The Express.
London, England, 1848-06-08 00:00:00

OAME CERTIFICATES FOR KILLING HARES
BILL.

On the further consideration of the report of this bill,
Mr. ELLIOT nriv.d an amendment on the first clause,
to the effect of requiring that the leave given by landswners
to other. to kill game on their Linda should be given in
writing.
Mr. COLVILE objected to the amendment, as calculated
to frustrate the whole object of the bill. To make such
written leave 1.-gal it would be necessary it should be
written on a stame.
Capt. HARRIS supported the amendment.
Mr. BUCK could not but regard this Lill as the first step
to the annihilatim of the game laws ; it tan a free-trade
measure in disguise; and next they should have free trade
in partridges and grouse proposed by some hon. member op-
pm* As in corn, so in game, the landed interest would
he overthrown by biting in the thin edge of the wedge.
t" Oh," and lairatiter.)
Mr. CHRISTOPHER supported the amei.dment.
Sir G. ORbY hoped the hon. meter of the bill would not
contact this point.
The amendment was then agreed to.
Mr. COLVILE then moved the nmieeon from clause 1
of the words " by any means a .ve as hereinafter excepted."
As it stood, the clause prevented the killing of bates by
shooting; and this would only tend to encourage illicit
modes of destroying game.
Sir G. GREY thought the oto:,,ion proposed would be
immaterial, as the fourth clause set-add tit ta qualify the per-
mission to kill hares. When that clause came to he consi-
dered he wool I support the removal of the re.triction.
Nothing was more absurd than to give the farmer the right
of destroying both rabbits and hares, with power to shoot the
former but not the latu r. (Hear.)
Mr. G. BERKELEY was opposed to the permission of
shooting ham as it would be the means of putting a large
number of deadly weapons into the hands of the peasantry.
To talk of a boon to the tenantry was out of the question ;
for no boon could be given them without the permi.sion of
the landlords, who, whatever the law might exact, would
prohibit the shooting of hares on pain of expelling the
tenants from their farms.

Col. SIBTHORP thought the bill wholly unnecessary end
bad in principle.
Capt. HARRIS was in favour of the permission to shoot
. .

Mr. H. BERKELEY desired to tee free trade in game as
in everything else. He would support the free sale of game,
and the right of every man to the birds suit beasts which he
bred and till. He was opposed to this motion, which rested
on an assumed distinction between poaching by the gun and
by the snare. They were equally immoral, but the former
gave rise to far more fatal affrays than the other. By per-
mitting the peasants to go about armed the most disastrous
and demoralising consequences might ensue, as every man
behind a hedge might have a gun in his hand.
Sir W. JOLLII. FE was opposed to the permission to
shoot by night.
Mr. S. LRAWFORD defended the tenantry from the
imputation shot they would make a bad use of arms.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER opposed the motion.
The house then divided—For the motion 77

Against it 22-65
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
On the 3rd clause, relating to the keeping of bounds and

beagles, _
Mr. ELLIOT moved an amendment, excepting the
owners of such dogs from the non-liability to take out game
certificates.
AIG r a conversation the amendment was withdrawn.
Sir J. TROLLOI'E moved the omission of certain words
from the clause which relate, to the destroying of hares by
poison.
After a few words from Mr. F. Mart.; the amendment
was withdrawn.
Sir W. JOLLIFF'E moved the addition of the words " by
night " tnclause 4, with the view of limiting the shooting of
hares to the daytime. The great evils of the game laws had
arisen from she use of fire-arms by night ; and if the hill
were allowed to pose in its present, form, the mod serious
consequences might he anticipated from the general permis-
sion of the use of arms.
Mr. G. BERKELEY opposed the amendment.
The house divided.—For the motion
Against it lB-00
Sir W. JOLLIFFE moved the addition of further words
defining the duration of the night, which were agreed to.
Oa the motion that the bill be engrossed,
Mr. H. DRUMMOND weed that it be engrossed that
day tit months. lie believed that the poacher was nothing
more than a peer sportsman, and that it was the love of sport
that made him hunt after grime, though he knew there was
another class who went under the denomination of poachers,
and who were ready to take sheep, or anything else that came
in their way. lie thought the: all that was wanted was an
amended trespcs act, :and ti.n :iJ of the ga.ua laws

