The Sun. — London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

as sessed by co mpe t ent survevers at 1291. 1 Is.—( Hear. ) Ile then read an extract of a spec.•ll deliveretl at a mssitines of the Waltham Assoaiation, by Mr. Beaz'ey, a farmer, who had formerly been ranch praised by the Dul.e of if 'eland for his preellent manage:: eta. He said that in one field he saw 82 hares, and th at t h e oust of feeding them was equal to the coat id feeding 23 sheep.—( Loud sries of " Oh, oh, ' from the Con servative benchea.) Mr. Ileazley further said that he would n pot keep all th ose h ares for any landlord in the world.— ear, hear.) H e ( Mr. Bright - )seas not an owner of land uel'ond what was necessar • to give him a county qualification. 17(Torit cheers.) Neither was he a farmer; and, therefore, iwoo d not venture to discuss abstruse questions connected touitb, a grieniture.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear . ," and g ul ere) But he would give them authority for his facts. blfrithey Would grant him the Committee he should be able to nit! proof which no man could dispute, and which would `°rlyince the Committee and the House that facts more lunyextra had than these were indisputably true. Another case he ha submit to the House was from the county of Bucking thn:shire, and it was really deplorable that in many parts of c ( nolty there was such a waste of the produce by the game. 11e statement was flora a speech before the magistrates at . 414 er-session,. held at Buckingham or Aylesbury, delivered al Sir Harry Terney. He was not a roan to use ex geerated g i usge, and he said that those who held lands where game bo as t II great abundance, and the temptation to poaching e'suld .the be resisted, had special reason to complain of d is e t operation of tone- game-laws. There Were some r ietS in which fourth of • the crops were de te% o y e d by game. Nor was this all of which the farmer i o n iPlained, for besides the loss of his crops, he had to pay p ait ere aled county-rates, for the expense of maintaining the to her Wife and family while he was in gaol. In a memorial so Maiesty's Government it was stated that out of 593 pri _ .tetrs in the county gaol, 169, or nearly one-t hit d, were corn red f or offences connected with the game-laws. These in e in e only cases which he proposed to submit to the Ilonse thelnexion with this branch of the subject ; but he assured het o nse that h e hail a vast number of letters containing h e t: ° f a simil ar ki n d, which he was almost afraid to lay world t he House lest he should be disbelieved. Ile knew it : d be asserted that the landowners had a right to keep - " e u thei r land. He did not deny their right, nor did pr - G W "n tO inteifere in the smallest degree with the rights ot th -P i n• Whatever injury was done in particular cases by il4 - : a g," of game, he thought it probable that greater in let;i„,",°ll'd be done if the Legislature were directly and abso lso4`° infringe the rights of property, either of the land that orof any other class of the community. But he thought r ights would be admitted that there ought to be limits to the o f to cur.: Property, and it was not proper that . any . man should riely t hh o 'Se those rights as to bring a grievous injury on his lance t os Ur t and on the community. By the common law, nue. raer n b e w,. °,,bl be put down. Besides, the landlords ought to re lauds. t hat they did not keep their game on their own had this it tenant-farmer, who had spoken at Aylesbury, at rase °g. to which he (Mr. Bright) had been invited. thei t i . L "ltilat he would be glad if the landowners would keep neiehi! w il.game, but the fact was, the game was kept by the eat: he outing occupiers. The Hampshire farmer,. to whose ga s , t ,bad already alluded, had told him that his landlord to i e Ttl : Permission to kill rabbits, that he had no objection Pre s - ,.:Ting hares, but that a gentleman in the next estate fanin ' e l. e s u game, and that game it was that destroyed his (the Co u l d i s) Produce. He had to pay 41. for a licence before he teoti destr oy t hi s game, and t h en i t too k up hi s t i me an d at ms, e n , and after all he could not prevent this game from histithig on him serious injury. It was not oth 'me ntion to introduce into this discussion any theier debateable matter, but it should be remembered do t the landowners had taken upon themselves the of • wo u n d Providing food for the people of this country. He Itton o not stop to inquire whether that system was right or th e g , but it was upheld by the House. They had constituted Osen4elves the purveyors-general of her Majesty's subjects of to:ratt Britain and Ireland, and if a large portion of ths people of hP l ained that they were ill-fed, in consequence of the failure rented vests, they h a d a r i g ht t o com pl a i n , w h en they were pre fr"rn going to other sources for their food, that the thei_ed proprietors should keep large quantities of game for d ud ; amusement, by which a considerable portion of the pro was destroyed, and the evils of scarcity considerably trigortavat It might be said that the farmer had made a con act with the l an dl or d , an d t h at h e must stan d b y hi s b arga i n . agreed that the farmer did make a contract, but every landed ttei P o r ,; et° ' must be aware that the competition for land was so C' and so merciless, that the farmer was not k it .condition to make a fair bargain.—( Hear, hear. ) age if tile farmers did make a contract of this sort, and l ae r that they would out kill game, why, how would the . te en ° rd know whether he did or not ? For he could easily ith e :g e l to keep up t h e quant it y o f game th a t was on the farm ie took it. On this ground, then, he (Mr. Bright) the ai ru ntend that he had strong He r had heard complaints of appeal to several di:f `4entbers of that House. tr ar ruers, even since this session had commenced, of the %s i g n et s of the farmers, and he believed there was a notice of a ev er ; ll °Pon that subject before the House, and he applauded the 4, 8t1 e1l Measure that had for its object the amelioration of ittog a ' ° o ngs and sufferings of the people ; but he would ask the . Ifte at _ r "s in this Hous e was it not possible for them to give a ;lo ts ' , a , r nagnificent relief to the farmers, by giving up a por ,kr,„4.` ,least some portion of this absurd law, and make each lif e - t ile sole owner of every living thing on his farm.— keplar, hear.) He had conversed with very intelligent far , fron t o fr ° ll l Lincolnshire on this subject.—(" Hear, hear," tteeetvs'iloriel Sibthorp)—and there were no farmers from that Zar,4 w ho were not intelligent—(Renewed cries of " Hear, . 4 t f f rom Colonel Sibtherp, and laughter)—and the ' f from . had assured him that the abolition of Of a.alue-laws would compensate many farmers for the removal f lvta,,„P r °teetion on corn. He had heard the same from other Els e and therefore he would say that the landlords ought to e f o _th - Lnitleh of the enjoyment of the chase, for the advantage van e r'ur--( Hear, hear.) He would now pass to another tls te ti f the sub'ect ' and call attention to the position of that t ad : f „. f armei: j s who held what had been called allotments ; tl f tli et ris point he felt assured he should have the sympathy . m tlis On. Members for Dorset and Hereford, if they were in ;‘°. be e He He had himself counted sixty rabbit holes which You - r ecently made by young rabbits learning to excavate, etpeet!ig rabbits do.—( Great laughter.) He had sow . n peas, t il tres o „ l . °l l, a few dinners of green ones and bacon during the had a `'' but he had only had a gallon where he should have ti f le at i t i sbel. This was all done by the game. He tried bits tre e , °ear his own house, and thought to grow turnips and °as ( L "blit all went to the rabbits.—(Laughter.) This land tt li t i° l l - f 4 s l a . l ,Of Colonel Wyndham, of Petworth, and the game es'e(lll his estate and the estates of two other gentlemen. t• hat I I bright) had taken great pains to ascertain the truth, ue might y a fair statement before the House. In tt kle 4 „ l.st s Where a- there five allotments, likewise great ‘44 h ad been done, though not t o a g rant 1 4 4 to but in most cases they were afraid to say ▪ .Or f e Another case from Suffolk oto d ar . of offending. -eottn Mention, in which great damage had been done to „ el t ela t enl o s• From a respectable farmer in the neighbourhood n e he had received a letter, which stated that a poor man, h t .R, :e t " of Bruce had twenty shillings' worth of da- I L l iro a a -tle to his barley ' by hares and rabbits ; and this twenty t:gli - t tr as more than he could earn in two weeks, even lor talk had been constantly employed. Another case—a ote' Who had a worse crop, in the same neighbourhood, ,7,0 an ted, to sow his crop three times over, having been - `'neri - "Y the pheasants as soon as sown. And what re titt,ct, after the damage done by the hares and rabbits was %l en s e ,- s 4 a knife in the harvest time, there not being a suffi , mess.'„ l4 stem to • •Ide He asked, in all earnest ttet_ 'seat the . employ a sickle. ti aa rnie tto 1 ° Right lion. important. an would attend to these C ourt ' being very There were parties in - "t"considered I 11 t t was a e a o ne Y who that tie ot men system o t i traf ten ; He was of opinion that it would be a great . en- Oro- ~etit to the agricultural labourer to have a nice bit ti.7 1 `411,..' , attached to his house. There was no doubt that in a % e t_ • of view it was a orth half . o . f . the police of the dis- Oer y t ule very landowners should, it it were possible, give 4 4 end ottage as much land as would supply a little amuse at his f a , n e TPloyment, and enable him to provide a few things °useo -4 1. Now the case he was about to put would be h t , °tuterstood by the House. A labourer got up two khas fOre h• Is. o ts usual time—at sunrise—he worked with glad -In4 to P.rtt en his little bit of land. He sowed his crop, mere til t be g e t a Profitable return from it. During the day it th t wife . ko a his and children were weeding and planting e k ao d there, as far as was consistent with their strength p Pear ; and then, when the sowing was beginning to t ' o ule oluaye ground, the game from some landed proprietor— fratultry,44 w ho, standing on the highest eminence in the to nt h is coUld not see to the extent of his land—the game eo ttred th estate, came into the poor man's garden, and . de- ICJ th e Produce of his labour. He (Mr. Bright) did not f , e e l ings of any man, who, conscious . tha d t r o b data winch ministered only to his sport, com d mitte Ittts : t g e as blasted the hopes and . destroy , e the ish o • ) the honest labourer.—(Loud cries of ‘. Hear, epc, e rer But there was another consideration respecting the h t ! t e th e i„All farmers were agreed, and landowners who der °o of ' honest sentiments were of opinion that the preser ip Was most injurious to agricultural pursuits,. and • f t , sat enoPreVented the due cultivation of land. In Ruislip, lAin th e a petition had been got up, and signed by every IA "c parish Afa f a rmer there told him that in that t. 4 t eun • r e taming 7,000 acres of land, there were not 1 4 4 gr eet 400 labourers employed ; the game was preserved . ter epoi extent there, and he had suffered severely from it Years back. From this and several other statements o ri gin) was led to this conclusion, that where the s a d ifth "gldlY preserved, there could not be good farming seat, e ago - p s i le ere not good farming, there could not be a rea antor i ie nt of employment If he were a landed pro aalloend hi s rr i e uld feel proud to s ' ee the labourers growing up t4 at . "'le. Nothing he would be so anxious to ad thl,74 r give them greater employment and ohipleal ernaneration—(Hear, hear)—or increasing . their tollLailtleaalsl."ainttinermt'' and laying that foundation without Pts at moral or literary education would fr u ."' io 5,, - .O u ( Hear, hear.) Let them recollect what had taken ti t "Ory lk last year—in Wales sometime ago—what a re attend. ' l o t Periodically spread throughout all the counties of k r ' hol t , 'Jstice to all owners of property, and common th e b i ded forc him to tell the House that a remedy must be bthi gou t , touch a state of things. He asked the attention of tie:Abe ht condition of the labourer, end to the mode in ~ttghi a d i i. been treated by the administration of the law. Ilie - t .,fee - te ".. ° T Gentleman at the close of the last ses . sion . of ass ist s op o , .!Ipressed his desire to mitigate the hardships in , th e wad , ent ur th a nY persons by the operation of the game . Acts ; t 'lles t e kt llists etp r° °,gb the country expressions of his opinion that 1 / 1 11,1',atio 'would administer the law with a little more *lo ot he wools More lenient spirit. He had a case or two ) 14 had state to the House as samples of the oppression Se 4 Pdred roil practised and he could as easily have brought fo r e eh caa.a as one. One ease took place at the Petty o s re as 4 , 41 1 b y . d - t"IN 4 r. s ah n esta-Zouch, in the county of Leicester, kts t in th e eY and Mr. Chafnell Manning. The case oc et °f the 2of March, 1844, before that court. The whole 1 44. ° alt et .Ve had been represented to the Home Secretary, V i r?, had be en made in the punishment of the )e h' th e or °LIM Edwards, John Edwards, and James ' li te or age, X er two being brothers, one of them only eleven ties f the of Worthington were charoed be John Peters, tarsi! eatehi r°e- keeper s to ' Earl of Ferrers, with using a rsteh' who , i b T game without having a game certificate. The tasio,,,°f , the c onded had not been arrested until the 17th. I "itts "S im • fined 5/ and. costs, and, in default, to three s Prtse ntae _ t • ea 6 . ano e „ n and hard labour. They were then charged m ot . I. e nd 'fence (the offence took place on Sunday) and t•l4' eti lt, Sze • e s . 