The Sun. — London, England, 1824-03-12 00:00:00

Unction between partied where the laws were thus grossly violated. If one party told him that they took up arms to defend themselves against another, he would say that was no defence of their conduct. The laws of the country would de. fend every man if he applied to them. Outrage must be put down by Jaw, and not by lawlessness. Whether Itibbonmen, or Orangemen, or any other Association, the law was strong enough to put them down ; and he trusted there was no man in that House who would shrink from supporting any public officer who enforced the law for such a purpose.—(Cheers.)-- If a rational ground had been shown for the production of these Papers, he should be the last man to object to it; but he was .certain the House would see that no ground had been shown.—. <Cheering.) Lord A urtiosP and Mr. MARTUN rose together, but Mr. MARTIN having caught the Speaker's eye, the Noble Lord sat down. Mr. R. MARTIN thought, that even taking the statement of the Noble Lord for ganted, there was no ground for putting the correspondence on the table. Lord ALTHORY said, in the .correspondence put into his bands, there was no condition whatever. With the permission of the House he would read it. No. I. " Feb. 18, 1823. " Sir—l have a communication to make for the information of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, relative to the illegal society of persona styling themselves Ribandruen of the county and city of Dublin. You will do me the honour to acquaint whea and,to whom this communication is to be made. " I have the honour to be, &c. " it. W. BENNETT. " To Wm. Gregory, Esq., Private Secretary, &c." No. 2. " 'Dublin Castle, Fb. 20 123. " have to ackn ow l e d ge the receipt of e your , lett B er of the 18th inst., which has been submitted to the Lord Lieu tenant; anti I am directed to acquaint you, that if you will be sod to commit to writing any communication on the subject to which you allude, and transmit it to me, it shall be immediately brought under his Excellency's consideration. " I have the honour to be, &c. " To R. W. Bennett, Esq." " %1% GREGORY." No. 3. " To Wm. Gregory, Under-Secretary, Act. " Febru - ary 23, 1823. Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge your letter.of the 20th inst., requiring me to commit to writing the communica -tion to which I alluded in that letter, and which I had to make on behalf of the Ilibandmen of the county and city of Dublin. " blaring frequently been employed for them as Counsel, I made use of the opportunities thus afforded to m e , to endeavour -to ascertain th e rea l objects of that society. I was assured-that the pincipie of their union was wholly -defensive against the OFange party. They informed tee, that-the .Itiband system commenced in Armagh, where outrage of a very satmtinary charaCter was alleged to have been committed against the Ca tholics, by the Orange party, with impunity ; and this, it ap pears, created a bitter sprit of retaliation in the minds of the sufferers, which ultimately produced the iltiband Association. " Persuaded that _this was a correct representation of the principles and views of this body, and that they were not hostile to the constitution or the King, -it occurred to me that recent circumstances connected with the prosecutions of the rioters at the theatre presented an opportunity (if properly acted en) of re conciling this society to the Government. " Under this impression, I succeeded in opening a comnru- Taication with their leaders, principally through the medium of Thomas Hughes, now under sentence of transportation for ad ministering the Ilibandman's oath. In consequence of effect ing this communication, two most respectable Catholic clergy seen, distinguished for l o y a lt y an d i nte l ligence, were deputed • oritheir part to confer with me on the subject ; and after se veral meetings, for some weeks past, I became fully convinced that there existed,on their part a sincere disposition to affectionate - .loyalty to his Majesty and the present Government of Ireland. And, were all other proofs wanting, a circumstance occurred, .during these conferences, which appeared quite decisive.—At that . period some malignant and exaggerated rumours respect ing, the nature and ext e nt o f th e Ki ng ' s l ate i n di spos iti on were industriously circulated in 131ublin, on which occasion these clergymen informed me that the despair of the delegates from the Ribandmen was so excessive as nearly to put an end to all further proceedings as useless. But, upon the assurance of his Majesty's restoration to health, the matter was resumed with increased ardour and activity. " it suggested to them the propriety, and perhaps importance at that time, of coming forward and offering to take the oath of allegiance, to renounce all illicit associations, and to give up their arms : and I now have the satisfaction to state through their authorized agents, that these suggestions have been ern.: braced with enthusiasm ; and 1 ant now commissioned by them to communicate to you, for the information of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, that they are ready and anxious to come • forward and subscribe to the terms upon obtaining amnesty. " I have to address you last-1 am instructed to state that the members of Kildare, Meath, 'West Meath, King's and Queen's counties, and Tipperary, have desired to be included ia this communication; and no doubt is entertained that th e whole body of Ilibandmen will follow the example. This num -ber of organized . R iliandmen in the county and city of Dublin is stated to be 130)0, and thosein the aountry very cormidera. have the honour, &c. It. 1%. B. " To Wm. Gregory, &e." No. 4.. Feb. 2, 1823. ".My dear Sir,—A number of persons•frorn" different parts of the country, in addition to those we mentioned to you, have called on us to know what has been done relative to the prop°_ sion.you made to Mr. Gregory. last week ? We beg leave to State that they are most anxio us to carry t h at propos i t i on i nto e ff.. c t. We request that you will endeavour to obtain the an swer of Government as soon as posSible. 6 ` With Lest wishes, yours, &c. ." To R. W..Bennett,.&c. &c. A. LUBIE. W. 