The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1824-04-02 00:00:00

LEO.itCY DUTY.

Mr. HUME said he would move for a return of sums, which ap-
peared small. Their amount was net great, but the amount of the
trouble and vexation felt in the collection of them was great—he
meant the Legacy Tax upon property which was less than 1001.
He was satisfied that the Legacy Duty should be collected on other
property, but it should not be burdensome and onerous to indivi-
duals who had been left small properties. He learned from the
Returns of the Stamp Duties laid on the table, that the total amount
of the revenue collected front stamps, duty on klisicies, probates of
Etc. amounted to one million eight hundred and one thousand
pounds. He did not at present calculate what was
it
on property
to the amount of less than 1001. ; but he supposed it was equivalent
to that paid last year. The charges made upon small property of
this nature were immense, and were well worth the attention of the
House. Ile himself knew an instance of an individual who was
bequeathed 1061., and the expenses attending the probate of the
will amounted to 14L Here then was a tax of 11 per cent. imposed
upon property left by a son to his poor and indigent mother.
Here a Member asked if the son died a bachelor ?

Mr. Illt3l E said he did. In another case the ;Um left was 651.,
and the expense of the probate was 41. 14s. lid. It would be said
these sums were small. Ile admitted it; but they were grievous
and oppressive to the poor families who had to pay them, and who
particularly felt the payment on property less than 1001. This was
the law in England ; but it was acted upon with much more strict-
ness and severity in Scotland. He would impress the subject
upon the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, if he
knew his nature right, he would endeavour to give every satisfaction
to the people; and as the amount of the revenue was small and
trifling, he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would abolish it alto-
gether. There was another subject to which he would call the at.
tender of the House in a few words; and he again ventured to
call the attention of the Hight lion. Gentleman to the subject, and
to hope he would relieve the public from the imposition of this'
revenue—he meant the allowance of the discount of Mx per cent.
allowed to the Proctors of Doctors ('onintona upon property of 1001.
and 1301. and upwards. The discount allowed to the Proctor in
one case, where the property amounted to 120,0001., was 221. Ins,
Fur this the Proctor had no trouble—he had merely to go to So-
merset House and get the stamp. It was unjust that the Proctor
should have an ad valet cm discount, and should have no trouble
except that of taking out the stamp. If the Chancellor of the
Exchequer exempted small property front this discount, it would
occasion a great saving to the public. The Government should not
allow a discount of ?As. to the Proctor ; it was enormous. He did
not wish to deprive any individual of remuneration ; but this was
much too great. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it
his interest if he established an office at Doc:ors Commons, where,
at the expense of three or four hundred pounds a year, stamps RUE.
ficient for the purposes might be issued, and the discount be saved to
the public. He had spoken of the manner in which these laws
were enforced in Scotland. He would quote a passage front a letter
which he received from a Magistrate of that country on the subject.
Ile would allow the writer to speak for himself on the subject.
The writer stated, as a proof of the severity with which the law
was enforced, that even the old worsted nit:lit-cap, and the shoes
and slipper which were put on the feet of the dead man, were re. I
Ilguired to be entered in the inventory of the property. This was
the manner in which the law of the legacy duties was carried into:
effect in Scotland. It was cot so in England, where the laws were
ladministered with liberality, and where the value of the property '
was taken from the appraiser. If these laws were thus mildly ad.
ministered in England, why should they not be equally so in Scot-
, land ? There was also another subject of which he complained :
if an indiridual died possessing property of 1,0001., this individual i
might owe 9:4L, and it might be known to all that he is not
worth 501. ; nevertheless, his executors must pass a bond for the
payment of the tax upon all, and no reduction will be made until'
, the entire duty it paid. This reduction was attended with trouble
land expense. Ile thought himself justified in calling the attention
of the Right lion. Gentleman to this subject, and expressing a
hope he would perform an act of justice and relief. Ile would
move for • The amount ofrevenue derived front the tax on stamps,'
legacies, probates of wills, and the revenue derived from the legscy
duty paid on property tinder 1001., in England, Ireland, and Scot-
land from the year 11123 to the end of the year 1112.1."
I The CHANC'ELIA/It of the EXCHEQUEIt did not know of
any. übjeetion to the production of these papers; but as to the
variety of points alluded to by the Hon. Alember, he could not
feel justified in giving a decided answer at present. He had looked
fur a lung time at the question of the stamps upon legacisa, and be
was compelled to acknowledge he was not perfectly satisfied, from
the view he had as yet but time to take of the question, with the
course he ought to adopt, or with the expediency of those taxes
which were to be taken off, and of those to be left on; and he was
still undecided, both u to the extent and the practical benefits to