'ge t ' .et •, default of payment to three months' -est %eh h ard labour. Wm. and John Edwards were IA A hd. • tl e,p ossi . c i in d efault passing in search for _game,.and fined 40s. and ,ass ealt Ed war 4to two months' imprisonment and hard detail o° s and John Finch were then charged with 'at e of . „ a _ s, the gamekeeper, and fined 51. each, and look t e ! w4 l -.Tellt, two months' imprisonment. Here was to le. or ., ° Men had been convicted of an overwhelm hrti C Ouditi o would imagine that the magistrate would itac,e,. s , a nd o _ ° of . life and the degree of intelligence of 4 .4 t doi„„ProPortion the punishment accordingly. But te _o . g eat o of , i i t , the very worst peoalties of the law, the s enattments, e ere carried into effect, and o g ! il iete,r l ten ith th inonths' ten h 05e oof r i mprisonment and hard labour were i ts %th e f et, i a se ortnnate men for going out on a Sunday Ise it t, the of Pine. Another case, one which lo : thoo a d g b een e remembranceof most Hon. Members from k Pla te it was l ' ut ao Prominently forward in the neigh 'belt in le the , ease of . a man . named Hibburn, which to eo "eli w er of tj'hueckniognamshire, in September last. ;he b e Zt th e zui are h ee : G. Cietwoode saw him at the snare; to t ., Sna re Ut it did not appear that there was any proof "Le h it wa s has' th e m found at all. The gamekeeper said he •" had 'Un ba r nrst !affence gone man cried bitterly ; cogr children, an infant; nine of had fourteen in all. He further stated c THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 2B 1845. that he had only had ten days' wore within the last month— that he was in great distress, and that his children had not a bit of bread to eat. Mr. Stone, the magistrate, a most ap propriate name, for it rev :red a heart of stone to take the course which that gentleman took in this case ; he said the prisoner was liable to three months' imprisonment and hard labour, but as this was the first offence—what extraordinary views some men take of misery !—he would sentence him only to six weeks' imprisonment and hard labour, and to find sureties, himself in ten pounds, and two others in 51. each, and in default thereof to be further imprisoned, with hard - labour, for six months. He presumed this gentle inan was still a magistrate, but he asked the I-louse to observe, that here was a man who said that he had got only ten days' work for the last month, his children had not a bit of bread to eat, and yet a man sitting on the bench to distribute justice, under the constitution of this country, sentences him, not only to three months' imprisonment and held labour, but orders him to find sureties likewise—a man who had not constant work, and when he had, did not earn more than 7s. or Bs. a-week, ordered to find sureties !—( Hear, hear.) What most be the opinion of the public on this case? Why, every newspaper, of whatever politics, took it up and denounced it as one of the most fl igrent instances of cruelty that had ever been inflicted by a court ofj ustice. But there werea multitude of such cases. The sympathy of the country was so much enlisted in this cass! that money was sent from all parts of the country. A five-pound note was sent in a letter, the tine was paid, and the man was liberated. He ( Mr. Bright) hoped that some of this poor man's friends took care to remove him from a district in which he had suffered this punishment, and conducted him to some honest district where justice for an offence against the game laws was not dispensed by a bench which had invariably shown the interest which it felt in the preservation of came. —( Hear, hear.) If either of these cases of Hibburn or of Ashby-de• la-Zouch came before a jur y , what would be the consequence? One of the principles of t he Constitution was, net only that a man was to be tried by a jury, but he was to be tried by his Peers. Agricultural or manufacturing labourers were not often on juries, nor did they often have a jury of Peers, but in this case they had not even a jury of disinterested persons. But it came before a bench who entertained strong feelings in favour of the preservation of game. When the Right Honourable Baronet brought forward his Pill last session for the regulation of fucteries, he took care to intro duce a clause to prevent the owns rs of factories from sitting on the bench when factory cases were to be disposed of.—( Hear, hear.) And why should a different principle be applied to the owners of mills and to the owners of land? Why should they consent to a different system from that which was practised in reference to millowners in Lancashire, Yorkshire, or any other county ? Those poor men when brought before the bench had neither counsel nor attorney. It might be said the law empowered them to obtain such aid? But where was the money to come from? Virtually they were excluded from such assistance. So here was a poor labourer dragged before a bench of magistrates, eho were enthusiastic in the preserva tion of game, without any assistance whatever, and fined and imprisoned as these magistrates thought fit. Yet this was called law and justice in this country. He did not blame the magistrates so much as the law itself. He supposed if there were magistrates at all, they must execute the law. But he thought those who acted in the manner described, if they were not men of very little feeling, would join with him in his en deavour to abolish, or at least modify, these cruel laws, so that the feelings of the community might not be outraged by the re currence of such cases.—( Hear, hear.) In considering the amount of criminality which attached to a labourer's infringe ment of the game-laws, some consideration ought to be made with respect to the amount of temptation which was pre sented to him.—( Hear, hear.) They hail an authority altogether indisputable that temptation in some districts was more than flesh and blood could stand. It had been stated be fore a Committee, cf which the Hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) was a Member, that agricultural poachers were more successful because they began early; the boy of twelve years of age sets snares with his father. He had received a letter from Huntingdon on this subject, in which it was stated that the shepherd boys, when they left their work at twilight, seeing hares running about in all directions, were so much tempted that they could not resist the temptation; and the writer further stated that poaching was more injurious to boy ; than public-houses.—( Hear.) They were brought up in a manner so as not to believe that any moral guilt attached to an infringement of the game-laws. He hoped Hon. Members had read the 9th Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, and they would there find the strong language which Mr. Williams used on this subject. The substance of what he stated was, that with most other offenders there was some hope of reformation by prison discipline, but that those confined for poach ing were very seldom reclaimed.—( Hear, hear.) He held in his hand also the testimony of chaplains who attended prisoners, and they stated that argument, admonition, entreaty, were all alike unavailing, in trying to induce those prisoners to admit that they felt they had committed any moral offence ; and they add that there was more sympathy for those people than any other class of offenders. Their invariable answer was, that the law was oppressive, and that they hail as good a right as others to those hares. In the report of the year 1823 on this subject, Stafford, the Bow-street officer, stated, in answer to questions put to him, that it appeared to him that those who were taken for offences against the game-laws did not at all conceive that they had taken any portion of the property of another; and Mr. Hunt, afterwards a Member of that House, said that the large quantity of game in the country was too strong a temptation to the people to resist, and that they did not conceive they had taken anybody's property.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Benett, the Member ter Wiltshire, in his an. swer, stated that neither in the lower order, in the class a little higher, nor in the occupiers, was it deemed any disgrace to be punished for an offence against the game-laws. Hon. Members might say that all this arose from a confused idea as to the right of property; but he ( Mr. Bright) would contend that the right of parties to game was not at all so distinct as might be imagined ; if it were, it was very odd that that. House should pass a law to prevent the sale of game ; and it was the only description of property against the sale of which any law had ever been passed. If game were property, it should not be forgotten that it could not be identified or impounded if found straying like a pig or other animal. But notwithstanding that, if a man were caught with a hare or a rabbit in his hand, or even a piece of copper wire and a string, or taking a gun from a smith's shop across a field, he was sure to be imprisoned and otherwise punished. A man might meet a hare crossing the wood and kill it ; but this Horse had hedged round these animals with so many laws that the man was liable to be punished very severely. To so great an extent had poaching been encouraged by those laws, that in a place in Suffolk there was a poacher who was said to be carrying on a " very respectable" trade—(Laughter)—he employed thirty or forty men, sent his hampers to market, and received his remittances and paid his men as regularly as any man in any other line of business.—( Hear, hear.) Then, again, the poachers on Lord Rendelsham's and the Mar quis of Hertford's estates carried their calling so far that they had formed a society and subscribed a fund for their mutual protection, feting counsel, &c.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) These were men who had led this Lfe so long that they were now in fact almost shut out from the pale of society, and led a kind of savage life; and this he thought showed how little a breach of the game-laws was regarded as an offence against moral law. In a country newspaper lately, the obituary. con tained an account of the death of a notorious poacher, but it said that in every other respect he was a highly -respectable indi vidual, and was so esteemed in his neighbourhood that he was actually entrusted with his own commitment, when convicted of ass offence.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) It sometimes happened that landlords employed poachers as game-keepers ; but he would ask, would any man in business promote a clerk whom he might have found with his hand in his till ?—( Hear, hear.) He had dwelt long upon this subject, but he did think he might be excused as this was a subject of no ordinary interest, and not one which usually occupied the debates of the, House.—(Hear, hear.) In the past session of Parliament, he moved for certain returns upon this subject, and by them it appeared that at one assizes there were 152 convictions in England and Wales for offences against the game-laws ; and 4,377 at the quarter ses sions ; of those 35 had been sentenced to transportation at the assizes and 5 at the sessions, and 112 to imprisonment; others had been sentenced to pay a fine of 2/., and others again to seven weeks' imprisonment. It would be very easy for Hon. Member of that House to throw down a fine of 21. Many of them spent as much in a day. But when a poor labourer was fined that sum for an infraction of the game-laws, he would ask, was it not a monstrous punishment when compared with the offence, arid was calculated to destroy all respect for the law, and all confidence in the justice and impartiality of the Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) He would now call attention to another return of still deeper interest and importance than that he had read. By that return it appeared that in the year 1842- 43, no fewer than 40 gamekeepers had been killed ; and of those the verdicts of the coroner's juries were wilful murder in 25 cases. In the case of the murder of Lord Knowsley's game keeper, both he and the poachers fired; the latter escaped, the former was shot, and, on his death-bed, he expressed how pleased he felt at not having shot the poacher.