'YORE." No. 5. • ." Feb. 2i, 4823. Sir,—Not having had the honour of receiving any answer . to •my communication of the 24th Ithissliould lave been 22d] inst. relative to the Ribandinen, and 'great anxiety having been ex -pressed by these people for the determination Of 'Government .thereon, I think it my duty to call your attention to the enclosed letter from the Clergyman to whom I betore alluded. " To W. Gregory, cice; " R. W. B." No. 6.— , " Dublin Castle, March 3, 1823. -" Sir—l submitted your letters of the 24th and 28th ult., relative to the Ribandmen; t 6 the Lord Lieutenant, and when ever I receive his Excellency's commands, I shall not fail to communicate them to you.-1 have the,honour, &c. -" To R. W. Bennett, &c. &c " W. GREGORY. No. 8. " March, 1023. " May it please your Excellency—From the moment Coun sellor Bennett communicated to us the gratifying hope that' it might meet your Excellency's benevolent views to extend your mercy, and bring under our Most Gracious Sovereign's protec tion the Ribandmen of Ireland, we lost not a moment in using all our exertions to bring about so fortunate an occurrence—an occurrence which we look upon to be of the greatest importance to this divided country. We can with the fullest confidence assure your Excellency, that these deluded . men were by no -means actuated by any hostile views to our Most Gracious Sove reign's or your Excellency's mild and conciliating Government : .on the contrary, they are loyal from principle, and as far as We could learn from them, their intention, in this illegal association, was to protect themselves from a faction' that persecuted and oppressed them. In our communications with them, we foOrid them willing and eager to avail themselves of your Excellency's clemency, in procuring for them our Most Gracious Sovereign's pardon. And we beg leave to suggest to your Excellency, that it will serve, in a powerful degree, to increase their confidence in were your Excellency pleased, if not to extend pardon to Hughes now under sentence of transportation in Kilmainham, at least to suspend his transmission to Cork for some time. lie has greatly contributed to the change that has takes place , in the sentiments of these misled men. In a word, we could have no communication with - them were it not for him. Hoping that your Excellency will take this our humble suggestion into consideration, we remain, &c. " A. LURIE. " To his Excellency, &c. " W. YORE." No answer was given to this, and Hughes was transported. No. 8. " July 18, 1823. " Sir,—On the 24th (22) and 28th of February last, I had .the honour of submitting through you a communication to the Lord Lieutenant, from the Ribandmen ; and on the 3d March you informed melliat whenever you received his Excellency's commands on this subject, you would communicate them to me. 'slaving received no answer after such a lapse of time, I am apprehensive that this matter (under the pressure of important affairs) may have escaped his Excellency's recollection ; 'I therefore beg leave to request you will call the Lord Lieute nant's attention to the subject, and acquaint me whether it is the pleasnre of Government to give any answer to the applica tior. the Ribandmen. " Though they were extremely anxious to know the senti ments of Government on their case, they did not wish to press for an answer until certain discussion which have since occupied Parliament had terminated.—l have the honour to be, &c. " Wm. Gregory, Esq. " R. W. BENNETT." No. U. " Dublin Castle, duly 23,1823. " Sir—l submitted your letter of the lerth instant to the Lord Lieutenant, and have not any commands from his Ex cellency to return an answer. I have the honour to be, &c. • ." R. W. Bennett, Esq. W. OREGORY." •H e (Lord Althorp) agreed with the Bight. Hon. Oentleman . o pp o site, that it would have been highly improper in the ii sm aissuat to have entered into any negotiation with the Itibbm4filea on an understanding such as had been stated; but he did think that when an opportunity of this sort was given to them to get these people to give up their anus and take the oath of allegiance, they were culpable in not having availed themselves of it. . Mr. H. G. BENNI:TAIbe enght that It wailhownistinctly that there was some coo ltlitter . tication which didnot form part of that read by the Nobleileid, for it was quite clear there was not in that a single e word - to warrant the:statenatents made by the Right Hon. Gen treenail . oppotAe. Did Nino. -G en tlenlieeoppli site mean to say, that these were not true copies of the corres pondence that was stated to have passed ? If they did, let them say so at once; if they 'did - not; - would enortheir prottedingte warrant an inference that the Hight lion. Gentleman had some documents behind which he wished to conceal ? He had no doubt that upon this, as well as upon all other o ccas i ons o f a s i. milar nature, his Noble Friend (Lord Althorp) would discover that Ministers would deny him the documents which he had so dear a right to expect.--(Cries of " Question, question.") Strangers were leaving the gallery upon the order to with draw, when Mr. C. H. THITCHINSON rose, and after avowing his dis appointrrient at the government o f the Marquis Wellesley in Ireland—a government from which he had hoped so much-- and expressing his conviction that the interest which his Noble Friend had manifested in so difficult and delicate a ques tion as the present was a most fortunate omen for Ireland, and likely to be followed with the most beneficial conse quences, he said that he was placed in the distressing situa tion of being obliged to give his vote against a motion which he was sure had been brought forward by his Noble Friend upon the moot enlightened and meritorious motives. At the same time, he should not be performing his duty in that conscientious spirit which he had hitherto endeavoured to evince in Parliament, if he did not say, that upon the present oc casion he thought his Noble Friend had not made out a case for. the production of these papers.--(Hear, hear !)