refused to make a conveyance of the property, alleging that they had no power to do so until the minor came of age. The purchaser might remonstrate against the injustice of paying his money to the creditors of the property, without securing to him a proper title to it, but without effect; the bargain was made, and he must wait for years until the minor became of age. There was one case, where a purchaser who had been so treated by a court of Equity, sold again to a second purchaser; who, however, refused to fulfil the bargain, unless a proper conveyance was made to him. "Oh, but" said the first purchaser, "I'll make you fulfil it; I purchased from a court of Equity in a similar way but could receive no conveyance." The case went into Chancery, and what did the then lord chancellor do? He decided that the second sale was defective, inasmuch as the first purchaser had not obtained a good title to the property; so that the unfortunate first purchaser had his money divided amongst the creditors of the estate, while he was left not only without a conveyance, but was also saddled with the additional expenses of his application. The clause which it was his intention to introduce would allow the infant to make a conveyance at once: in short, his object was so to alter the general law upon this subject, as to give every facility to the recovery of the debts owing by persons dying possessed of landed property. This he proposed to do, by at once simplifying and consolidating the other acts, which as they now stood, were couched in difficult phraseology, and not easily understood. It had been stated on a former occasion, that he was an enemy to all reform in the court of Chancery. Those who entertained this opinion, laboured under a great mistake. No man was more anxious than himself, to do away with the complex and surplus forms of those laws, which, taken as a whole, he looked upon as the best by which any country was governed. He admitted that there existed anomalies which ought to be removed. He looked at the substance and at the forms of those laws, and where these forms were intricate, or unnecessary and useless, he was anxious that they should be removed. He hoped the motion he

371
was now about to make would be taken as an humble pledge of his sincerity upon this point. When allusion was made to the appointment of a commission on this subject, it was hinted that he was likely to be appointed one of its members and to have a certain control over it. He was decidedly opposed to any such appointment, and was not to form any part of such commission. But it was objected, that gentlemen of the profession ought not to be appointed members of that commission, because they were prejudiced in favour of existing forms; but if they were not to appoint such men, were they to select unlearned men; men unacquainted with the evils which existed, and the remedies which ought to be applied? The learned member concluded by moving "for leave to bring in a Bill for further facilitating the Payment of Debts out of Real Estates."
Mr. Wallacesupported the motion, and expressed a hope that the learned member would obtain, as he deserved, the thanks of the country for his exertions to amend the law in this respect.
Mr. Humesaid, he congratulated the learned gentleman upon the course he had taken upon this occasion, as he, for one, had set the learned member down as an opponent of all reform in the court of Chancery. If the hon. member acted up to his statements of that evening, he would effect all that was desired by those most anxious to reform the abuses of that court. He thought that the estates of a debtor, dying possessed of landed property, ought to be made available to the payment of his debts, as well as personal property.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SCOTCH PAROCHIAL SETTLEMENTS BILL.
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Kennedy moved the further consideration of the Report on the Scotch Parochial Settlements Bill.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that his opposition to the bill was solely with a view to induce the House to assimilate the bill to the law of England. Great inconvenience was felt in this country from the permission allowed to foreigners of gaining a settlement here in a year, or he believed in less time; while in Scotland, even according to the present law, a settlement could not be made under three years. It was now attempted to extend the period to seven years; a change which would have the effect of relieving Scotland at
372
the expense of England, from the multitudes who daily came over from Ireland. But overlooking that circumstance, he could not see any reason for such a difference as the bill was intended to make between the two countries.
Mr. Fergussonthought it would be very difficult to assimilate the laws of England and Scotland in this respect, while there existed so great a difference between their laws in other respects. He bore testimony to the good conduct of the poor Irish who emigrated, and some of whom settled in Scotland, but represented their multitudes as most alarming. It was a mistake to suppose that they had not poor-laws in Scotland. They had, but the people were too independent in mind to depend upon those laws. The present facility of gaining a settlement in Scotland would burthen it beyond its capability.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, that the present bill was anxiously desired by the people of Scotland, under an apprehension that, without it, that country could not bear the burthen imposed on it by the emigrations from Ireland; especially as in Ireland they had no reciprocal provision for their poor.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, that though the effect of this measure would be one which he must regret as far as England was concerned, it could not fail to be of considerable advantage to Scotland. The object of the bill was to keep the poor Irish out of Scotland; but he feared the effect of it would be to make them come in greater numbers into this country; and if Scotland was exempted from the consequences of that evil, and England was more exposed to its influence, hon. gentlemen must not wonder that the English representatives should show some jealousy as to its success. The bill seemed scarcely to place England and Scotland on a fair footing; since it went to free the former from an evil which would only fall the heavier upon the latter.