—( Hear.) No fewer than five persons were convicted for this offence; one of them was hanged, and the others had been sent to the penal colonies, leaving wives and helpless families destitute behind them, with a stain upon their names.—(Hear, hear.) This was the class of grievances attending those game-laws that led him, mature than any other, to bring this subject before the House ; and he could not help saying that he could not under stand how any man could set up his oen personal enjoyment in comparison with a system that led to such great and grievous evils.—( Hear, hear.) The year 1844 had also its catalogue of vietims.—( Hear.) In one of those desperate en counters between gamekeepers and poachers, two of the latter were killed, and two men were hanged for their murder, under circumstances by no means satisfactory, both of them having protested on the scaffold, with a solemnity of manner that it would be impossible to imagine could be feigned at such an awful moment, that they had no hand, act, or part, in those murders. Then, again, he would say, there were incidents which made it worth the while of the Legislature to consider, whether the mere amusement of a very small portion of the community should be kept up at such an awful expense.— ( Hear, hear.) He did nut mean to say that there should be no game, nor laws affecting game ; but he made these state ments in order to show the lamentable consequences attending the present state of those laws, and to show that he had a strong claim upon that House for the ammittee he asked for.—( Hear, hear.) There was another case which he had well nigh for gotten to state; it was that of a man who had been sentenced to be transported for stealing rabbits in Staffordshire ; and that man's mind became so affected at the awful penalty he was about to suffer for this act, that he put an end to his existence in the prison. (Hear, hear. ) There was another case of a young person of sixteen years of age, who went shooting sparrows, but a pheasant coming in his way, he shot it also. Was there any one of those who heard him who would deny that he would not have done the same at the age of sixteen ?—( Hear, hear.) But for this he was threatened with the law, and having all its consequences before him, he hanged himself to escape the troubles he saw before him in this world.—( Hear, hear.) What a system must that be which produced these results ! It was said that gentlemen kept gamekeepers to be spies over those very farmers who paid dearly for their land.—(Hear.) It was a system of terrorism injurious in its effect upon the labouring classes, and detrimental to the agricultural interest. He did not be lieve that any Gentleman in that House would oppose his motion for an inquiry into such a system, except, perhaps, the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. G. Berkeley)— (Laughter)—who had written a pamphlet in defence of it. They had heard of a Berkeleian theory before, which denied the existence of matter.—( Laughter.) That was the doctrine of immateriality, but in this new theory there was nothing of that kind, for " punches in the head, and blows before words"—(Laughter)—had:samething very material and sub stantial about them.—(Laughter.) But he would not attempt to answer the arguments in that pamphlet, for it was its own bane and antidote. But one singular discovery which it con tained was, that the British Constitution lauded as it was— (and it was net without some merit)—and liberty of conscience were, in some way or other, interested in the preservation of great heads of game. —(Laughter.) He had often said harsh things of the proprietors of land, but he had never said anything so harsh of them as those persons who defended the preservation of game and the Cathie system , and who maintained that it was the enthusiasm of the chase which kept gentlemen upon their paternal estates. His opinion was, that there were other pursuits besides those connected with the preservation of game, which it would better become them to follow, and which would be better for the country. Why, there was not a finer position in the world, than that of a gentleman of property who attended to his own estate—he had an oppor•uoity of doing untold good.—( Hear, hear.) lie might look after his tenants—watch over the physical comforts of his labourers, attend to their cottages, and see that they were neat and commodious—build schools, and provide for the education of the poor.— ( ;fear, hear.) Those were pleasures as great as those of the chase, and far better, because the plea sure of doing good never tired—( Hear)—and those gentlemen who looked to those things far better deserved the character of English gentlemen, than those who merely dwelt amongst their tenants for the purpose oF enjoying the pleasures of the chase.—(Cheers. ) Ore mode of enjoying sport was called the battue system. He had never seen it himself, but he heard it descrited, and he believed it consisted in the sportsmen standing in a line on both sides of a wood, and firing upon the game, which were driven within the range of the ninnies of the guns which were driven out by persons employed for that purpose. It was pretty evident that none of the game csuld escape. He would say nothing ridiculous of this system, because it. was not worth it.--( Hear, hear.) It was too absurd for ridicule.—( Hear, hear.) A person might -as well go to Leadenhall-market and put the muzzle of his gun upon the game in the baskets, and havieg killed them all, c use home with a quantity of game and enjoy the reputation of a good sportsman.—( Hear, hear.) If there was anything more unsuited than another to the character of England it was this system.—( Hear, hear.) The maintenance of this system of gains-laws would counteract all their efforts for the improve ment of the poor, and now more than at any former period they showed their sympathy for the poor. All their legislation lately was in some -say or other connected with the poor.— ( Cries of " Hear, hear,") The Noble Lord the Alernber for Dorset (Lord Ashley) to whom he gave every credit for the honesty of his motives, boil half-a-d}}zen plans every session, cud the lion. Member for Hereford introduced a Bill connected with the allotment system, and not only in that Hou,e, but in the country, amongst the higher and middle classes, there was a sincere and anxious desire to promote the happiness and comforts of the poorest classes.—(Cheers. ) lie had d.-awn no exaggerated picture of the operation of the game- Ews, and he thought he had stated sufficient to induce the House to grant the Committee which he asked for.--(Hear, hear.) But he did not want a sham Committee.—( Hear, near.) He did not want a Committee composed of persons who took extreme views on either side.—( Hear, hear.) All he wanted. was a fair, honest, and impartial Committee—(Hear, hear) — which would go through the question, beginning, middle, and end.—(Hear, hear.) He did not object to the fair sports of the rich, but the interests and rights of the poor were not to be sacrificed to them.—( Hear, hear.) He had endeavoured to state his case without uttering a harsh expression against any class er person. He could state with the utmost sincerity that he did not harbour in his breast an unkind feeling towards any individual in connexion with this subject.—( Hear, hear. ) But he had seen the sufferings of thousands of the poor and the defenseless, to whom the law should be a protection, and for whose especial good parliaments and constitutions were in stituted.--( Elear, hear.) He had seen some sacrificed under this system—he had seen others led out to receive the dreadful sentence of the law, while the public sympathy was in their favour; and seeing and knowing those things, he called on the Government and the Legislature not to assent to a principle, or to give the aid of their influence or encouragement to a system productive of such grave evils, not to one, but to every class— not to one district, but to the entire kingdom. 'I he Hon. Gentleman concluded (amidst loud cheering) by moving for a Committee to inquire into the operation of the game-laws. Dr. BO WRING seconded the motion. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that though the Hon. Gen tleman had occupied a considerable time in the delivery of his speech, he had no fault to find with its tone or temper—( Hear, hear)—more particularly as regarded his elosing remarks, in which he (Sir J. Graham) cordially concu rre d. The Hon. Gentleman, on this question, had done justice to the gentle men of England, and he thought the Hon. Gentleman esti mated rightly the feelings of the House when he said he hoped there would be a general disposition, in the present cir cumstances of the case, to sanction a full, fair, and dispas sionate inquiry. He heard the Hon. Gentleman with satisfac tion when he said that there was no higher sphere of actioa than that of a country gentleman who inspected the state of his labourers and tenants, watched over the wants of the poor, ministered to their necessities, and afforded them the means of education ; and he must say that he felt a pride and honour (however imperfectly he performed those duties individually) in being one of that class. He was confident, if the fact had not been notorious before, that the result of the Committee would show that the gentry of England had fulfilled their duties.—( Hear, hear. ) And, as a sportsman, he would say that the enjoyment of field sports was not inconsistent with those duties.-- (Hear, hear.) He thought the lion. Member had laid sufficient grounds for inquiry, for in the course of the last two or three years most lamentable circumstances connected with the preservation of game had forced themselves upon the notice and attention of the public, and they had not escaped the consideration of the Go vernment.--( Hear, hear.) lie would state the reasons why he thought an inquiry—a fair and impartial inquiry—such as the Hon. Memberdesired, would be politic. Since 1823 there was no inquiry instituted by the House of Commons into the opera tion of the game-las s. An inquiry took place before a Com mittee of the other House in 1828, and that Committee recom mended that game should be made property, and should be pro tected as property. In 1831, Lord Ali horp, as the representative of Earl Grey's Government in the House of Commons, pro posed alterations in the then existing game-laws. The feudal distinction of the possession of property as a necessary antece dent to the liberty of killing game was taken away, and a large class of persons was thereby enabled to kill game, who were previously prevented by law from doing so. The effect of that law was, that where a person was both owner and occupier the game that would be kept was kept at his own cost, and even when a person was only occupier there was nothing to prevent his killing all the game on his farm, if he took out a three guinea licence, unless there was a specific stipulation to the contrary. —( Hear, hear.) But he admitted that the law which made game property was an extensive change. The first effect of it was, as he before stated, to open the right of sporting to a large class of individuals before disentitled to do so.—( Hear, hear.) A consequence of this was, that the large cities were better supplied with those luxuries which were to be found at the tables of the rich. For a long time that law appeared to have operated favourably ; but, of late, there was unhappily an increase of crime connected with the game-law. That being the case, and fourteen years having elapsed since any inquiry was instituted into the matter, he thought the time was arrived when the operation of the law should be inquired into.— (Hear, hear.) He admitted that there were many grave errors committed in the way game was sometimes pre served—( Hear, hear)—and whatever might be the result of the Committee, he was sure that the present debate would have, at all events, a goo.l moral effect.—( Hear, hear.) But the cases which the Hon. Gentleman adduced, he might men tion, were almost entirely confined to hares and rabbits. If that species of game multiplied very much, he iselieved the far mer had good ground for complaint. The Hon. Gentleman, much to his credit, had avoided to mix any feeling of hostility with the question, and he (Sir J. Graha.n) would follow the example. But he must say, that he could not help thinking that there was gross exaggeration in some of the statements— ( Hear, hear)—and be believed that the inquiry would have a salutary effect in showing that exaggeration. If even it effected nothing else, he should like to see the statements in vestigated.