—While he could stand there, neither as the advocate for the Irish Govern ment, nor the advocate of the Noble Marquis, he must confess, that from the matter already submitted to the House, and from what he knew of his own country, lie luinestly believed that no Government ought to capitulate in that part of the empire to any such body of men as that in question. If his Noble Friend should press his motion to a division, he should be compelled to vote against it, however sincerely he must regret the neces sity he felt himself under of taking such a course. Mr. PEEL really thought that the Hon. Member for Shrews. bury had drawn one of the most singular inferences that could possibly be deduced' from the last sentence of the speech of the Noble Lord. Because the Noble Lord, as it appeared; 'had not seen a document which had been adverted to, the Honour. able Gentlemen was pleased to suppose that no such thing ever existed.--(Hear, hear, hear !)—The Noble Lord at the head of the Government of Ireland had formed his judgment on this case upon the most impartial and deliberate view of the whole matter. To him (31r. Peel) that Noble personage appeared not only. to have been completely warranted in not interposing the prerogative of mercy in the case of Hughes, but he thought also, that the Noble Marquis would have been guilty of a gross violation of his duty if he had consented to enter into any amnesty to these deluded men, or to maintain any thing like a negociation with them. But after all that had been said about the papers which had been read, it might be exceedingly proper that the House should hear a little about one which had not been read ; and it was the more essential that that paper should be noticed, in order that no erroneous impression upon this subject might find its way 'abroad. He would only pre mise, that if in this case they were to call for statements made by the Counsel for offenders, not a man would be convicted in Ireland for the future without praying that the same course might be taken in his case—(lleat, hear!)--not a single conviction would be recorded without the preliminary step of that House's being called upon to examine the difFuse, garbled, and ex-party statements Caw such it must necessarily be) of the prisoner who lied been csndemned, and the unsuccessful Counsel who had defended him. Among the papers which had been brought under the consideration of the Marquis Welleeley was one from a Roman Catholic barrister, a gentleman named Luke Plunkett. Lord A LTHORP—" I have never seen it." Mr. PEEL.—The Noble Lord said he had never seen that letter; and ti-oubtless that was ample vindication for the Noble Lortrs not stating any thing about it to the House ; but it would be allowed that it was an equal vindication of his (Mr. Peel's) now bringing it to their notice. Mr. Luke Plunkett, under date of the 24th of February, stated, " that he had made it his business to see Hughes in gaol, after he had been con victed ; that he saw him in presence of the gaoler ; and that he undertook to hold out sonic hopes of mercy to hini on the part of Government, if lie would become the instrument of his asso ciates-giving up their arms; or, if not of giving , up their arm s, of inducing th e leaders to come forward."—(B e ar, hear .)—i n either of these cases Mr. Luke Plunkett, acting upon his own authority, had thought proper to hold out some :lopes of mercy. Why, what alternative did this proceeding hold out to the Noble Marquis, but to defend to the uttermost the ientence of the law and the province of Government, which an individual had thus undertaken the conditional exercise of? But the gen tleman, in another part of his letter, added—" as to Hughes, whatever might be his ultiMate fate, do at least endeavour to exert yourinfluence with the Marquis iVellesley, that he may be 'detained at Kilmainham, till the transports which are to convey the convicts can come round to Cork ; which I arri informed will not be the case till, &c." Niiw, when such an applicatiim was made, what did the Noble Marquis do ? What did lie know ? Why he knew that the imMediate execution of the sentence upon this man would do more good, and produce more effect than any other measure whatever, and he immedi a t e ly directed hisremoval from Kilmaingliani.—(Hear !)—Every body at all acquaint. ed with the state of Ireland must know, that the least appear. ance of vacillation on the part of the Government was productive always of infinite mischief. And in what case was it called for in this instance ?—on behalf of some miserable and deluded vic tim to the arts and practices of others ? No ; but of the man who had organized the proceedings of his associatee—who had been the orig inator of all these offences, and who h a d a t l as t come un der the hands ofjustice.—(lfear !)—And then the proposition to be matins, that an individual without any sort of authority what. ever, had undertaken to bold out hopes of mercy to him. Could it be doubted, under such circumstances, that. the Noble Mar quii was quite right in resisting every kind of attempt at what had been properly termed capitulation ? And what would have followed, supposing that Mr. Luke Plunkett's proposition had been adopted—what would have followed upon such a promise of surrendering arms, ma d e b y suc h a p ar ty ? Did not every body know what the arms would be ? From his own ex .perience he (Mr. Peel) could suggest, that they might turn out to be about eleven stocks of guns without barrels; or, it might be, eleven barrels without stocks.—(A laugh.) —Ile telt perfectly sure, that the arms to be delivered up would have been perfect 4 useless —as they always were in similar cases ; for they were generally such as had been kept for a long time ‘in some bog or some out-house.—(A laugh.) —But an other passageehatbe should proceed to read would completely sustain the statements of his Right lion. Friend. Mr. Luke Plunkett proceeded thus—" if Hughes should be saved, or if his punishment should be cominuted to imprisohment, I have no objection to accompany him to any part of the country where 1116 influence and presence can be useful to put down that dis cord which had so lately raised its hideous crest, (Rec."— (Laughter, and cries of " Hear!")—lfs put it to the House, whether it would have been endured that Mr. Hughes should i thus be elevated into the character of a negotiator between ; the Government of Ireland and these Ribantimen, and be permitted to travel half over the country, with 3lr. Luke Plunkett, preaching to the people the propriety of their giving up their arms ?—e(lleer, hear !)