Mr. Humedid not consider it fair to object to a law on the ground that, though it was a good law in itself, the people of Scotland ought not to have it, because the people of England had a bad law upon the same subject. He thought the people of England were called upon to protect themselves against the additional pressure which the influx of the Irish poor flung upon their poor-rates, if no measure were

373
adopted for their relief in Ireland. He was not, however, one of those who conceived that the emigration of the labouring population of Ireland into England was hostile to the interests of England. As long as labour was wanted, the English land-holder was glad to receive the Irish labourer, because his appearance in the market diminished the rate of wages: now that labour was superabundant, he changed his tone, and called for a protection against his becoming a burthen upon the poor-rates, before he had resided three years in the country. He thought that some protection was necessary for the people of England; at the same time he hoped that those who intended to oppose this measure would not object to it, because it was calculated to do good to Scotland. He would say to the people of England, "Get a similar measure for yourselves; and do not deprive us of the means which we have devised for benefitting ourselves."
Mr. Fergussonsaid, that though he supported this bill, he did not object to the introduction of Irish labourers into either England or Scotland, on the score of the reduction which it produced in the rate of wages. It might be an evil; but he did not know how to prevent it, unless they prevented all intercourse between the three countries. The times were bad now, but it was not unreasonable to hope that they would be better soon. It was intended to prevent any future burthen from being imposed on Scotland, in the shape of poor-rates. The Scotch had no means of preventing the Irish labourer from settling among them; neither did he wish that they had. What he wished was, to prevent the Irish labourer from obtaining any settlement in Scotland without a previous residence of three years or more within it. In Scotland, the people wanted no support for their poor, either from England or Ireland: all they wanted was, that each country should support its own poor. How that consummation was to be brought about, was another question; but he thought it unjust that England and Scotland should be called upon to provide for the poor of Ireland, merely because Ireland would not provide for them herself.
Sir J. Newportsaid, it must have been observed by the House, that almost every gentleman who admitted the benefit which had accrued to England and Scotland from the introduction of Irish labourers
374
into those countries, had lamented over the increased introduction of them within the last few years. But in their lamentations over the introduction of the poor, they had entirely forgotten the introduction of another class; he meant the rich landed proprietors of Ireland. They were anxious to prevent the emigration of the poor from Ireland; but they said nothing about remitting back to Ireland the absentee proprietors; whose rents, however, they sought to diminish by the imposition of poor-rates. He was not exaggerating when he said, that a sum of three millions was annually drawn from Ireland by its absentee landlords; and that that sum was expended in giving employment to the artisans of England, and was therefore withdrawn entirely from any employment which might produce benefit to the pauper population of Ireland. To the introduction of the rich Irish landlord into England, no gentleman had yet made any objection; but many appeared astounded at hearing that the withdrawal of the rich land-holder from Ireland had brought pauperism on its inhabitants, and an influx of Irish poor on the neighbouring countries. He would not urge the objections which he felt to the establishment of a system of poor-laws in Ireland, until some person declared himself ready to point out to him a mode, by which a fair administration of the money levied as poor-rates could be ensured in that country. There were whole districts in Ireland, where, if rates were to be levied for the relief of the poor, it would be impossible to discover individuals who would administer them in such a manner as to give the poor the full benefit of them. He would appeal to the members of the committee appointed a few years ago in the city of London, to distribute the contributions of the charitable among the distressed peasantry of Ireland, whether they did not repeatedly, in the course of their inquiries, find themselves at a loss to discover proper persons in Ireland to intrust with the distribution of the funds committed to their care. He believed that, owing to the selfishness of their agents, the poor of Ireland did not receive one half of the funds which were sent over from this country for their relief. That was owing to the unfortunate condition of Ireland; and he was afraid it was beyond the skill of any gentleman to devise a scheme, which would ensure the fair distribution of poor-rates in Ireland.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that so far was he from feeling any hostility towards the natives of Ireland, that he had absolutely introduced this bill to do away with any hostile feelings which their influx into Scotland might have generated. For his own part, he wished to be able to deal more liberally with the Irish paupers than he could do under the existing law. The Irish poor were at present relieved in Scotland upon as niggardly a scale as was possible, from a prevalent belief, that if they were relieved more liberally, a greater number of them would come over, and thus a greater burthen would be thrown upon the country. The hon. member for Kent seemed to dread the effects of this measure upon England. Now, he was sanguine enough to hope that this measure would confer benefit upon Scotland, though not to any large amount; and he was quite certain that England would not suffer by it. He did not think that this bill would turn the tide of Irish emigration from Scotland into England, nor that it would even turn it from flowing direct to Scotland. He did not believe that the crowds of Irishmen who landed almost every day in Scotland, came there for the purpose of obtaining a settlement in either three years or seven. They were driven by the craving wants of nature to get that support in Scotland, which they were not able to find at home. He hoped that when they did come to Scotland, the people would treat them well; but he also hoped that they would not permit them to become a permanent burthen upon their industry. Such was the principle of the measure which he had introduced into the House.