—( Hear, hear.) He should like t o see the witness whose 78 acres of land suffered damege to the amount of 1041. in one year from the ravages of hares and rabbits. ( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He should like to see the farmer who had lost by the game 501. worth of his crop open 100 acres in a year.—(Hear, and laughter.) He should like to see the farmer who could prove that he had seen 83 hares at a time in one corn-field, and that these e 3 hares consemed as much as 23 sheep.—(Laughter.) Above all, he should like to see that trustworthy, upright Yorkshireman, who walked nine times to Wakefield gaol with his committal in his pocket. Mr. BRIGHT—I told you he was dead.—( Renewed laughter. ) Sir J. GRAHAM was sure that, so far, the investigation would be somewhat amusing. Another propositiou put for wnrd by the Hon. Member for Durham was, that the preser vation of game was incompatible with the cultivation of the soil. But the lion. Gentleman admitted that he was not a sportsman or a farmer, and lie did not make the assertion upon his own experience.—( Hear.) Nosv, he (Sir J. Graham)saw an lion. Friend of his near him who was a preserver of game, and with whom he had had the pleasure of shooting in Norfolk, and who he thought could bring abundant proof that the Hon. Member for Durham was mistaken, and that the preservation of game was not incompatible with the highest cultivation.— ( Hear, hear.) As he (Sir J. Graham) did not intend to op pose the motion, he would not detain the House much longer than to make one observation, which was necessary, in conse quence of the reference made by the Hon. Gentleman to a case of irregular committal. That was a case to which his (Sir J. Graham's) attention had been especially turned, and which led to a regulation in his office, and he would state to the House what that was. He had thought it his duty to direct that, from day to day, copies of all commitments under the game-laws should be sent up and should be regularly examined. Frequently errors were found in the commitments, and these were communicated to the ma gistrates, who in every single case concurred with him, and the l enalty was by his advice remitted ; or in cases where the penalty had been inflicted, and it seemed to him to be too se vere, he had been met by the magistrates in the same spirit.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) was mis taken as to the law, and he had stated the practice somewhat to the disadvantage of the magistrates. He (Mr. Bright) said the game preservers were in the habit of deciding in game cases, whereas the owner of a mill would not be allowed to de cide in a case under the Factories Act. The Right Hon. Baronet read the Factories Act to show that millowners, being magistrates, were not precluded by that Act from sitting on the bench to hear cases under that Act, but that the owner of the mill in which the offence was alleged and his immediate relatives were prohibited from taking part in the de cisions.—( Hear, hear.) If in a case under the game•laws persons standing in a similar relation to the case were to sit on the bench and adjudicate, he (Sir J. Graham) would have no hesitation in recommending the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove those persons front the commission of the peace.— (Cheers.) In making these answers to the Hon. Gentleman. he must also say that he had great satisfaction in support ing the motion —( Hear hear)—with a desire that there should be a full, impartial, and honest inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the Hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to post postpone the nomination of the Committee, upon the under standing that by a private examination out of the House they might agree upon an unobjectionable and competent Com mittee. He was sure that whether the inquiry resulted in a change of the law or not, it would have a great moral effect, and assured the House, on the part of the Government, that that would be, in their estimation, a most happy result, and they would, therefore, give every facility to the investigation. Mr. V. SMITH regretted the course which was pursued by the Right Hon. Baronet after what he himself ( Sir J. Graham) had acknowledged. He thought the Government ought to have dune as Earl Grey's Government had done upon this subject. Having seen the evils which were com• plained of all over the country, they ought to have brought in a Bill upon their own responsibility. What was to be the result of the Committee? Neither the Hon. Member nor the Right Hon. Baronet had said to what the inquiry of the Com mittee was to be directed. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) had stated the evils of the case with great ability, and the Right Hon. Baronet did not deny their existence; and yet they both allowed them to continue over another season. What was the object of the Committee? Was it only to ex pose the alleged exaggerations of the Hon. Gentleman, on which the Right Hon. Gentleman had facetiouly commented? A Noble Friend of his had written a pamphlet, with a view to point out the means by which game might be assessed, but he had since given up the idea as impracticable.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) brought forward the que.tion as one of grievance between the farmer and the land lord, which would lead to an interminable inquiry. He thought the inquiry ought to be limited to this point :—What were the remedies to be applied to the acknow ledged evil?—(Hear, hear)—for he believed there were not halt-a-dozen Gentlemen in the House who denied the existence or the extent of the evils. In 1931 the Duke of Richmond made a speech in the House of Lords, in which he exposed and reprobated the game-laws as they then were, say ing that they widened the distance between the higher and the middle classes, and condemned to the prison of a felin the unfortunate labourer, who trio often could not resist the tempta tion thrown in his way.—( Hear, hear.) In 1831, before the change took place in the law, the committals under the game laws, in England and Wales, were 2,150; in the last year, 1.44, they were 4,500, the comrniitals being more than doubled under the change of the law.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it would be impossible to compel men to give up pre serving, or to say that they should preserve only a certain amount.—( Hear, hear.) But he thought it right to take away from Cairn any encouragement, more than was given to other species of property.--( Hear, hear.) He might be an swered that there was little difference between the penalties of trespass in pursuit of game, and other kinds of trespass. He contended there was too great a difference.--( Hear, hear.) In other kinds of trespass you paid for the amount of damage ac tually done, but under the game-laws the fines were accumu lative ; and for a single ace, even of inadvertence, a man might be fined 271., when it would be only a few shillings for any other trespass, , —( Hear, hear.) He thought it was very improper to call game property ; although he admitted that it would V absurd to say that pfica , ants, which were fed tie if in a c oop, were .ferce natura, and no man'. property. But ether kinls of game, ef which there was no identity and no reclaimer, were not tightly called property ; and he agr , ed with the Hon. Member for Durham in asking were they to establish a penal code for their own amusements?—( Cheers. ) He admitted that in some respects the change of the law, in 1831, had been an improvement, but it had in other respects been accompanied by a great aggra,a:ion of the former evils. He thought the Bight Hon. Gent!eman opposite ought to have taken up this subject himself ; and, with the majority which he commanded, and the facility with which he managed it—( A laugh)—he would be able to remove some of the evil.—( Hear, hear. ) He (Mr. V. Smith) did not think the Committee would effect any good ; and he thought it would be as well to postpone legislation on the subject till next year, and that, in the meantime, they should endeavour to remedy the evils as best they coati, each in his own district. Mr. 1 5 / 1 1113Y was surprised to hear the Right Hon. Gen tleman taunt the Govern rent ev:th not having introduced any measure on th e subject; for, by his remarks in reference to it, be had involved it in inextricable difficulty and confusion.— ( Hear.) With respect to the s, eech of the lion. Mewiter for I Durham, lie must confess that to the tone of that speech he thought no one ceuld pe-sily object. He only hoped that on all future occasions he w ,uld adopt a similar tone ; and he would then find geritl, non who were connec eel with the agri cultural districts ready to join with him in doing anything which could be effected for the good of the country.— ( Hear, hear ) It appesred that the lion. Member was not prepared to interfere with private rights. Undoubtedly that part of the subject which was rot:nes:tea with the morality and good con (int of the poor, was well worthy of the consideration of the Committee; but if the lion Gentleman supposed that by removing the came-laws they would take away atl temptation to crime and make everybody virtuous, be was under a great mis take. '1 here would always be persons disinclined to work, and reedy to engage in poaching, whatever might be their circum stances. Still I e thought that the great point to which the at tention of the Committee should be directed was the moral ef fect of the game-laws. —( Hear, hear. ) Mr. H. BERKELEY said he was very unwilling that the debate should terminate without at least one Member of that Hoene expressing his dissent from the positions which the Hon. Member for Durham hod assumed. It was not his intention to oppose the appointment of the Committee which the Right Hon. Baronet was prepared to concede, but he could not for one moment allow that the reasons which the Hon. Member for Durham had stated for its appointment were valid and sufficient. Indeed, he thought the Hon. Member for Durham owed the concession of this Committee to the peculiar course which he had adopted that night, so very unlike the course which had been adopted throughout the country by those persons, whether orators or writers for the press, who bad advocated so strenu usly the alsolitien of the game-laws.—( Hear, hear. ) He must say that the agitation which had been carried on in reference to that question, ever since the Hon. Member for Durham gave notice of his motion—an agitation with which that Hon. Gentleman was connected, and in which he had taken part—was one, the character of which was anything brit creditable.—( Hear, hear.) It was an agitation which, in his own opinion, was very well calculated not to forward the cause, but to mike people look upon the course the Hon. Member was pursuit's , with susp.ciin. He agreed on many points with the Honourable Member for Durham. There was no person in that House who desired an abolition of the corn-laws more than he (Mr. Berkeley) did. He was perfectly contented to be called any thing which Hon. Gentlemen pleased—a radical, a reformer, or, if the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite preferred the term, a Whig-radical—(Laughter) -- Lot he never would assume per sonalities towards those Gentlemen who were opposed to him, and he trusted that he would always be found to give them ore dit for proper motives when he happened to differ from then in opinion. Now, if he followed the agitation touching these game-laws throughout the country, what did he find? From east to west, and from north to south, he found the landocracy held up as a set of tyrants. He found the Hoe. Gentleman setting himself forth as the farmer's friend, and in that character striving apparently to set the tenant-farmers and their landlords at variance. Now he did maintain that such a course of agitation was well calculated to prejudice the Hon. Member's course; and he was very glad that on introducing the subject in that House he had adopted a different mode of proceeding. He had reaped the benefit of the course which he had now pursued by the Government conced:ng to him the Committee, for he verily believed that for that concession he was indebted to the moderation of the tone which he had assumed. —(Hear, hear.) But still he, for one, could not permit the op portunity to pass without expressing his dissent from the opinion that the game-laws were in fault as regarded the crimes and offences a hich had taken place under them. They might just as well contend that any other statute besides the game-laws was to blame for an excess of crime. Take, for instance, offences against the revenue laws. There was a great similarity in the character and pursuit of the smuggler and the poacher.