-'lee Noble Lord had read a paragraph from the cotnniunication of a Mr. Lubie, who was pleased to state, that these men " entertained no hos tile views against our most gracious Sovereign." No hostile views ! Why they were found in arms—they were arrayed against the peace of the country • and yet this Mr. Lubie, in the amiable simplicity of his heart--(a laugh)—could not imagine—not he—how it could be supposed that they enter tained designs of so dangerous a nature ; or why, after the marl had been put upon his trial and convicted, the Government would not be called upon to account for not having interposed, on such a case, the prerogative of mercy.—(Hear!)—upon the whole view of the case, he should certainly give the motion his most decided opposition. The gallery was then cleared for a division ; but was re opened after the lapse of a few minutes; and we were infornled that the motion had been negatived without a division. - IRISH LAW COURTS- • SIARTIN moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent !ssary Exp./flees in Actions at Law prOiecuted in Ire -Leave given. BEER AND MALT LAWS. Mr. MA BERTA', at the instance of the Chancellorof the. Exchequer, postponed until Monday, the motion of which he . had given 'notice on the Laws relating to Beer and Malt ; it being understood that therriotion should have precedence on that dry. _ , Mr. unnecf .. , : ..• ' ' GAME LAWS. Mr. S. 'Milt TLEY moved the xecond reading . of the Game . .Laws Amendment Bill. • Sir JOHN SHELLEY opposed the motion. There had,• he said, been no petition against the present Game Laws ; but if there had been, and the present Bill were to pass, lie still thought it would not; remove the evils which it sought to re medy. He doubted the practicability of allowing game to. be considered as property ; and he thought it unfair that a man: with a small quantity of laud should be allowed to destroy on that land more game than it could possibly produce. The lega lizing "the sale of game would dotio good, because the stealing poitcher would always undersell the fair tradesman. Had not England been raised to the highest pitch of glory with these laws ?—(Loud laughter.)—The repeal of them would remove the resident Gentry, and encourage only the poacher, the thief, and the attorney. He moved as an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. • Mr. YATES -PEEL seconded the amendment. He thought the Bill would do good to none but thieves and poachers. It would not diminish the coniniitments in re/trivet of game, except that those commitments would, in point of form, be for theft. His principal objection however was, that the Bill would tend to the destruction of that manly exercise, fox-hunting. Mr. LA WLE Y su pp orte d t h e Bill . Th e present gave disgust to the middling and lower classes ; and, as in the case of smuggling, the breach of them was scarcely considered a 'crime: The enforcing of the present law too was almost il'he Courts of Justice shewed a daily scene of contest between the Magistrate and the multitude. Juries were reluc tant to convict: on these laws, and Counsel generally sought; to obtain the acquittal of their accused clients by appeals to passions and feelings of the Juries. Such laws he considered as unwise, because they appeared unsuited to the temper and opinions of the people. He did not believe die present Bill would be the means of diminishing the quantity of game. In France there was an immense, supply; and yet there were there no laws like ours. In Scotland, too, where the sale of game was almost legal, the same remark might be made. He saw therefore no danger whatever in the repeal of the laws. • Mr. LOCKHA RT opposed the Bill. Under the lion. Gen. dernan's Bill few Ladies could appoint a gamekeeper ; for it provided that no one should have that power whose land was not of a certain extent, which went to exclude the majority of landholders, the whole of whose land, however extensive, did not lay contiguous. His gallantry, he thought, if not his love of equal justice, ought to have had a different effect upon him. He thought, too, that the power of apprehending persons with guns in their hands, as though they were felons, was too great. He would not believe the object of the Bill was the preserva. tion of game ; fiir under the present laws game he knew, within hie own recollection, hadincreased tenfold. He believed its object wits to put down poachers ; but why carry the ex clusion of sporting to such an extent ? In a popular sense this Bill could not be Well viewed, for it put invidious restrictions upon the inhabitants of towns, and was certainly calculated to set all the towns against all the surrounding population.— The details of the Bill inevitably involved them in many dif. ficultics and absurdities, out of which, he confessed, he saw no clear way. Ilow, for instance, were they to manage in the case of a large extent of laud, say two thousand acres in one field, but the separate property of several individuals ? What sort of sporting would there be here where it would be a tres pass for a man to step over the furrow belonging to.another ? This principle, therefore, of creating a property in game, was making a right which was useless. If th ey told him that the present laws led to crimes which had an extensive influence in demoralizing the people, then lie should understand the object of the repeal, and be ready to meet such an argument. But upon the principle'here puttforward he saw nothing that could induce him to give his support. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that so far as the Bill went to pro vide a remedy for the prohibition of the sale of game, so fertile a source of evil, he was prepared to give it his support.—(Hear, hear !)-I'le reserved to himself, however, the power of oppos. ing any other part of the Bill, or of amending any clauses, or introducing new ones. He did not see how it was possible to support the present system of qualifications to kill game._ They were told this was an attempt to interfere with vested rights ; but ,ite could not admit that a proposal to introduce fresh persons to the enjoyment of rights was to destroy them. An Hon. Friend of his called upom them to vest those rights in the band, ()frank, science, and property. So he (Mr. Secretary Peel) said, but the law said otherwise; for it gave to rank and property the right to procreate a title to kill game, but that was all. The eldest son might, although the father might not, pursue that right.—(Hear, hear !)