The report was further considered; and the amendments agreed to.

GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.
The Marquis of Salisbury The Marquis of Salisbury moved the order of the day for bringing up the Report of the Committee on the Sale of Game Bill.
The Earl of Malmesburymerely wished to say, that his noble friend who had brought the measure in its original state before their lordships, had brought it forward as a temporary measure,—a bill to continue two years,—to try whether the sale of game would produce any effect on the crime of poaching. Whatever objections he might have had to that bill, he should nevertheless have given his assent to it as an experiment; but since the bill had been first brought forward, an alliance had taken place between his noble friend and another noble lord, in consequence of which the bill had been totally altered. He confessed he could not consider, that facilitating the disposal of game would diminish the crime of poaching. Under the existing law, a person might be seized, and was liable to conviction, for having game in his possession; but under the present act, with all the precaution which his noble friend had used, a man having ten acres of land might sanction any one for having game in his possession. In his opinion, the measure would operate very much to disturb society, and produce litigation. For, in districts where property was divided among a number of tenants, and where each began to be a game-preserver, what would be the result? There would immediately spring up a great deal of jealousy: the farmers would be out at night looking after the game when they ought to be in their beds, and, instead of going on with the plough, they would be running to see who was shooting at what would not be game, but property; for it became a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. With respect to their lordships' tenants, in how different a light would they see their lordships going over their farms to what they did before? They used to be glad to see their lordships amuse themselves, as they always got a share in the amusement: but how different would be the case, when any of their lordships, after having killed ten head of game,

361
sent his gamekeeper to the licensed house, and sold them. The idea created in the mind of the tenant would be, that he was having a new description of rent levied upon him. The bill would, in his opinion, lead to a variety of results of a very pernicious nature, and he entreated their lordships to consider well before they passed it. If his noble friend should fail, as he trusted he would, in bringing up the report, and should afterwards bring forward a temporary measure, it was not his intention to object to it.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he was one of those who sincerely supported the present measure, with the deep conviction that the subject was peculiarly entitled to the attention of their lordships, as affecting the morals of the country from one end to the other. He hoped their lordships were aware, as he was sure they ought to be, that they were dealing with the question at a time when, from some cause or other, there had been an increase of crime, progressively advancing in this country, of a nature most appalling to every man who felt an interest in the religion, morality, and prosperity, of the country; which prosperity depended on the presence of religion and morality. Their lordships were dealing with a measure at a time when, by the returns recently made up in the public offices, it appeared that the amount of committals in England and Wales last year exceeded by one-hundred and seventy the amount of committals in the preceding year; and not only that, but it exceeded, by a third or a fourth, the amount of the committals on the average of six years. He knew that the noble earl, who was much alive to these considerations, was of opinion that the extent of poaching and the system of the Game-laws had no connexion with that state of things. If he looked at the state of the country generally—if he went into the prisons, his noble friend would find, that though all other crimes had increased, the crime of poaching had increased in an infinitely greater proportion than any others. He would refer particularly to the northern part of Wiltshire. In the House of Correction in Devises, he found, in February 1827, that one hundred persons, out of two hundred and twenty-seven, had been committed to that gaol for offences against the Game-laws. He had thought it possible that this might have arisen from accidental circumstances, and he had, therefore, taken the
362