altogether, which he considered to be an sot of tyranny, in
favour of which not one word could be said. (Hear.)
Col. SIIITIIORP said he would oppose the motion of his
hon. friend, but on the third reading he would move the
rejection of the bill.
Mr. 8. CRAWFORD agreed with the hon, member for
Surrey (Mr. Drummond) in opposing the bill altogether.
He objected to anything in the form of a delusion, and he
believed this to be one, for it would not relieve the farmer
from any of the oppnesions of the game laws. (lieu.)
Mr. ELLIOT differed from the hon. gentlemen who had
just spoken. Ile bilk red that the bill would prove bene-
ficial to small proprietors, who now had no power of avoid-
ng the mischief done to their crops.
Mr. O. BERKELEY said th►t the poor poacher, who was
the object of 'empathy of the hon, member for Surrey, was
a person capable of committing any crime. He would caution
the house nut to motile with the Trespass Aot. If they
gave up the game laws, they would be obliged to have re-
course :o a much severer measure than the present Trespass
Act. He believed that the bill contained some provisions
that were good, and therefore he hoped the house w.uld
pass it.
The house divided—For the motion ll
Against it
GAME CERTIFICATES FOR KILLING HARES
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
The different clnu•re et this bill passed through committee.
Mr. G. BERKELEY propeed an additi mal clause, giving
power to the police to &Tryst poachers with guns, bares, or
rabbits in thdr pusecte.on.
Mr. MACKIINZIII, Mr. ELLIOT, the LOUD AOTOCATS, and
Mr. lluxs opp,,Kll the clause, which was withdrawn.
The bill was then reported.
SCHOOLMASTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
-- • • ••• .

This bill wee withdrawn.
PLACES OF WORSHIP SITES SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. IL COCHRANE rose to oppose the measure, and ho
thought that those members who were not acquainted with
Scotland should know something of the origin of this free
kirk church. Ho could respect persons if they separated
from the church on points of doetrine, but the secret of
the seemai-dt was that Dr. Candlish and Dr. Coal-
men wished to become the masters of the Scotch church.
Only 190 ministers, or one-third of the whole church, be-
longed to the tree kirk ; and how many refusals of sites were
there, did the house think ? There were only 29 sites re-
fused, *Wilt 60J sites weragranted. (Hear, hear.) There
was no recomme dation on this subject by the committee
which sat upon it. The Duke of Richmond was held up to
public odium for nut granting Cites, whereas the
tact was that he offered sib s for churches. Ile
would show Oat the free kirk was associated with all
the republan movements in Scotland. (Hear.) He would
refer to the evidence given before the committee, and to
papers publidied ut der the authority of the free kirk.
The h 0.,. gentleman then reed two ertieles from the Ira
,tear if a repoblieln tendency, than which he maintained
nothing more mischievous, republican, or outrageous was
published under the auspices of Mr. Mitchel in Ireland.
Mr. F. MAPLE emphatically denied that the Waiters
was the organ o: the free church.
Mr. COCHRANE en aurpri.ed at that, necause it was
generally consi.ered to be so. He would now refer to the
evidence given before the commi tee of 1847. The hon.
gentleman then read extracts from tre evidence of Dr.
Chalmers' frsm which be said it was evident that it was the
object of the tree church to overthrow the established
.arch. Though that eat clear, they were now to be forced to
grant sites to a church that openly proclaimed see h objects.
He maintained that this bill was unnectiOarr, and lens cal.
masted to bring dissensions into Scotland. Ile concluded by
mueing that the hill be committed that day sue months.
Mr. H. DRUhIMOND seconded the motion.

kr. F. afAULE raid he had hoped that the di/erosion on
this subject would he trio from all I.cling of bitterness,
which be trusted was passing away in Bc Aland, and which
he was sorry to see revived in that house. (clear,',
hear.) lie would not, however, follow the hon. gentleman
in his re . and would only remark that the hon.
gentleman was utterly ignorant of the origin of the schism
and of most of the tact. connected with the separation in
Scotland. No prawn could lament those proceef lugs more
than be; but at the same time no person could mere lit mly
maintedu that those who separated from the established
church had done so because there was no other course left
them to pursue, if they wished to uphold those principles
which they believed to be right. (Hear, hear.) The lion.
gentleman said that 2lel ministers had weeded, whereas the
actual number was 472. With regard to the disaffection of
the free church body, clerical and lay, towards the laws and
' coestitution of this country, the hon. gentleman was never
ma re mistaktn than when he supposed that the members
of that church were connected with the movements of the
age or tended in the an tallest degree to what he was pleased
to call rei.ublicarism. (Hear, hear.) No persons wire better
affected toward. the sovereign, or towards the law., or more
anxious to disseminate the principles of religion and gold or-
der thoughout the land teen those who composed the tree
church of Scotland. (Hear, hear.) The bon. gentleman
had dwelt largely on certaiu articles in the Witness news-
paper, which he called the organ of the free chei•ch. It was
frequently called so before the committee of 1847 ; hut it 'vas
constantly and distinctly deuied to be their organ, or that it
11.41authorisid by that body. They had no euthenist d organ.
It was et rtaiuly edited by a member of the free church, but,
although it represented what was passing among that body
more correctly then any other paper, it contained
many articles which +tee condemned by the free church,
and did harm to it. (Hear, Lear.) There were articles in it
lately with regard to his noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch
w Web he deeply regretted, and which he believed were re.
to speak lightly and tbppantly of the evidence given by Dr.
Chalmers, who was now no mare. He could only say that
it he felt any satisfaction at all in that matter, it was 'het he
believed the house, in listening to the speech of the hon.
gentleman, would feel with him so much diluent at it that
they would be the leu inclined to support the motion with
which he cauclneled. Ile would say nothing of the terms
which the hoe. gentleman had used in reference to
that great man. He believed that if Dr. Chalmers
were a ill alive, he would crush such an assailant
as he %soul.' brush away a fly from his face. Ile hoped the
house would no. to led away from the real matter under their
conelderation by the tone of irritation in which that discus.
sion had been introduced. (Hear.) If the h 'use adopted
the principle of the lull it would give satisfaction to en es•
te wive portion of the community of his country. If it pleased
them to reject it he st.tfel deeply regret their basing elnne
so, because that would leave a feeling of dieeatiefaction
rankling in the minds of that body. (Hear, Ilea,)
Mr. B COCHRANE rose to explain. He would not re-
fer to the term "disgust " used by the right hon. gentieman,
and which be had not known was consistent with order
in th .t house. But he distinctly and emphatically denied
that he had spoken disrespectfully of Dr. Chalmers. He
Lad merely quoted the evidence which 1/r. Chalmere had
given before the committee of 1847 ; and if th at evidence
was not to be ()noted, because that eminent man was dead,
without subjectieg one's a if to a charge of disrespect to his
m mory, he did not know of what use such evidence could
now he