--( Hear. hear.) There was something adventu rous in the life of both, which had, no doubt, great charms for the wild and the dissolute. But did the Hon. Member know that at one time more murders were committed under the revenue laws than were ever committed under the game laws ?—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member could not be igno rant of the fact that more violence was perpetrated, more murders were committed, under the former than under the latter. But did the Government, on discovering the extent of crime which prevailed under the revenue-laws, immediately assume what the Hon. Gentleman had assumed in the case of the game-laws, that the laws should be abolished on account of the crime which had been committed? No; instead of abolishing the laws, the Government took the opposite course. They strengthened the executive power ; they put on a blockade force ; they adopted every means to check smuggling ; and the consequence was that they did int down the evil.— ( Hear ' hear.) But the Hen. Gentleman, and those who agreed with him out of that House, contended that the instant crime took place under a statute that statute should be abolished. Why, it was not the game-laws alone which were disagreeable to a certain class of the community. There were other Itw s which were equally distasteful to one class cf persons frequently referred to in the newspapers—the light fingered gentry.—(Laughter.) There were certain laws which were extremely disagreeable to that portion of society.— ( Laughter.) But was he to be told that because an excess of crime arose under particular laws they were therefore to be abolished. Why, if they were to follow the Hon. Gentleman's principle of legislation, the result would be this!: If any body of men found pat titular laws disagreeable they would only have to offend against them, and to commit murders in doing so, in order to secure their abolition.—(Cries of Hear, hear.") Such a principle of legislation was of the most imbecile order. He could imagine nothing mere monstrous and ridiculous. It was actually the prin. ciple of Old Dogberry, the constable.—(Laughter.) If they took Dogberry's language, word for word, they would find the opinions of these who advocated the abolition of the game laws precisely similar to those of the weak old constable. If the House would allow him, he would point out the resem blance.—(Laughter.) Dogberry tells the watch (continued the Hon. Gentleman), " that they shall visit all the ale houses, and bid them that are drunk get them to bcl ; but if they will not, why, then, let them sleep till they be sober. If we know a man to be a thief, stall we not lay hands upon him ? The most peaceable way, if you know him to be a thief is, let him show himself what lie is, and steal himself out oef your. c Member for Exactly the principle of h for Durham. Dogberry let the thief t o s sr pany go ; and the Hon. Member would abolish the statute which detained him in custody. The principle was the same ; it was the principle of abolishing all statutes against which offences were committed. Such a principle appeared to him, he repeated, to be absolutely monstrous, and he trusted that the House would not assent to Hear, hear.) Now, as this Committee was to be appointed, he did trust that it would be a fair one. He should like very much to hear to what point their laboura were to be directed ; for upon that subject he confessed that he was at present entirely in the dark. If they were to follow the course of the agitation, he must pro nounce the inquiry to be absolutely absurd. The Mem ber confessed that he was perfectly ignorant of farming, that he knew nothing of sporting.—( Hear, hear.) He had shown a great want of knowledge of ornithology and natural history. Honourable Members who came to that House impressed with an idea of the destructiveness of game, were utterly ignorant of the subject ; and persons should know more about it before they took part in the discussion. He would appeal more especially to those Hon. Members who were agriculturists, and who were not ashamed, also, to be called sportsmen, for really, if he might judge from the accounts which he had read of this agitation, to be either an agriculturist or asportsman was to be one of a denounced class.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He would ask whether it would not appear from those accounts as though the pheasants, the partridges, and game in general, had not a moment to themselves from year to year, but were constantly employed in devouring grain?—(Laughter.) Now, did the Hon. Member for Durham know that, for six months in the year, pheasants and partridges could hardly be called granivorous ?—( Hear, hear.) From the time that the heat of the sun brought the insect egg into life, from that moment the quantity of grain destroyed by pheasants and partridges was actually as nothing. He could tell the Hon. Gentlemanthat he had seen pheasants on their nests tempted with grain, and actually turning away from it.—( Hear, hear.) He appealed to any Hon. Gentleman whether he ever saw a pheasant go near a stack of wheat after the month of April? The fact was, that they fed on insects and grubs ; and they were particularly destruc tive to that injurious insect the wire-worm. It could not be pretended that they eat the corn in the month of May. The injury which they committed must take place when . the grain was ripe. But who ever heard of a pheasant seiz ng ears of corn before the corn had been cut ? The pheasant, as many Hon. Members whom he addressed well lieew, if he might use the expression, was a gleaner and not a reaper. To judge, however, front the writings and speeches of those who agitated this question, and especially from those of the Anti-Corn. law League, it would appear as if the pheasants were continually eating wheat and barley.—( Hear, hear.) The most extraordinary statements were made, and the most extraordinary abuse was lavished on the proprietors. L Henry Baring was depicted as a kind of Robinson Crusoe, going about deetroying game with four guns on his shoulder. —(Laughter.) With respect to the petition from Ruislip, presented that evening, he had no hesitation in saying, that which ring. He n i . that jei petition kwinoso_l was agreed to was a most d( Jenkins—( Laughter) —the tell the H on . G en tlema n —the gentlemanauoht d t t h his a er t emP h eue i t s fg a atibne rie ra n t i e l t , who was found speaking at that meeting, went to the beer houses on Saturday night to get signatures to the petition.-- (Laughter.) That he would prove; and he would prove like wise, that the petition was got up merely on account of a feud between two farmers, and in point of fact there was not game enough in the neighbourhood to injure any farmers whatever. But now, he could ask, what were the Committee to do with reference to this matter ? W as the House to legislate so that game should be entirely extirpated in this country ? Should they favour the intrusion °flan armed invasion on landed estates? Should they deny to a man the right to possess the beast and the bird which he bred and fed ?—( Hear, hear.) Somet' ing had been said about the impossibility or impropriety of making birds and beasts private property, because they had locomotive powers. Why, if they were to car. y out that that principle, they would sanction the Duke of Richmond's being deprived of his salmon, asserting that every man had a right to hook it.-- ( Laughter.) Dovecote Pigeons were often seen to follow men as they sowed grain, and there was a penalty of half-a-guinea for shooting one. He dare say the Hon. Member for Durham would be exceedingly angry it any one were to shoot one of his pigeons.--( Hear, hear.) If those who agitated this question took care not to go to a Re publican meeting for golden maxims, how came it that they had not heard a word as to the practice of any country ex cept England ?—( Hear, hear.) Where was the pattern, Re publican America , Where was the El Dorado—the Utopia— which would, on other questions, have been referred to? The fact was that America had game_laws infinitely more stringent than those of Great Britain. He had there an abstract of the laws of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, inclusive of Duchess' County, Queen's County, King's County, and Suffolk County, and he had selected States in which the negro and the white man were upon equal terms. Now, there a law existed protecting the birds and bear is during the breeding season; and though they might be considered as firm natura, he would show that they were treated strictly as private property. The penalty for shooting a deer out of sea son was 2.5 dollars; and the law went on from a deer, through a number of other animals, down to the miserable musk-rat, fur shooting which the peealcy was one dollar. What would the House think if an Hon. Member were to get up and propose a penalty of five shillings for killing a hedgehog ? The magistrates of America, under this law, could act on an information only, and if it was merely suspected that a red deer's skin was concealed in a man's house, they could be corn.• pelled to issue a search warrant, to enter that house and make a search, and if a red deer's skin ;vas found, the person was liable to a penalty of twenty-five dollars.— ( Hear, hear.) For birds, also, the same kind of penalties existed; for killing grouse, or as they were called in some of the Acts heath-hens, for pheasants, for partridges, and quail ; when he said phea sants he ought t ► exp'ain that though this was the word he found in the Ads, the bird itself, he believed, was really a kind of partridge. The penalties were extended even to the migratory woodcock.—( hear, hear. ) Now let them turn to the laws of the State of New Jersey. That State more resembled England than almost any other State of the Union ; it was very populous, and it was adjacent to the States of New York and Philadelphia. The first game-law of this State to which he should call their attent ion, although there were others passed before it, was of the date of 1771, when New Jersey was a British colony. 'I hat law prohibited any person from carrying a gun over another man's property without leave, under a penalty of forty shi!lings and costs.—( Hear, hear.) There was the same penalty for setting snares for deer, for carrying spears, or pointed stieks, or fur hunting with dogs. If any stranger in the culons should shoot over another man's land, without leave, he was liable to a penalty of 5/. and the forfeiture of the gur.—( Hear.) Now, it might be said, that this law was passed in 1771. But when these republicans shook oil the yoke of Great Britain, did they shake off the game-laws ? By no means. At that time they were not in a humour to find much to admire in British institutions ; yet they found no fault with the game-laws. In 18.20 they increased their stringency ; in 1837, they enacted a supplement to these laws, and in 1638, a second supplement. But there was one more I.w he ought to mention, which prohibited hunting even over the waste lards of the State. It enacted that all persons except freeholders, or the sons of freeholders, above eighteen years of age. should be prohibited from hunting on he waste and unimproved lands of the State, under a penalty of 20s. for each offence. Now, at some future time, the lion. Member for Durham would no doubt visit the sty of Philadelphia, in which be would find many respectable men of his own peculiar class. He could say that for no class had he ( Mr. H. Berkeley) more respect. He numbered many friends among the Society of Friends, and he could s►y that that class was a most respectable, kind, and hospitable sme. He had no doubt that the Honourable Member for Durham would be made very welcome in the city of Philadelphia. In that State he would find pheasants, and quails, and partridges, and birds of all descriptions, with which the Hon. Gentleman might amuse himself.—( Laughter.) But let the Hon. Gen tleman beware how he carried that natural imtinet, which he said all men possessed, to kill game wherever they saw it ; let him beware how he indulged his propensity for poaching— (Laughter)—in the adjoining State of New Jersey, because he would find it rather more expensive than in Englat.d.— ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) And let him give the Hon. Member a word of advice ; if he carried out with him one of Manton's or Purday's guns, he might find the penalty by the forfeiture of the gun, amounting to 601. or 761.