trouble last week to procure an account of the number of persons now in that gaol, and he was able to state that of two hundred and thirty-four persons, one hundred were confined on account of offences against the Game-laws. In proportion to other crimes, there was, within the last two years, an increase of from forty to fifty per cent in crimes under the Game-laws. He found that, in the House of Correction, at Winchester, during the years 1810, 1811 and 1812, the average number of commitments for poaching was twenty, while the average number of commitments for poaching during the last three years, was two hundred and seventy-seven, making an increase of not less than one thousand per cent in the crime of poaching between the two periods. But their lordships would take a very narrow view of the question, if they supposed that a dry detail of the number of persons committed to gaol for poaching during a series of years, gave a correct idea of the whole mischief. It went far beyond this; and was, he believed, the cause of a great increase in other crimes. The business of a poacher furnished the person who followed it with much information. The poacher was gradually taught, by the practice of poaching, how to execute other crimes; he was taught to lose all respect for property; he was inspired with a love of nocturnal adventure; and in his exertions to overreach the law, he was strengthened in that spirit of gaming and adventure which, in every class, was a very great evil, but which, when it prevailed among the lower classes, led to a violation of all their duties. He was able to confirm this by a comparison of two adjacent counties, similar in all respects, except that in one the Game-laws were rigidly enforced, in the other, they were not. In Bedfordshire, containing ninety-three thousand inhabitants, these laws were enforced; in Huntingdon, containing fifty-two thousand three hundred inhabitants, they were not; and their lordships would perhaps expect, that in the former county the number of crimes should not be more than double the number in the latter. He was able, however, to state, from a comparison of three years, that the number of commitments in Bedfordshire under the Game-laws was six times greater, in proportion to the number of inhabitants, than in Huntingdonshire, and there were three times the amount of other crimes. It appeared,

363
therefore, that other crimes increased as the crime of poaching increased. He begged leave to state one fact which threw great light on the instrumentality of poaching in leading to other crimes. In a county of England there was, sometime ago, a great inundation of false money, which had suddenly got into circulation. An active magistrate, who had communicated the fact to him, undertook to investigate its source, and he found that it all proceeded from strangers, who had gone down from London, and who were coiners, and who, on arriving in that neighbourhood, had, as their first step, inquired into the character of all the poachers, and when they had found out this, they immediately applied to them to put the bad money into circulation, which they accordingly did; so that the money which the strangers could not of themselves put into circulation was put into circulation by the poachers. This was a proof of the manner in which one species of crime was dovetailed into another. He might multiply instances of this kind to infinity, proving in the clearest manner that poaching ought not to be considered by itself, but also in regard to its consequences. As to the clauses introduced by the noble baron, they had unquestionably made it a very different bill, and gave it substantially a new character; but of these clauses his opinion differed very much from that of his noble friend. He should pay the noble baron a bad compliment were he to say that the bill wanted nothing to make it complete; but he was sure that it wanted no perfection which great assiduity and extensive information could give it; and in his opinion, as far as it went, it was good, and went to the root of the evil. The great fault of the present system was, that there were but very few persons interested in upholding it, while the great bulk of the community was interested in opposing it; and it afforded a great temptation to poaching by enhancing the price of game. The measure of the noble baron met, he thought, both these evils; on the one hand, it gave a check to poaching, by facilitating the sale of game; and on the other, it interested all the farmers of the country in checking poaching: it introduced, if he might so speak, the great bulk of the community into the garrison, and gave them an interest in defending it. At present no poacher, not even when found in the woods, could be seized with-
364
out the greatest trouble; and it was found that there was an emulation not to support the law, but to render it inoperative. The whole peasantry of the country were opposed to the system. Juries would not convict under it; and not only juries, but judges, found a leaning in favour of the criminal. Such a state of things could not be suffered to exist: it was a disgrace to the country, and reminded him of what an eloquent orator had said of another country, and of another state of things: "they had made penalty and crime run a race together, and each had grown weaker in the conflict, till at last penalty had not been able to keep pace, and the fugitive had turned round on his breathless pursuer." In that state the law could only be enforced by bringing public opinion round, and by making a large and respectable body of men interested in enforcing the law, by founding it on a principle of property, and not upon any ancient rights, which were rendered odious to the community; upon that principle of property which was recognized by all, and which prompted a man to defend, not only that which was his own, but that which belonged to others. That was the principle upon which the present bill came recommended to their lordships; and, as far as it went, he gave it his cordial assent.