—Thus then talent and rank were excluded from the exercise of the right, although ,their progeny, who might not inherit that union of talent and rank, might yet possess, he could not say inherit the faculty of killing genie. Again, the second son, it was 'notorious, killed game all over the kingdom, although prohibited by the law. He asked, then, whether it was a proper state of law to con tinue, wherein he, who was in the constant habit of violating the laW himself, was equally diligent in committing and pun. ishing others for the self-same offence ?—(Heaa, hear, hear !) —Upon these two cases, then, was it possible to realm. the proposition for amending the law relating to the qualifica. Lion for killing game? In Ireland, property of a thousand pounds'a-year gave this right, and in 'Scotland any oite might give perm/fission to shoot over his own grounds. The law of England then was different upon this point, from what prevailed in other It wet. of the empire. And with respect to the sale of game, he confessed that the more he turned his mind to that prohibition, wheth er w i t h regard to the interests of the game breeder, or what was a st ill higher consideration, with reference to tie interests o f Society, the more he perceived the necessity for altering that p art o f the law—Ulcer, hear !) What was the state• of society- which it create d ? I n former • times they had made an Union with Scotland, and since that an Union with Ireland had taken place. Thus they invited over here Irish Peers and others, and compelled them to re side here, without the power of posaessing or pursuing game. It was the case with foreign Ambassaffera, and he believed also Princes, if they did n ot h appen to possess property ; and what a state of law must that be which led them into such absurdities ? Was it not als o a positive evil to have upon their Statute Book laws which were daily,.. notoriously, and openly violated in every t aw a et in the kin g do m ? So ext e n s ive a breach of the laws. w" a had ex am pl e . A n d b y w h om was i t set ? By ch o se who r , ,fo rastl the very laws whi c h th e y v i o l a t e d ; and a viol a tion of winch they every day at six o'clock generally set a very good ors, nl P l e• In fact it was of it se lf goo d groun d for a repeal of all! ' 3 "/ that that practice and opinion had long voted them . uselsssa, That such was the east: no one could doubt who h a d I ) '_, a ny attention to the proceedings of the Committee which had e amilined into the matter. Ila was told ho gave that evidence were interested, I; :; e n el2 2 :ta l t , l a ' ivs, oath, would have made very dif_ ascertain how far this was true, he forest ennrddeenetd that s tl i i a it tn t van t d i: e e nt pitisee.r; onnae„seoltw ( t t u f n i s . u Secretarynder the called for returns ,of the convic tions in the kingdom. in four-or five of the principal • He had selected those known for their hospitality, nor had he confined the return to any-one particu lar period. In the first Place was Bristol; and he was sure he should be borne out by Man y wiio had passed through that town, in the statement that th ere was scarcely any town wliere game was inure openly disp osed of; indeed•it was made.a pub lic exhibition of. Here there was a good opportunity for seeing how the laws were enforced against the sale of game.' His answer was, that no person had been convicted for the last five. years of selling or purc h asing game. —(Ileac, hear !)—From Liverpool the same an "et was made by the Magistrate._ From Manchester, lie wa3 informed, that four convi c tion s an d occurred within the last four ye ars --three in 11121, and one in 1822, and that they were all for selling game. From Glasgow he was told, t‘ t h a t the Magistrates have not been called on to enforce these laws upon any °lle occasion," with an addition that these offences were generally dealt with in the country.—(A laugh.) This was natural enoughl for the offence in the country was poachin g , an d the offence hi the town was selling game.— But if for the last five years in these principal places there had been only four convictions, was it not folly to say that legal prohibition prevailed ? It appeared to him, under those cir cumstance., that to tell the heads of Corporations, as had been proposed, that they should not purchase game, was an absurdity which no penal laws could uphold in the present state of society. The question then was, whether they should' legalize the sale of game? It was true that at present it was pursued by poachers only for profit, and by all other classy*: for pleasure alone. But if they allowed those who preserved thousands and tens of thou sands to bring it to market, there could be no doubt that the poacher would be driven away. Ile had himself seen 1,000 pheasants in a room, of which the owner had no means of dis posing. Let them take the case of salmon or rabbits. Suppose the prohibition existed with regard to these articles, would it benefit the owners ? Was it not clear that the consequence would be to throw the whole. tratE 7. into the hands of the illegal taker of these animals ? An Honourable Baronet told them that if a man had wealth and wanted game, he might purchase land, and asked what' right any other person had to game. —Suppose any one holding such an argument were to be asked what right he had to salmon, not having the river in 'which it swam ; or what right lie could have to turtle, not pos. /tossing one of' the West India 'elands ?—(Hear hear, hear - I)._ They had an exampl e in th e case o f deer-stealing in favour of the proposed mode of legislation. That wai an offence very frequent half a century ago, hut a law being made to permit the sale of it, the market was instantly supplied by the real owner, to the discomfiture of the fraudulent purveyor. They were told that the neighbour of a game preserve would set wheat and decoy the property, which could not in justice be his. But this might already he done by any Freeholder. •And when they were asked whether it was just to allow of this, seduction of another main's property, he would answer that question by asking another, viz.—whether it was just for one man to retain, all the game, to the exclusion of another.-- (Hear, hear!)