_
Lord DIUDILA'NRIG certainly had not heard the hon.
gentlemen make use of the words attributed to him. With
regard to the bill, as further discussion had been challenged,
he must soy that he thought there were grievance., and
that the bill was not deserving the censures cast upon it. As
they did not refuse a man ground for burial, so they ought
not to refuse him ground whereon to build a temple of wor-
ship to his at d.
Mr. M. MILNES thought the history of the free kirk
one of the most remarkable instances of devotion ever re-
corded. But he could see no reason why ca exceptional law
was to he passed in its favour. It they gave facilities of
this sort to dissent in Scotland, what might they not he
called uph to do in England ? The Wesleyan.' in our own
country had once suffered, but by patier ce and prineverance
they WO won the esteem of all persuasion.. Such a measure
cc this, however, was rather calculated to excite animosity
than to allay it. Landowners were not to be forced into
compliance with a hat they thought unreasonable demands,
and he thought the free church party had better net on prin-
ciples of moderation than renew that hostile feeling which,
he had hoped, was gradually abating. He should vote agaiust
the bill.

Mr. OSWALD had brought down upon himself much dis-
play of ill will by voting against this hill on a former occa-
sion. He should not, however, violate his principles on that
account. Ti.ou..fli he did cot belong to the free church he
de. ply sympathised with it in mad), respects. Its members
had given noble testimonies to the sincerity of their ITN.
gMus belief. But he objected to this measure en the ground
that the number of instances in which sites ware reinvest
were only 22, and that it was improper to introduce a mea-
sure affect no every part of Scotland in order to m et an evil
so trifling M its extent.
Sir J. GRAHAM must frankly say that he was compelled
to enter into the discussion of this subj, ct with more pain
and regret than he could well describe. That regret and
piin were increased by the allusions which had been mode by
the member for Bridport. It had been his painful fate in
the committee last year to be brought into hostile collision
with one of the greatest men Scotland ever produced. He
admired Dr. Cl almers as a philosophir, as a echo ar, amiss a
friend, and no lapse of time would ever cause
him tosease 'amenting being unhappily brought into collision
with him. He had now been taken, as Dr. Henry said,
from the church militant to the church triumphant, and it
was, consequently, a still greater duty to enter into this dis-
cussion in a spirit ry opposite to anything like anger or
animosity. The position in which he had been placed with
regard to this subject was one of the moat unpleasant of his
life. He had h- forced to the performance of a most dis-
agreeable duty, the more so as he regarded the secession
from the Sottish church 112 one of the moot unhappy evente
that ever had occurre d. He came to the discussion of this
bill, therefore, with no pleasant feelings. Ile was bound to
say, however, that if this hill was Tamil at all it ought to be
made applicable not to Scotland only, but to every part of
the United Kingdom. (Hear,'hear.) Although, also, there
, was this diversity of religious opinion, he did not be-
lieve that the owners of property were inexorable with
! regard to the sale of land for these purposes. If this were so
why deprive the owners of property of the right they pos.
seised, sod the pleasure they might enjoy, of assisting and
conciliating their neighbours ? If this view of the cue were
cornet the bill was worse than superfluous. It was said
that 725 churches had been built in Scotland during
the last three years: only twenty-two congregations
were unable to obtain the precise sites they re-
quired, and of these only eight were unable to obtain
any suitable dwelling in which to worship. Well, then, was
s there any ease for this sort of interference ? He had reason
to believe that if thin attempt at legislation had not been
brought forward concessi- no by several of the landed pro-
prietors would have been made. (Hear, hear.) Ile was
glad to hear the right hon. gentleman the Secretary at War
declare that the Witness was not to be considered
tho organ of the free church. He was glad to hear
it, especially on account of the attacks upon a noble friend
of his, to whose justice, kindness, and conciliatory slip/viol-
lieu nut s single person on his estates but would bear