be derived from the reductions which the Ban. M!,nbev hal re-
commended. Upon these subjects his views were not made up,
either one way or the other; but he must lay down one principle
with respect to these reduetio.ts, that he wauld not voluntarily
part with a greater portion of revenue titan he could spare con-
sistently with this principle. Be would be as ready as the lion.
Member to make any alterations which would teal to the relief of
the community at !age.
Lord BINNINO would approve of an alteration in the legacy
duty.
Mr. LOCK BART said, there were two distinctions to be made
in proctors' bills: one arose from the general charges, which he
admitted were high ; the other arose front the law. 14'hen • man
died in the country, his Loma notabilia were the source of greut ex-
pense, and various journeys to London would be taken on the m-
egaton ; it would, in his Opinion, diminish both the trouble and
expense, if the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed in the capital
of each county fixed Coininisaioners.
After an explanation from Mr. HUME, the motion was
agreed to.
BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.
. .

Mr. Secretary PE E. Moved the third reading of the above Bill.
Mr. III 1311: thought it would be better to postpone the third
reading of the measure until it could be ascertained whether or not
it was likely to give satisfaction in Ireland, as that was the chief
object of the measure.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that the Hon. Member was mistaken
if he thought there could be any measure which would not create a
difference of opinion in Ireland. Considering all the circumstances
to which the Bill related, he thought it would be most inexpedient
to invite discussion upon it in Ireland.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
COAL DUTIES.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition from the proprietors
of certain collieries in the North of England, praying toe continu-
ance of an equal duty on soals.—Ordered to be printed.
Sir M. W. RI DLEY moved the Order of the Day, and the House
resolved itself into a Committee upon the Coal Trade Acts. The
Honourable Baronet then proceeded to request the attention of the
House for the short time only which he hoped to detain them. lie
believed that no one had heard or read the speech of the Right
Honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer without being gratified at
the sound principles therein proclaimed, as the foundation of that
commercial and financial policy which the Government intended to
adopt. But he had yet to learn upon what grounds of justification
the sante speech should contain a proposition for an unequal rate of
taxation upon the same article, and which would produce the ruin
of the coal trade in the city of London, and almost that of the north
of England. The Honourable Baronet read a passage from the
speech of the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer, relative to the diniinu-
tion of the duties ..on rums, which argued for the fairness of
placing the duty upon the same footing as that paid by British
spirits, and stated that in principle it could not be reduced lower.!
Now here was a plain and distinct recognition of the principle of '
equal taxation ; and yet the Right Ilonourable Gentleman violated
his own principle almost in the sante breath, by removing the coal
duties in so unequal and disproportionate a degree. If it were
said that this had been done for the benefit of the consumer, then
the Right Honourable Gentleman must go farther, and take off the
duties altogether. If it were done on account of the inferiority of
the article, the Right Honourable Gentleman must still fr, farther,
and look at the coals of the North. There they had various sorts,
and some as inferior ie quality as the coals in Staffordshire ; but
they paid the same duties before they could get into the market, as
the very best that were produced. The Right Honourable Gentle-
man was bound to consider the interests which had grown up under
these duties for • century, and rather to give them protection
than injure them by sucks measure as had been proposed. The
Right Honourable Baronet then referred to two documents issued
from the Treasury, in which the importance of these rights were ac-
knowledged and protection promised them, and where a former
opinion oldie Right lion. Gent. was recorded, expressing his hope that
Parliament would never countenance measures which were injurious
to the Tyne navigation. He was quite certain that the Right lion.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never intentionally say any
thing which would hurt the teelings or interests of individuals, and
that if any words escaped him having that tendency, they must have'
been inadvertently used. But there was a passage in his late
speech which had produced that effect ; it was in that part where
he spoke of the reduction of the three shillings and fourpence duty.
He would here say that the coal proprietors of the North
had no objection to this ditty being taken oil', but thought that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done perfectly right in re-
ducing it. and wished he would reduce more. But in stating
this to the House, the Right Honourable Gentleman said certain
persona possessing a monopoly were in the habit of stinting the
supply fur the sake of enhancing the price to their own benefit,
and to the loss of the consumer. lie knew there was an im-
pression that an understanding existed amongst the collieries of
the North, by which they could at any time only supply a certain
quantity to the London market. But this he altogether denied.
The Honourable Baronet then went into a statement of the ex-
tent of the northern collieries, and the population they em-