Lord Goderichcontended that, whether they passed the bill or not, it would be impossible to prevent the sale of game; and in proof of his argument, he referred to the evidence of a man before the committee, from which it appeared that that individual had sold nineteen thousand head of game in one year alone. The question was, then, whether or not it was fit to maintain a law which could not be enforced. The only effect of so doing would be, to destroy all respect for the laws generally, but more especially for the laws connected with this subject. With respect to the clauses proposed by his noble friend (lord Wharncliffe), he thought they would tend to diminish the crime of poaching, and facilitate the detection of crime when it was committed, by giving a greater number of persons an interest in the preservation of the game. His noble friend near him (lord Malmesbury) was mistaken in attributing the increase of poaching to the operation of those causes to which he ascribed the depression of agricultural property. The persons who were most frequently engaged in the offence of poaching

365
in the northern parts of England, were not agricultural labourers out of employment, but manufacturers, who were earning at the same time 18 s. or 20 s. a week, and who went out in bodies of fifteen or twenty. The moral mischiefs which this crime engendered were so extensive, that it had become absolutely necessary to adopt some measures for getting rid of this crying evil. There was no man more attached to the sport of shooting than he was, or more anxious to preserve it. But he was quite satisfied that the measure of his noble friend would not interfere with it; and even if it did, it was the duty of parliament to do something to put down so prolific a source of crime.
The House divided; Contents 54; Not-contests 29. Majority 25.

GAME LAWS—NIGHT POACHING PREVENTION BILL.—
Lord Wharncliffe Lord Wharncliffe moved the order of the day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Night Poaching Prevention Bill. The House having accordingly gone into the committee, the noble lord said, he would shortly state what were the objects of this bill, and what the alterations which it proposed to make in the existing law. Their lordships were aware, that under the act, commonly called Mr. Bankes's act, any persons found armed at night in certain enclosures or game-preserves, for the purpose of killing game, were liable to be sent before a jury, and if convicted, to be transported for seven years, or suffer such other punishment, short of that, as the court might think fit. Now, great difficulties existed in the way of conviction under that act. Juries were unwilling to subject a man to be transported merely because he was found armed, when he had not killed any game; and thus, from the severity of the punishment, the offender escaped conviction. Now, he thought it wrong that a first offence of this description should subject a man to the same punishment as if he were proved to be an old offender. He therefore proposed, that when a person was detected committing this offence, provided he were not in company with more than a certain number, he should be taken before a magistrate, and for the first offence be sent to prison for three months, and ordered to find sureties in a moderate sum for his good behaviour for a year; for the second offence, to be imprisoned for six months,
366
and to find sureties for two years; and for the third, to be liable to be transported. He knew that the notion of finding securities for good behaviour was not considered likely to check this crime in the south of England; but from experience he could say, that he knew of nothing more likely to produce that effect in the north of England. Young men, when they found that by committing a repetition of this offence, they placed their relatives or friends in jeopardy, were naturally deterred from so doing. With respect to a conviction a third time, the juries, upon perceiving that the offenders were hardened in crime, would not have the reluctance which they now felt to finding them guilty; well knowing that such persons, when they went out at night, would not stop at committing other crimes. He also proposed that, even in the case of a first offence, if the party had used fire arms to prevent apprehension, he should be rendered liable to transportation; and lastly, be would make it felony in a party to go out accompanied by a certain number, say three, or five. Some distinction ought certainly to be made between persons who went out singly, and those who went out in gangs. Every person who read the evidence given before the committee must see to what a dreadful extent these practices had gone. He had no wish to press the bill at present, as he was anxious first to have the advice of certain learned persons as to the advantages which it was calculated to produce.
The Marquis of Salisburyagreed that a man ought not to suffer as great a punishment for a first offence as for a repetition of it; but then he thought that his noble friend had gone into the opposite extreme; He should prefer, that, instead of three months, the first offence should be punished with six months imprisonment and hard labour; and the second with twelve months. The third he should leave as it was, namely, rendering the offender liable to transportation.
The Earl of Carnarvonwas favourable to the principle of taking security, in preference to extending the term of imprisonment; and he also thought that a great deal of good might be done by allowing poachers the option, under given circumstances, of volunteering into the army, instead of undergoing punishment. Many a man, who was an idle or dissolute labourer, under different control would

367
make a valuable soldier. As for the proposition on the subject of going out in gangs, he thought it ought not to extend to men going out two together; because in most cases, they went out two and two, for the greater convenience of taking the birds, and not for the purpose of resistance. Where more than two went, he thought the object of mutual protection might be presumed; but to make the law too severe, would be only making a dead letter of it.
Lord Tenterdenthought that three was the number which should constitute a gang: three was the number which the law held necessary to constitute a riot. He was opposed to the clause for allowing the poacher an option how he would be tried. It would be better, he thought, to leave the word "poaching" out of the bill altogether. The words "destroying game," included all that was necessary.
Lord. Wharncliffeagreed to give up the clause as to the option, and the word "poaching," if the noble lord desired it; but he differed from the noble marquis entirely upon the subject of the duration of the imprisonment. It was certainly the policy of the law to mark its disposition to punish the offence of the poacher at first lightly, and to increase its severity as his habits of crime became confirmed.