—'!'here was no doubt that this would in time end by the establishment of a mutual comnromise between the rich and poor in the shape of money. If he had thought the present laws good, he should be die last to consent to. any change in them ; but when he saw them infringed every day, he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to put down the sale of game. They had but two ways to meet the guess 'tion—either to increase the penalties, or do that which v.ai now proposed. The former had been already tried to its fullest extent, and the latter was therefore their only alternative. He was sorry that his Hon. Friend had gone so far in this Bill, for lie was no friend to sudden and violent changes in long established laws. He thought the Bill of last year better; but as this was the only one at present before the House, lie should give it his support.-.(Hear, hear !) M. R. COLBORit. E said he could never assent to the prin ciple upon which the author of this Bill proceeded in assuming that the legal owner of game could undersell the poacher. Ile did not think this could be done, and the House would think with him when they knew at what low rates game was sold by oachers in. the country where it was taken. It was supposed ' - a law of this nature would make the taking of game ap ' ear in the same light as 'the stealindof poultry. This, he tiMught. was erroneous ; fur he did not believe that there :vould be a turkey or a fowl in the market, any more than there wild be a - Pine-apple or a melon' ever reach Covent-garden if it were not for the stone walls which protected them. Mr. J. I3ENETT said, that he yielded to no man in his love 'for the - field sporti, yet he had no aversion to an alteration in the present Game Laws. They were the produce of a time when every landholder was a petty tyrant, and when there were no purchasers of game, because none with the means of purchasing. The only way to put down poaching, or any other crime, was to do .away with the motive. In the case of poach ing, this would be dune by enabling the game-owner to under sell the poacher. He thought this Bill the most perfect Bill that ever came into the House, and he had no doubt, when it came out of the Committee, there would be no objection to it. Lord MILTON gave his entire concurrence to the enact ments of this Bill which related to the legalizing the sale of game.. But the contrivances by which it was proposed to ae complish this object he objected. He saw no reason why this object might not be attained without changing the present state of the law affecting the property of gaMe. If the present owners of game were found oppressive, why multiply thenumber of such characters, which would be one of the effects of this Bill ? He could not believe it possible for any legislative enactment to invest wild animals with that feeling in the mind of mankind, which would lead them to attach the same turpitude to the steal. ing of game, as was at present attached to the theft of a sheep or a turnip. lie wished to get rid of' all systems upon this topic ; but he objected to the details of this Bill, and although he was friendly to some of its enactments, he should not, upon the whole give it him support. Sir M. NV. RIDLEY supported the Bill. The inducement would be taken away from poaching if they enabled the mar kets to be tilled more plentifully and cheaply from other quar ters. In the same way they found the inducement to smuggling removed by lowering the duty on the article of stich'fraudulent, commerce. The Gam e L aws were unpopular with all classes' —the producer, the consumer, and the poacher. The present system being the worst.that could possibly be, this Bill could not but be viewed as an amendment ; as such it would have his best support, and he hoped it would receive.a large majority in its favour. Mr. S. WORTLEY replied. He admitted with an Hon. Friend of his who had spoken in the debate, that there was now in the country a greater quantity of game than ever there was before. But his quarrel with the Game Laws was, that this abundance of game wits a curse upon the country.---( Hear!) —lie was a game breeder, but he assured the House that the preservation of it was a curse upon him. A fatal accident had occurred upon his own grounds, wherein an honourable and gallant fellow his game-keeper lost his life in the discharge of this painful duty, and he assured them that his feelings, should lie happen to awake from his sleep upon a tine moonlight night, by its association with this melancholy circumstance, were , not enviable. He wished to make the preservation of game easy and respectable in the eyes of all the world, and he WAS convinced it was practicable. As to the difficulty of making wild animals which .ould not be identified, property, he referred to the state of the law with respect to pigeons and Wild ducks, to show that it could be done. Ile should keep his mind open to any suggestions for the improvement of th measure. The House then divided— Ayes Noes 31ajority 01 JUDGES IN WALES 811 I Mr. JONES moved the second reading of the Judges in 'Waifs Hill. :Mr. ALLEN opposed the second reading. He observed, that jdtifiet:lintervals which occurred the greater were the number of Judges, the greater was the were employed as Cou n probability that they would be l esszonversant in their duties. s T el h l e or b s i , ll between their circuits ; but it was his opinion, that if they were abstracted from all professional pursuits, they would become unfit fur the discharge of their duties, and thus a much greater aud noticed n ust other e a r defect , ways that during evil would arise. lie thought that plan might be suggested. which would meet the dif fi culties alluded -to m the report of th e Committee of 1320 and 1821 ; and, at the same time, not call on the greater , part of the community for any further sacrifices.; He would p ro pose that the Courts of Westminster Hall should, be thrown open to the principality of Wales, as they were to' the ot her parts of the nation, and th at a ll j udgments passed in' I=apelity. • • s hould be subj ect to a similar '7 . 