—( Ilear, hear, and laughter.) He had to thank the House for the patience with which they had heard him. He could only say, in conclusion, that he trusted that this Committee, be it what it might, would prove successful. He would not oppose it e but what on earth its attention was to be directed to he could not conceive. Captain ROTS said he had been much pleased with the tone of the speech of the lion. Member for Durham ; it was different from what had been expected from him, and he was sure that there was but one feeling on that side of the House, that it was an able and statesmanlike speech.—( Hear, hear. ) At the same time, he could not bring himself to believe many of the sta'ements made by the lion. Member. 'They were too exaggerated ; and he had lived too long in a sporting coun try not to know that they were exaggerated. He held in his hand a pamphlet on the subject of the game-laws that had gone through three editions. That pamphlet re'erred to a noble relative of his, and stated that in a cover on his estate, in the course of last year, a keeper was killed by poachers. lie could only say that, to the best of his belief, for the last hun dred years, no gamekeeper or poacher had been killed or hurt on that estate. Again, the pamphlet said that on his property two keepers had lately shot themselves, fearing that, on the arrival of his noble relative from Ireland, they would be found fault with for the want of game. This pam phlet had been in circulation for three months, and he was sure the House would excuse him if he said a few words in defence of his own brother. The first man who destroyed himself had been a keeper for thirty years, and was, at the time, head keeper. He had been in a very bad state of health, and had offered to give up his situation, but he had been urged to retain it, and his son was taken to assist him. But his state of health had such an effect on his mind that he destroyed himself. It was a most extraordinary fact that on the following day another of the keepers, who had charge of the greyhounds, de stroyed himself a'so. His wife had gone to church, one of the children was in the garden, and another was playing about the house, when he took down his gun, and whether by accident or design was not known ' but he was found dead. Now, as to the question itself, it had been said that it was absolutely necessary, on some occasions, to deduct as much as 20 per cent. from the rent of estates, as the compensation for the damage done by game. But it should be understood that, in many cases, the land was let 20 per cent. less than the value on that account. That was the fact, to his certain knowledge. The Hon. Member for Durham complained that the very circumstance of pre serving game had a tendency to affect the morality of the la bouring classes, and that gentlemen had no right to do it. Why the same argument applied to the case of a shop keeper exposing his goods in the street. There was a tendency in the poor labourer to steal game, and the starving man in a town might be tempted to steal the goods before him. But what was the reasen that the agricultural labourer was a poacher, and stole pheasants and hares in preference to ducks and fowls ? For this reason, that they could be sworn to, and the others could not. But the same men would, in all probability, go on in crime till they stole sheep and cattle; but there was one thing that checked them, and that was, that, they might be hanged or transported for the offence.- He had lived all his life in a country full of game, and well pre served, and in his part of Suffolk there were no better disposed people on the face of the earth, more hardworking, or indus trious. There had been no incendiary fire within ten miles of his house, and nothing could be better than the feelinr , that existed generally among the people.—( Hear, ' hear. ) But he could show a case which had occurred in his own county, on the estate of a most amiable nobleman, who had written a pamphlet on the game laws. He also preserved his game, but in a peculiar mode, inasmuch as he did not allow any keepers to watch by night; but he allowed his neighbours to shoot over the estate on one proviso—that they should not employ any labourer on their property who had been detected in poaching. What was the result? Through this nobleman's not employing keepers by night, the whole parish was full of poachers from one end to the other, and they frequently extended their ravages to the surrounding neighbourhood. When they were asked why they did not keep in their own place, as there was game enough there? they said, " Oh, the pheasant over all this property are so badly fed that they won't sell— ( Laughter)—and therefore we steal yours, which we can find a market for !"—(Laughter.) And these very men, whom this nobleman tried to keep pure and moral, were some of the most determined sheep stealers in the whole country round.— (Hear, hear.) Now, that was the difference between a coun try well preserved andl one that was not, or only half preserved. There was no doubt that the game-laws, like every other Act of Parliament, might sometimes require alteration and revi sion, but he trusted they would not go in their legislation to the extent of destroying the game in this country ; it gave an in ducement to young men of family and fortune to live on their own estates; if they contracted the habit of living on th? Con tinent, they generally came back insignificant and worthless members of society.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) In dealing with the game-laws, therefore, he hoped that they would pre serve entire all the rights of property, Mr. 11U51E said, when the Hon. Member for Bristol took the laws of America, and compared them with those of England, he ought to take them as a whole; there might be some of the laws of America which he (Mr. Hume) should condemn as much as the lion. Member, and some that he might be disposed to adopt. The lion. Member had not done justice to his Hon. Friend the Member for Durham ; his Hon. Friend did not wish to affect the prosperity of any individual, but he wished to alter the administration of the laws which, at the couldpr esen tl look moment, t w h t o ‘ r n e t pobreidnuingc appalled. g great evil, a Neither othe no man Hon. Members who had spoken had directed their attention to that point ; he could not think why the Hon. Member for Bristol was not as anxious to have the Committee ap pointed as the Honourable Member for Durham, because the Honourable Member (Mr. H. Berkeley) loved sport, and wished for its continuance.—( Hear.) If so, he ought to try and have the law so altered that it migkt he exercised without causing public feeling to be opposed to it. Public feeling was at present so opposed to the system that societies had sprung up in all parts of the country for the purpose of denouncing it. Could anything denote more plainly that a conviction of the evil of this system had taken a deep root in society, and required consideration ? He did think that the Hon. Member for Durham deserved great credit for the manner in which he had brought this question forward, and he was sure the country at large, after the speech his Hon. Friend had delivered, and the result it had produced, would be grateful to him for his exertions. Why, let them look at the calendars of crime and see the condition of the population of the country. Why, there were 4,540 persons convicted of offences against the game-laws. It might be a matter of some curiosity for the House to know that in 1811 there were in all England and Wales only 127 convictions for offences against those laws; the whole number of convictions in 1811 was, in England and Wales, 3,163; and in 1843 there were 4,540 convictions for offences against the game laws alone. The Hon. Member for Durham had evi dently produced an impression by his speech that great evils did exist, and these evils cried aloud for remedy. He hoped the Committee would not proceed hastily, or that they should attempt to legislate this year ; but that it would meet from day to day, and submit a proper report to the House, on which th Government would found a legislative measure. They saw this progessive increase in crime, they were demoralising society by this state of things, and something was evidently wrong ; they were not then prepared to state precisely where the evil was, but he believed the result of this inquiry would tend to correct that evil. He was sure that not only those who cared nothing for game, but even those Members of that House who were earnest sportsmen, would thank his Hon. Friend for the result of his labours. Mr. LIDDELL said he had heard with a great deal of in terest the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham, and had listened with a great deal of pain to some of the facts he had brought under the notice of the House. He did not rise to offer any opposition to the appointment of the Committee, but he did think it would have been more satisfactory if some Hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and enter taining the same views as the Hon. Member, had indicated or shadowed forth the extent or nature of the alterations to which their attention was to be directed. His paternal property was situated in the midst of a populous neighbourhood, it covered a large area of ground, and for many years the game upon it had been carefully preserved. And he was bound to say that in that immense population he had seen nothing, speaking of their general character, but the most excellent disposition, and a desire to pay a due observance to the laws. But at the same time, among such a, number, some evil dispositions would exist and it was with great pain he had seen upon his father's pro perty outrages of a most formidable and distressing nature. ( Hear, hear.) There had been one case of murder, and, in the present yea., four frightful outrages, in which, without the slightest provocation, two keepers were fired at, and wounded in a most serious manner, the charge lodging in th,t breast and shoulder of one of them, and had the shot been but the slightest space nearer the heart, the man must have been killed. After these outrages, the subject engaged the serious attention of his father and the whole family, but, after due attention, and after making up their minds to sacrifice entirely the game on their property, they came to the deliberate conclusion that they could not do anything of the kind; not for the sake of the game, but for the peace and security of the property and the neighbourhood, they were compelled to keep a watch to protect the property from the incursions of poachers. He was certainly glad to s ee this inquiry insti tuted before the House, and he would thankfully adopt any suggestion that could be made by those who had thought them selves galled on by a sense of duty to make such a proposition• been thrown o t w he o u really t t o h o t u h g e h a t rn s o ci u m n e r, s a u n g d g e es x t t i e o n n t cs o u f g . t h ihte to °hav alteration i re quired. For they must be careful n this matter ; while lamenting the number of convictions they saw under the law as it existed, they must t ake care the y di I not make matte r s worse instead of b , tter. He was perfectly convincel that if the game - laws were done away with altogether, and killing game were made an invasion of property instead, depending en tirely on an extension of the Trespass Act, in populous neigh. hourhoods every third person they met would be armed with a gun. On holidays, and SundaTs. and every time of a temporary suspension of labour, they would meet marauding parties o‘i the puhlic roads ; all these dangers had to be avoided in any alterations they might. suggest. It. was 'fair that they should consider who were the crirties to blame in these outrages ; let him put a case to the House. In the immediate , neighbour hood of that Ilemtc, there were some I) , autiful walks and plea sure-grounds laid out for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. In these grounds there was a curious collec• non of waterf. wI, which might be seen every day, and fur nished a great deal of amusement to the public. What would Le said if a man, because his family were starving, armed himself with a gun, shot two or three of the ducks, and when interfered with by the park-keeper, should knock him down with the butt-end of it—who was to blame there ? The law that protects the property, or the individual that breaks the law? It was the same in the case of game; if a poacher went into a preserve and shot pheasants and hares, and is interfered with by the person to whom the law gives the right of protecting the property, was the law, therefore, to blame for the outrage? The question di vided itself into two distinct heads—the one the question of the damage done by the game to agrizulteral produce, and the ~ther was the question of the outrages to which he had already re ferred. Now, the amnunt of groin destroyed by these creatures was. he believe 4, greatly exaggerated. In almost every quest:on between landlord and tenant, where an excessive quantity of came was preserved,a compensation was always given to the tenant, and if the Hon. Member for Durham, in pursuance of his vocation as a member of the Anti-corn-law League, and in support of his argument of the diminished supply of the food of the people, took this destruction of grain as an instance, he at tached no weight to the argument whaturer. Though a certain amount of grain was destroy cd, yet another article of food was supplied in its place for consumption, more nourishing, more grateful to the palate, and equally adapted for the market. Mr. AGLIONBY was much gratified at the course that had been pursued on the present occasion, and he was only sur pri,ed that any lion. Member coul I object, to the course the Bight Hon. Baronet had taken. He thought there would be great good effected by an inquiry before a fair Committee. He did not believe that the preservation of game was generally In jurious to the land, and as a proof of that he might state that he knew an instance where the game was preserved as smell by the tenants as the landlords. With regard to the poor he was glad that the subject would be inquired into, because if it was found that the game-laws increased the demoralisation of the poor, that calamity would be averted. Hear, hear.) It must not, however, be supposed that he thought the game-laws had any sucti effect.