The clause for making the imprisonment for the first offence three months was then put and carried. On the clause fixing the amount of sureties to be demanded,
The Marquis of Salisburysaid, that he thought the offender himself in 10 l. and two sureties in 5l. each was too little. The amount ought to be doubled. As it stood, a man would find his colleagues ready to enter into the surety; and such sureties were nearly nominal, from the difficulty of levying in cases of forfeiture.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that by a law recently passed, the levy in such cases was made easier; and he fixed the security low purposely, in order to enable the poorer people to obtain it.
The several clauses were agreed to. After which the House went again into a Committee on the Penryn Disfranchisement bill; in which several witnesses were examined.

SCOTCH SETTLEMENT BILL.
The Earl of Roseberry, in moving the second reading of the Scotch Settlement Bill, wished briefly to state the grounds upon which he had been led to support a measure which tended rather to alleviate an existing evil than altogether to remove it. The influx of Irishmen into Scotland was known to be considerable; and that being the fact, it appeared necessary that parliament should adopt some measure for putting a stop to the evil which grew out of such a system; he alluded to the competition in labour, which gradually tended to introduce a degree of want and misery into the country, that had not before existed in it. Under this conviction, therefore, he felt that he should be guilty of a breach of duty, were he to refuse stepping forward; and if he had not the power of destroying the evil, at least to use his influence to alleviate it. The point to which he more particularly wished to draw their lordships' attention, was that part of the existing law which gave to all persons the power of claiming a settlement in Scotland, after a residence of three years; and he thought that the population would be better, as well as more useful, members of society, if the settlement was extended from three to seven years. He had already mentioned how the law stood at present, and he would now state that the consequence of such a measure was, that numbers of aged and infirm persons were continually migrating from Ireland, for the purpose alone of procuring a settlement after so short a period; end by that means of claiming that parochial relief, which they could not acquire in their own country. The object of the bill
1034
was merely to extend the period at which a claim could be made to a settlement, from three to seven years.
Lord Melvilleopposed the bill, because it was the first attempt to introduce a different species of legislation for different classes of his majesty's subjects. He contended that the natives of England and Ireland had a right to enter into Scotland. The bill would also be inoperative on account of the inaccuracy of keeping parish registers in Scotland, and the difficulty of ascertaining the claims of individuals. He opposed the bill on principle, and moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
The Earl of Limericksaid, he was surprised to hear the observations of the noble mover with regard to Ireland. The tenor of his speech could only be looked upon as a taint upon the character of the people of that country, and an indirect accusation of profligacy on their parts. The people of Ireland were armed with every principle of right, under the treaty of the Union: yet, since that treaty, the greatest inroads had been made upon their rights; and this was another attempt to inflict a further injury upon them. The cry now was, "Keep us from the Irish!" Some years back, the cry was, "For Heaven's sake keep us from the Scotch!" The great body of the people were, however, now looking forward for a day of conciliation, and not of recrimination. He objected to the bill as drawing a line of demarcation between the inhabitants of different parts of the same United empire. He did not wish to see such distinctions kept up, and looked forward to see all men made equal in the eye of the law.
The Earl of Roseberrysaid, he had no wish to shew the slightest unkindness towards the Irish. The bill placed the Irish and English on the same footing.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that the proposed measure, under any circumstances, could not place the Irishman in a worse situation than he was at home; but after a residence of seven years, it would be found to place him in a far better condition: for he would then be entitled to that settlement which he could, never procure in his own country. The object of the bill was, not to discourage Irishmen from going over to Scotland, but to prevent them from obtaining so easy a settlement as the present system entitled them to. He would rather the bill should be in

1035
force against Scotchmen themselves, than 'thrown out altogether.
The Earl of Rosslynwould never give his vote for a bill which would exclude Englishmen and Irishmen from obtaining a settlement in Scotland upon the same footing as the natives of that country.
Lord Belhavenopposed the bill upon the same grounds.
The Earl of Darnleycould not vote for a bill which would exclude the natives of Ireland from the enjoyment of advantages in another country, which they were deprived of in their own.
The Earl of Roseberry, in consequence of the objections which had been made to the bill, was desirous of suggesting whether it would not be better to have the bill read a second time, and on being committed to make such alterations as might be deemed necessary.
Lord Melvillehad no objection to adopt the suggestion of the noble earl.
The bill was read a second time, and committed for the 11th instant.