3vision ; and ; lie would propose to get rid of the vagrant Courts of Chancery,. which were of no use whatever .except fur' injunctions and discoveries. Mr. JONES observed, that if the Hon. ',Member would read: the Bill with attention, he 'would find that all the evils of which' lie complained, were proposed to be remedied by it. Mr. AL LE explained, Sir C. COLE thought, as representing an extensive Welsh County, that lie should not be doing his duty if he suffered the diScussioa on this Hill to pass without expressing.his full con viction that the Welsh Judges had no right to seats in that liouse. Ile wished to see the system of judicature conducted in Wales on the same principle as it was in England ; and lie considered that the same feelings of jealousy and independeuce that excluded English Judges from seats in that House, should operate to the exclusion of Welsh Judges. Mr. IVYNN stated that he was as desirous as any man of assimilating the judicature of the two countries ; but he felt , that there were obstacles i n t h e way o f thi s w hi c h were almost., insurmountable. He had himself known, in three counties on: the Welsh Circuit, where there was not a single cause; but still he was anxious that the Bill should proceed to a Coin tnittee. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared— , For the Second Reading Yor,the Amendment Majority - —23 The Bill was .then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday next. MUTINY BILL. • Mr. SYKES rose on the Order of the Day for receiving the :Report of the Mutiny Bill, and objected to the practice of flog . ging in the army. Nothing kept men from going into the army so much as the dread of flogging. The Hon. Member stated that three or four years ago a Court Martial sac upon a soldier, charged with stealing some plate in the capacity of a reo - servant. Ile was sentenced to 400 lashes. The regi ment marched after the man had been punished, and heti'. Towed in a•waggon, but in consequence of the excess of pu. nishment the luau died. A Coroner's Jury sat on the body, and found a verdict of" Murder against persons unknown."-- From that time no steps had been taken to bring the murderers to justice. The lion. Member mentioned tins to prove that loss of lifehail been occasioned by the practice of flogging:. Colonel DAWKINS had understood the lion. Member for Aberdeen to say, corporal punishment had been executed in the Foot Guards. As an officer of that regiment, he considered himself called upon to deny the statement. The fact was, the practice of corporal punishment had been discontinued in the Guards. Every soldier expressed gratitude to the Commander in Chief for havinglimited corporal punishment ; but that punishment, limited as it had been, was necessary for the wel fare of the service. He had read the statement made by the lion. Member, and sensible of its inaccuracy must declare that corporal punishment in the Guards had not been resorted to. Mr. HUME said the observations made by the Gallant Officer did not apply to him, as he did not, when the Bill was discussed on a previous night, allude to the Foot Guards. The lion. Member mentioned a Norning Paper lie was in the habit of reading, and remarked that the Foot Guards were not men tioned in the report of his speech.—(Cry of Order.) Sir HENRY HARDIN GE adverted to the statement made by the Honourable. Member respecting the beating of drums at the Barracks during a supposed punishment. He had declared that no drums were beaten at the Barracks. The Honourable Meinber had received false information from some military informer. It had been said that the pay of soldiers punished by confineiner;t went to the military stock purse. He was able to say there was no truth in • that statement. Unless some better mode of keeping soldiers in order could be found, he for one would not consent to give up corporal punishment. Mr. J. SMITH repeated the argument he used on a former night against flogging, and contended it ought to be abolished. In France thirty millions of people were governed without the lash. The only bodily torture known in France was a brand on the shoulder, which, he believed, was made witk a liquid, and disregarded. A Noble Lord had said, soldiers taken from the manufacturing, classes required the discipline of flogging more than soldiers taken from agricultural population. It was known that great improvement had taken place among the manufacturing classes, and he considered they were the last persons to require corporal punishment. Hr. G. BENNET had no doubt of the accuracy of: the statement made by the Hon. Member fur IVestminster respect ing the beating of drums. Colonel TOWNSEND said it was most extraordinary that persons could not hear a drum beat in barracks without con cluding it was for punishment. Colonel HARD,INGE said no drum was beaten. Mr. R..MARTIN explained the grounds on which he gave a vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen for doing away cOrporal punishment. It was better to leave the subject to the Commander in Chief, upon whose humanity the House and the country could rely. • Lord PALMERSTON having given his opinion on the question at a former discussion, was unwilling to detain the House. He should only say a few words respecting the French Army. 'J'he puniShment in the French army was described to be less sev ere —b at w t iat was the state of its discipline ?At the end of the Peninsula war, the French soldiers were a terror to their own countrymen. On their retreat from the Pyrenees,_ before th e B r iti s h t roops , t h ey committed plunder and grea t excesses. They were in tact an undisciplined army, whilst the English army, on the contrary, was allowed to be in ago"" state of discipline. Mr. OBHOUSE explained what he had said with respeet to the beating of drums in the barracks. On the general squeS tion he was ready to admit that the English army had the advantage of the French in discipline; but it was not fair to suppose a retreating army could preserve good discipline. i n ° pursuing ar m y wou ld a l ways h ave the advantage in disciplin! j • Sir ALEXANDER HOPE was not prepared to saylinlit' corporal Punishment in the army could be dispensed with. The report was then received, anti the Bill ordered be read a third time on Monday. Mr. GOULBURN obtained leave to bring in a Bill to regu late the appli ca ti on o f mon i es vested in IrishClovernment'secu rities, pursuant to the 56th George 111. The other . Orders of the Day were read, and the House l' a " joarned at Half-past Twelve o'Clock. LIST OF THE MINORITY Who Toted against the second reading of the Bill to contin ue the System of Welsh Judicature. Althorp, Visct. Kennedy, T. F. Sniith, Robt. Bennet, Hon. H. G. Lennard, T. B. Webb, Col. , Buxton, T. F. Lamb, Hon. G. Whitmore, W. Crompton, S. Monek, J. B. Evans, William