—( Hear, hear.) Ile believed that the statements that had been made were greatly exaggerated, and he hoped that good results would come from the inquiry, that it would take place immediately, and that the report would soon be laid on the table. Colonel SIBTHORP would not oppose the motion, because he thought they ought to have inquiry on the subject.—( Hear, hear. ) The speech of the lion. Member for Durham seemed to him to have been founded on the supposition that the greatest existed between the landlord and the tenant lamer. Ile cared nothing about game, but this he would tell the Hon. Member for Durham, that if he caught him ou his preserves wing any of his snares, he should not be long in ap preliend.ng him.—(A ) _ _ Mr. G. BERKELEY would not have addressed the House, had he not been particularly alluded to by the lion. Member for Durham. He must confess, looking at the speech that had been made by the Honourable Member for Durham, that he could hardly bring himself to be lieve that it was him that made it.—( Hear, hear. ) It had been said that it was not the labourer that poached, but the home less wanderer. Now, he did not believe that such was the case, because he was convinced that the labourer, who was in constant pay, was the criminal. He denied that the preserva tion of game caused crime; and as a proof of that he referred to several returns, which showed that crime was greater in parts where game was not preserved, than where it was. The Hon. Member for Montrose had said that there was greater crime committed in consequence of the game-laws now, than there was in 1811. Why, what was the fact? Why, that the game-laws were ten times more stringent in that year than at present. lie had not the slightest objection to inquiry, in fact he demanded it ; but what he a•ked for was this, that the tenant-farmers should not be set against their landlords by false promises.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. ESCOTT wished to bear his testimony to the able manner in which the Hon. Member for Durham had brought this subject forward.--( Hear, hear.) The lion. Member said that before that statute was passed, the restrictions on poaching were much more severe and stringent than those now in opc. ration. The protection of game seemed to proceed on the principle that it facilitated the sale of game. It confirmed a property in game. and it was neceasary, therefore, that they should put heavier penalties on poaching to increa e that pi o tection. Now that seemed to him the most vicious course of legislation that could be adopted. They had heard the Learned Judges say that one of the worst things of which a prosecteor could be guilty was the holding out a temptation that poverty could hardly withstand, and that wi.s also a reason for not granting the costs of the prosecution to shopkeepers and others who exposed their wares in the street. The existing game laws gave an incentive to the poacher, by providing a market for his game, and then, as soon as he obtained this market, they increased the penalties for a trans gression of the law. He believed that there was another point that greatly increased the evil, and that was the frequency of summary convictions. It would riot do to leave the law in the hands of those who had the greatest possible interest in carry ing it into effect. It was a difficult subject to legislate upon, and because of that very reason an inquiry was called for, and he trusted it would be entered upon without prejudice or ill feeling to those poachers or to those who gave rise to poaching by preserving game. lie would not wish to put down field sports, but he believed with the lion. Member who had last spoken, that there was nothing in this inquiry to interfere with the preservation of their sports. Mr. WAK LEY would make one or two observations, which were prompted by the remarks of the Hon. Member fir West Gloucestershire, who had devoted much time and attention to this subject, and what was his allegation? That poaching was not committed by houseless wanderers, not by strangers, not by vagrants, but by the agricultural labourers, and in what pro portion ? In 99 cases out of 1(10, he stated that the offence of poaching was coin mitted by that class. If that were true, and it was not denied—he believed it approached the truth--but if it were proved, could the game-laws be continued? They must be admitted, in that case, to be the most injurious and demoralis ing laws in the country. What was the condition of the agri cultural labourer after being detected poaching? Would the farmers employ him ? No. He dared not employ him, or he might lose the occupation of his farm.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") Its the parish of Ruislip, which had been referred to by an Hon. Member, it n•as stated that the greater number of labourers employed there came from distant parts of the country, for the farmers connected with the preservas ion of game would not employ men who had ever been detected poaching.—( Cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hear.") It was astonishing to him that gentlemen of England could sit down to enjoy themselves, when they knew that their pleasures cost so high a price to the poorer classes of their countrymen. It was deeply to be regretted that this state of feeling; should exist ; but although that Committee were ap pointed, it would be useless unless it came to a more rational conclusion than that referred to by the Right lion. Baronet. He had been himself a preserver of game, and he knew that a system might be introduced which would effectually preserve the game without being an annoyance to those around them. His assurance to the preserves was this. If they wanted a day's sport fur themselves or friends, and gave him notice, the land would be kept quiet for some days before. lie had caught a poacher once, and how did he act on that occasion. lie would tell the House. He said to him, " I presume you are in distress and cannot find employment ,to support yourself and your family. lam sure you are in dis tress or you would not do this. Come to my house and I will give you a joint of meat, and when you want food for yourself and family come to me and you will have it." He replied, " You will give me meat, then depend on it I will never snare another hare. "—(Laughter.) Then why should not lionotrable Members adopt this system ?--(Laughter.) Such would be better than invoking the vengeance of the law upon those poor creatures, who were probably driven by dis tress to this crime, in order to obtain a meal for their wives and children. The evil of preserving game had now increased to an enormous magnitude. The Hon. Member for Montrose had stated that between 4,000 and 5,000 persons had been convicted in 1843, and the term of their imprisonments, taking the average, amounted to six weeks for each person. Now, he would ask Hun. Members if the pleasure they derived from their sport would compensate to themselves for the curse these laws inflicted on the country ? He did not believe that when the amount of demoralisation induced by these laws was con sidered, that they could possibly desire them to be continued. 'there was a very great difficulty with regard to a remedy on this subject. The lion. Member for Durham, who had devoted so much time to the subject, had explained to the House that remedy, in a speech seldom equalled, and he (Mr. Wakley) was of opinion that the time would ultimately arrive when game, by an increasing population, would be driven out of the country, as the Red Indians in America were by the encroachments of a more civilised people.—(Cheers.) Mr. NEWDIGATE felt bound, by the reference which had several times that night bean made to the parish of Ruislip, to give some explanation upon a subject with which he was inti mately conversant. It had been stated that the inhabitants of Ruislip had been oppressed by the expense of maintain ing a police force which had been almost wholly em ployed in the suppression of poaching. He (Mr. New digate) denied that statement, and he called upon the Right Honourable Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to k.seertain whether there was any reason fur such an allegation. In many instances of trials at the sessions lie did not remember of policemen giving evidence in eases of infringement of the game-laws. He was glad to see that the landed proprietors were willing to submit their plea sures as •well as their properties to the examination of this Committee. Mr. COBDEN said that although there was a general con currence in the tone and temper of his Hon. Friend in bring ing the subject under the notice of the Hou-e, there was a great disposition to attribute exaggeration to his statements ; and when he mentioned the quantity of produce of farms which had been consumed by game, there were loud cries of " Oh ! oh!" The fact was, the county Members knew less of the grievances and circumstances of the farmers than the me tu bers of that much maligned body, the Anti-Corn-law League. If there were any one subject in which landholders, game keepers, and labourers were agreed upon, it was in a thorough detestation of the game-laws.—(oh, oh.) Hon. Members might cry " Oh, oh." That cry would go forth to the coun try, hut it would rather strengthen than alter that universal agreement.—( Hear, hear.) Hs would venture to say that he had conversed and shook hands with more tenant-farmers, ten to one, than any Member of that House.—( Laughter. ) With regard to the exaggeration of the statements, as they were called, of the cost of keeping game, he had been in Scotland himself last year, at Cupar, In Fife. A farmer wrote him a letter, which requested a public meeting in Cupar, in order that he might state the grievances which the game-laws entailed upon him. The farmer said that the Anti-Corn. law should take up the q ues ti on o f the game-laws as s e wll ) as the corn-I aws.—(lronic a l c h eers from the Tory en This farmer gave his name, and he had no objection to state it. It was Andrew M•Farlane, who lived near Cnpar. " In order to convey to you some idea (this farmer writes) of the destruction by game, I beg to inform you, that in w 7ooScoteh acres, held by me and four farmers , from Captain etnyss, whod 00l 7001. awarded seatinthis House—(Laughter)—that in 1 841 we had to us by arbitration, for the destruction by game, and even that did not indemnify us for the damage done." This showed what a loss of human food these ga me -l aws entailed. H lle repeated that the most entire ignorance prevailed among the landlords of the condition of the tenant farmers. It was easy to talk of exaggeration, but he would p o i nt hi s f i nger to the reports on the table of that House. Was it any exag geration to say that the game-laws were a monstrous evil, when 4,500 persons were convicted under them in one year, and forty transported in ten years? Twenty-seven persons had been shot in game preserving. Sixty thousand persons took out licences to shoot. In order that 60,000 persons should have amusement, 4,503 were convicted and forty transported ; so that for every fifteen licensed sportsman, one man was con victed and punished, You think that exaggeration and com plain of it as an evil ; and the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down found fault with the Anti-Corn-law League, as did the Hon. Member for Bristol, fur the part they took ;a this matter. He pleaded guilty to the accusation that the Anti-Corn-law League had been the means of bringing this question before the House. Nothing hut the force of public opinion could have et:impelled the Government to want the Committee.