Russell, Ld. J. . TILLERS. Grattan, J. Rice, 'l'. S. Allen, J. H. • - Hobhouse, J. C. Sykes, D. Hume, J. James, W. Smith, J. PARLIAMENTARY. PROCEEDINGS. MOUSE OF COMMONS. Jo: s, die Martii, 1824. Roans—Alston and Burtryford—Bill read a first time. GI O J' gow and Portpatrick—Bill ordered to be brought in. Rad" nor and Hereford—Re -committed Report on Petition fo r , Bill reported, R e p ort to li e on the table. Worcester an d Bromsgrore, and Wetherby and Knaresborough—llill reads a third time, and passed. llAREET—l'sfaidstone Petitions f o r l eave to present Petition s HosPyrat —Bethlem / for Bills referred to Committees. Cat u acst—Oldharn Gas LtonT—Kennington Bills read a first time. PAYlNG—Gray's-inn -lane FLEET MARKET 1 Petitions for. Bills reported, Be - IlatnoE—llammersmith j ports to lie on th e ta b le. NAVIGAT toN —M e d way— Bill ordered to he brought in. Woot—Petitions of Merchants, &c. of 'Leicester, and Dor' ?tam, against alteration of the Laws which prevent the portation of British Wool ; to lie on the table. COMBINATION OF WOIAMEN LAWS—Petitions ofjourner men Boot-makers, &a. of Loughborough, Derby, and GlOO - against, to lie on the table. SlLx—Petitions of Silk Throwaters, &c. of Taunton, Ketter ing, Burton Latimer, _and Robert Jackman, of Collard , against the importation of. manufactured Silk; to lie on the table. PUBL Ica rts— Petitions of Licensed Innkeepers and Vietttaller° of Brixton,lltochester, Chatham, Stroud, Maceltshe]d, field, and th e W ar d s o f Vintry, Eovrgate, Candlewick,Wak brook, -and Queenhithe, for th e repea l of the increased Mae, on Licen ces ; to fie on the table. POOR—Hull —Petition front parishes of Holy Trinity and St' Mary, against, referred' to the Committee on the Bill. FREEMASONS —Petition of Freemasons of Limerick, complilia; ing of Act of last Session, which prohibits the meetings 0 ' certain Societies ; to lie on the table. SHALL DEBTS—Petition of Inhabitants of Cambridge, in fa your of an Act ' • to lie on th e t a bl e . Coat Thrrlns--Petitions against the Duties on Coals, fu° Cambridge, and Newcastle-upon -Tyn e — to li e on the table- Foust row WINN S—Petition of Merchants, &c. of Norwich, for a reduction of the Duties thereon ; to lie on the table, and to be printed. Petition of James Warre referred to the Se lect Committee on-Foreign Trade. MARINE Mir TINY—Bill reported, to be read it third time to. morrow (this day). WEIGHTS AND MEASURES—BiII reported to be read a thir 4 time on Mond a y. , -FrertnitrEs (Scotland)_ petition of 3 lagistrates of irrinc, tot the regulation of the Laws applicable to the Salmon Fish eries, to lie on the table. Law Ex PENCES (Ireland)—Bill to prevent unneceesari:"- pences ordered to be brought in. GAYS AXENDAIENT—BiII read a second time, and committed for Tuesday. JUDGIES IN, WALES —Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday. • SILK 11017>TTIEg ACTS—The following Resolutions reported and agreed to Instruction to Gentlemen appointed to brine: in Customs Duties. Bill to make provision accordingly : " That one half of the Bounties on the Exportation of Silk Manufactures shall be allowed on all such Manufactures as, having been warehoused, shall be taken out for home constitut ion within thirty days after the sth day of April 1824." • ORDERS OF THE DAY FOR THIS DAY. 1. Juries (Scotland) Bill—Second Reading, 2. County Courts.Bill—Coinmittee. 3. Clergy Residence (Ireland) Bill.—Further consideration of Report. • , • 4. Usury Laws Repeal Bill—Committee. 5. County Gaols Bill—Further consideration of Report. 6. 'Ways and M eans_Committee. . 7. Suptdy--Committee. 8. Marine Mutiny Bill--:Third Reading. 4. Exchequer Court (Ireland) Bill—Committee: • 10. Annual Duties Bill—Committee. 11. Four per Cents. Bill —Third Reading. 12. Gaol Act Amendment Bill—Further consideration of Re' port. 13. Cattle' 111-treatMent Bill—Committee. NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR THIS DAY. 1. Sir Henry Parnell—Copy of a Memorial of. Thomas Wil liams to the Treasury, ,respecting their Order of 4th No vember 1023, for regulating Entries of Goods imported into Ireland from Great Britain. 2. Mr. Banker—Annual Museum Estimates. (In Committee of Supply.) . . 3. Mr. L us hi n gton—Civil Contingencies' Commissa r i a t, A r m/ Extraordinaries, and MiscellaneOu s nl Estimates.. (I n Co in it,tee of Supply). 4. Mr. Goulburn—lrish Miscellaneous Estimates. (In tom' mittee of Supply.) 5. Lord Viscount Palmerston—Vote for Disembodied Militia. (In Committee of Supply.) 6. Mr. Goulburn--Bill to amend'Act 57 Geo. 3, c. so far as relates to the Commissioners of Board of Works, Ireland. NOTICES GIVEN YESTERDAY. Monday, March 13. I. Mr. Maberly—Motion on the Laws relating to Beer a nd Malt. (Deferred from March 12.) 2. M r. Grey Bennet—Clause in Welch Judicature Bill, to pre. vent Welch Judges sitting in Parliament. • Tuesday, March 16. Mr. Atiorney-Generai—Compensation to Officers of Courts of Justice, for their losses in consequence of the County Courts Bill. Wednesday, March 24. 31r. Kennedy —Select Committee, to ingnire into the Laws relating to the Salmon Fishery in Scotland. Thitraday, April 8. Mr. Hume --Select Committee on the practice of impressing Seamen. (Deferred from March W.; PRIVATE RILLS—SECOND READINGS for THIS DAIr• I. Whitepatish Road I R. Stafford and S an d on R oa d 2. Span Smithy R oa d I C. 3lonkland and Kirkintil 3. Sandon and Bullock SMithy loch Railway Road 7. Iltilme Improvement 4. Stone and Stafford Road 8. Lancaster Judges Lodgings THE ARMY. Ilis Majesty's warrant for authorising the recruiting for the 97th, 98th, and 99th regiments of Infantry, will not, it is Uri' derstm)d, be issued till the 25th instant. Detachments will march on Saturday next from the recruit:: ing department in Westminster for Portsmouth and the isle ° I Wight. A'detachment will march also on Saturday morning nexif" n Westminster for Bristol, tier the purpOle of embarking there for Ireland. A division of the 58th (llutlandshire) regiment of Foot sti ll remains at Portsmouth. This division on the arrival of the Zephyr transport, embark forthwith for Cork. The oompany of the 75th regiment of Infantry which recently arrived at Portsmouth from - Gibraltar, has received orders to march on the lath inst. from Gosport for Windsor, where it will arrive on the 20th inst.