— ( Cries of " Oh, oh.") He said again ; that had effected it. Ile did ,. • was public opinion not want to come there as the farr aVE ' i 'rile farmers had suffered too much from pro- fessing friends already—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—and the very best services he could render -to the tenant-farmer would be to advise them not to believe in prafessing friends, but to trust to themselves, and make up their minds to enter into an organisation from which they might expect much more than f:om the Legislature. Was it not most monstrous that when the farmer had taken his laud his produce should be destroyed ? A let to 13 a farm, for which B paid him the rent of the day; but then A let to C the right of sho.tting over this Lull, the game which the farmer fed, but for which the landlord was paid. The farmer pays:the rent, the game destroys the corn, but the farmer must pay for the landlord's profit or amusement. It would he just as reasonable to let land to a farmer, and then to give permission to a bu'cher to turn his cattle over the land.—( Hear, hear.) It had been already stated, and he firmly believed it, that five hares destroyed as much a+ one sheep. Such was the condi tion of the tenant farmer. He did not believe that any good would come from the Legislature on this subject, but the in. troduction and discussion of the question would give the far mers an opportunity of stating their grievatces, and of uniting among themselves, so as to force Parliament finally to abolish those odious grievances.— ( Cheers.) Mr. A DDERLEY said he was anxious fur the appointment of the Cr,mmittee. Mr. W6I)EIIOI7SE repudiated the insinuation, so often thrown cut, that the landlords were selfish am' cared for no other interests but their own. Mr. FORBES wished to know if the lion. Member for Durham had alluded to him in the course of his speech ? Mr. BRIGHT raid he had already told the Hon. Gentle man, in Titivate that he did no t a ll u d e to hi m. Mr. CAIII.it;LE bore testimony to the proper manner in which the ma4istrates of Ashby-de-la-Zeu e h had always ad ministered juivice. H e confessed he was not favourable to the present game-laws. He thought the damage which had been committed on crops was rather attributable to those more in nocent hnres and rabbits which the Hon. Member for Bristol had shown could do but little harm. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought; that with the evidence of increased crime before them, any resistance to an inquiry on the part of the Government would be impolitic. At the same time, he must confess that he did not think any beneficial alteration ceuld be made in the law. They would find that the prejudice against the game-laws aro , e more out of the excessive preservation of c.,aine than anything else, and the change must be a moral one instead of a legal one. He ep ineliended the law, as it stood, was equally as just to the tenant, as the landlord, but when leases were granted a clause was introduced, reserving or otherwise the right of the game to the landlord. If, therefore, a tenant thought the preserva tion of game upon the land adverse to his interests, let him object to it before he made the contract with his landlord. But, really, the evil lay in the excessive extent to which game was preserved by certain parties. It they wished to derive plea•ure from sporting, let them enjoy it in the way their forefathers did. The change, he thought, rested with the landlord rather than in any altera tion in the law. Indeed, he thought an alteration in the lath would materially affect the rights of property without re moving the evil, and it was now too late to go back to the time when the sale of game was illegal. Certainly they could n.)t alter the law in that respect. He cordially concurred in the appointment of the Con.mittee, and hoped they would approach the conside ration of the subject in the same spirit and temper which had characterised that debate. As he stated before, he despaired of any alteration being made in the state of the law ; but he trusted that, if no alteration, were made, the proprietors of land would see the necessity of regulating their conduct according to the prevailing feeling amongst the rural population of the country. They might create a better feeling amongst their tenants by joining with them is-, their sports ; and he trusted that in future his Hon. Fri-, n d, would adopt this course. He believed, in the f.'",st place, that the complaints against the excessive preservation of game were well founded, and if this evil were removed he thought that it would reduce the amount of crime. It was highly creditable to his Hon. Friends who had taken part in the discussion, that they had consented to a full and impartial inquiry. Nothing could be more honourable than their conduct, nothing could be more marked than their desire to have the mater properly investigated. They threw aside the mere consideration of preserving game, for the paramount objt ct of securing the peace and good order of so ciety. He repeated, nothing could be more honourable than the course they had pursued that evening, determined as they were, without any reference to any taunts which might have been thrown against them, to co-operate with the Hon. Gentle men opposite to obtain this inquiry. WINDOW-TAX. Lord DUNCAN begged leave to withdraw Ills motion, which was to the effect—that the takes levied on windows in Great Britain are unjust, unequal in their operation, and most oppressive to those especially who are least able to bear them, and should be immediately repealed ; and to give notice that he would bring it on on the 13th of Nlarch. EMPLOYMENT IN WORKHOUSES. Captain PECHELL begged to move " That there be forth with laid before this House a return from the Boston Union, stating whether the pauper inmates thereof are, or have been, since the formation of the said union, employed in grinding or crushing bones by means of mills, machinery, or otherwise, to gether with the date of the erection of such mills or machinery, and the names of the chairman and vice-chairman of the board of guardians of the said union at the period ; also, the cost of the said bones, including the experies of carriage a n d o th er incidental expenses, and the amount which the same have pro dnced in their manufactured state, and whether the same have been sold by tender, or at a fixed price or otherwise."._. Agreed to. COMPANY'S CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL. This Bill was read a second time. PROPERTY-TAX. The Property-tax Bill was read a second-time. STAMPS DUTIES ASSIMILATION BILL. This Bill was read a second time. GLASGOW JUNCTION RAILWAY, The Committee on standing orders reported, that the order had been complied with in this Bill. LONDON AND BRISTOL JUNCTION RAILWAY. The standing orders were reported to have been complied with in this Bill. YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY, The Committed reported that the standing orders had been compl ed with in this Bill. 'The house then adjourned at Eleven o'Clock. PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 2G. The following Bills were read a first time:— Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington, and Colne Extension Rail way Bill, Chester and Holyhead Railway Bill, GuildlOrd, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway Bill, Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole Railway Bill, Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge and Huntingdon Line) Bill, Eastern Counties Railway (Ely and Whittlesea Deviation) Bill. Newark and Sheffield Railway,—Petition for Bill ; referred to the Select Committee on Petitions for Private B - 11s. Norwich and Brandon Railway Deviation, and Din and Dereham Branches,—Petition for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Wodehouse and Mr. Bur roughes. Whitby and Pickering Railway,—Report from Select Com mittee on Standing Orders read ; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Aaron Chapman, Sir John Lowther, and Mr. Red head Yorke. Bridgwater Navigation and Railway,—Petition for Bill re ported, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Broadwood, Mr. Forman, and Mr. Acland. Barnsley ...unction Railway,—Petition for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. James Wortlev, and Mr. Beckett. Leeds and "fhirsk Railway,—Petition for Bill reported, and Bill orsiered to be brought in by Sir George Cockburn, Mr. Beckett, and Mr. Busfeild. Huddersfield and Sheffield Junction Railway,—Petition for Bill reported, and Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Stansfield, and Mr. Ward. NOTICES GIVEN AT THE PRIVATE BILL OFFICE. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and North Shields (Tynemouth Ex tension) Railway,—Comm ittee on petition, Tuesday, March 11. Caledonian Railwav,—Second Reading, Monday, March 3. Monkland and Kirkiutolloch Railway,—Second reading, Mondly, March 3. Sheffield and Lincolnshire Junction Railway,—Committee on petition:postponed from Friday, 2Sth February, till Mon day, March 3. Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway,— Second reading, Monday, N arch 3. Chester and Holyhead Railway,—Second reading, Mon day, March 3. 7Newark and Sheffield Railway,—Committee on petition, Monday, March 10. ShreWsbury and Birmingham liailway,—Committee on petition, adjourned till Friday, Feb. 28. Clydesdale Junction Railway,—Committee on petition, ad journed till Friday, Feb. 28. Cornwall Railway,—Committee on petition, adjourned till Friday, Feb. 28. LLOYD'S SHIPPING. - - - - - LONDON, FEB. 27.—Wind southerly, moderate breeze and cloudy. OFF MARGATE, FEB. 26.—Penelope, Brounless, Ichaboe; Beatrice, for London. DEAL, FEB. 26.—Wind W.N.W. to W., fresh breeze.— Arrd. Ellen, Rogers, Tapley (late Mackenzie), Mackee, and Mercury, Lawson, China ; Jane Blain, Reid, pang;Be Aetna, Thompson, Calcutta; Caroline, Arica; Delhi, Young, Buenos Ayres ; Vixen, M'Donald, Bahia ; Sarah Henrietta, Cuba; Robin Grey, Patullo, Mauritius ; Concordia, Ichaboe for Shields; Beatrice, Berbice. PORTSMOUTH, FEB. 26.—Arrd. her Majesty's steamer R h adam an thus, east ward. DARTMOUTH, FEB. 26.—Wind N.—Arrcl. Lady Comber mere, Newcastle for Lisbon, leaky, with loss of sails, bul. warks, &c., and other dam age , h av i ng been struck by a sea and experienced very severe weather. on; Ushant, Helena, Iverson, Bahia for Altona. LivEurooL, FEB. 26.—Wind N.W., fresh.—Arrd, John Dugdale, Milward, China; henry Carwen, Vickers, Ma ar i. tius ; Avon, Doris, Henry Bell, and Rother, Ichaboe; Gipsy, Maranham ; Honduras, Caysta, Jamaica; Grace, Ryrio. Gomera ; St. Manuela, Circulla, Havannah ; Magnificent. an d Mayflower, New Orleans; Delis, Walker, and Safeguard, Charleston ; Patrick Henry, Delano, New York ; Ar gent, s s ... John's, New Brunswick. Oil; Hibbeit, Buenos Ayre s , ConK, FEB. 24.—Prince of Wales and St. George, lebabaa Lucretia, Headbury, St. Domingo. Off, Elora, Tu rn b u ll , Ichaboe. Titoosr, FEB. 25.—Arrd. Maria, Arkley, Ichaboe, DUBLIN, FEB. N.—Sid. Packet, Trinidad, N ew KINGSTOW wiN, FEB. 25.—Arrd. Marl.Zer, Veaey, St. J o h n ' s. Brunsck. Liv E M n YAROUT roorH ROADS, FEB. 26 .—Arrd. Maj es ti c, I cha b oe. , FED. '2O. —The Grace, arrived here from Go p,which frOln washed t he N wreck CaC ashore o o mera, took Oct b oar d at that place 354 casks of palm oil, saved or t r f et the there, bottom Ayrshire, f u r p om an A d f o ri n catothio at Teneriffe, was compelled by author itie s arriving the Spanish to reload th em. Pi:moult, Fan. 26.—Wind W.N.W.—SId. her Majesty's steamer Firebrand, Rio Janerio. PORT 'MOUTI F h• F. 26. —T ke John, Thompson, from New castle, in coming for the harbour on the ebb tide, got ashore on Hamilton Bank, and remains, but is expected OIL GLOUCESTER, FEB. 26.—Arrd. David Banks, Ichaboe. SCILLY, FEB. 24.—The Perfect, from Limerick to London, with oats, which struck on the rocks in coming in to thaw islands, is discharging. PENTLAND FRITH, FEB. 21.—Arrd. William Sorlie, M'Ken zie, Ichaboe. STONEHAVEN, FEII. 24.—The Providence, of this port, ft•ont Sunderland, was towed into the Tay the 20th instant, disinasted. GREENOCK, FEB. 25.—The Enterprise, from Liverpool is Newcastle, got on a rock in the Sound of Mull, 21st inst., bat waa got off and assisted into Tobermory. YARMOUTH, FEB. 25.—The Ferret, for Sunderland, awl the Diadem, of Yarmouth, were in contact this morning, wheu the lstter received damage. On SWANAGE.—Persia, Morris, China. Mr. Oakeley, of Margaret-street Chapel, who has made himself so notorious by his Romanist practices and his Romanist publications, and by a late defiance to his diocesan, has been at length suspended by the Bishop of London.—E veniny Paper. ~. ~:-