ployed, and maintained that the heavy export duties keeping
them out of the foreign markets, with other restrictions, pre-
vented then from trading freely with the article, and therefore
demanded protection. Yl ith regard to the increase of price to
the consumer, the proprietor had nothing whatever to do with
it. The price of coals at the pits had not increased, and within the
last two years it had been from two to four shillings per chaldron.
He had a statement of the number of ships in the market, together
with the prices for every market day in the last year, and upon two
only was the whole supply purchased. lie would state to the House
the number of ships in the market over the demand for each
month, In February 100, in Mardi 250, in April 156, in May
160, in June 44, in July 7!. in August 127, in September 186, in
October 97, in November 43, and to December ate. The lion.
Baronet made a correspooding statement of the number of ships
for which meters could not be supplied on the market days.
He should submit • resolution to the Committee for removing
the whole of the duties, with a view to impose fresh ones upon
an equal scale. His second resolution regarded the coasting
trade, with whom time Right Honourable Gentleman had dealt very
hardly, in allowing then no share in the remissions which hod
taken place. His third resolution would be, that it was expedient
for the said duties to be totally but gradually repealed. The
lion. Baronet concluded by moving his first resolution--That it
was the opinion of the Committee that the duty on teals, culm, or
cinders, not being charcoal made from wood, brought coastwise
from any port, or by inland navigation to certain places, should
cease and determine ; and that all coals, mint, or cinders, not being
charcoal made from wood, in case it was such as was most usually
sold by weight, should pay a duty of is. fid.; and in case it was
such as was most usually sold by measure, a duty of 65.; and that
such articles brought by the Grand Junction or Paddington Canals,
or by the Thames, nearer than the City Stone or Staines Bridge,
should pay a duty of 3s. Ekl.
Mr. LITTLETON called upon the House to consider the rea-
SODS for which a duty had first been imposed by sea, and not upon
those which arrived by island conveyance. He wax satisfied that
every one must see that it was owing to the immense advantages
' which such a mode of carriage conferred. The first imposition
of the duty upon inland coals in the year 1805, was a great in-
justice, and which could not be supported upon any reasonable
grounds. There were a hundred places where the inland coals
now came into competition with those imported by sea, without
paying any duty whatever. This was the case in all ports, so
at. they did not approach the Metropolis. If his Right lion. Friend
tile Chancellor of the Exchequer approved the principle of the
London duty, which he was happy to think was not the case,
then he was bound to extend it to all other places. The mono-
poly of the Northern Coal Proprietors was not limited to London,
but had been secured all round to the distance of seventeen miles
by land, and thirty-one by water. He would shew the House
what was the cult of a certain quantity of coals when imported in-
land and ready for sale, and the cost of an equal quantity of sea.
borne coals lying in the Thames Pool, and it would be for them
to judge whether the proposed duties were unequaL The expense
of freightage and other charge, compared to the prime cost of New-
castle coals, was as 11 to ij. The same expenses, as compared
to the prime cost of Staffordshire coals, was as to 18. The
King's duty upon the Newcastle, as 13 to 17; the duties paid by
the Staffordshire to the Government and the City, as 19 to 8. So
that upon both these heads the charges were infinitely higher upon
the inland coals than upon the sea-borne. In addition to this he
had to state, that the charge of tonnage upon coals to the value of
18L, was from 30 to 33; so that 160 per cent. was paid upon the
prime cost of the article. The sea coals, navigating the tree sea,
were not liable to thou! charges, and therefore came into the mar.
bet with much greater advantage.. Perhaps after this the House
would not be surprised to hear the small proportion of inland
coals introduced into the London market. The iotportation of
more than 50,0011 tom annually was prohibited ; but the duties
he had mentioned rendered such a prohibition useless. 77 e lion.
Member read a statement of the quantity of inland coal im-
ported since the passing of the Act of 1805, which 'Mewed the
very small proportion that came into the market. In the year
1822, it was 1,54 tons; in 1813, it was 912; and in 1824, 1,61Z1
tons. The 800. Baronet had stated, that the northern col.
lieries liad a limited market for their article, but be would
find that, by comparison, those in Stsflitedshire were much
worse off. The reason why hie constituents wished him to
support the resolution of the Government was this :—while they
did not object to the gradual reduction of the duties on the coals
from the North, although that would be much to their injury, they
felt that they had a right to claim the earliest reduction of those
which had been placed upon themselves with so much injustice.
lie was sorry to say that he had no interest in the question ; but
the Gentlemen on the °Mir side had strong reasons for opposing the
pion of Government. His Honourable Friend. the 31eitiber for
I Yorkshire. and the Honourable Members for Durham and New-
castle, had weighty reasons for the present motion, but he 'limo de-
cline taking their evidence, as being interested persons. lie must
make a monk with regard to the Honourable Baronet's denial
of the existence of monopoly. It was the common belief that a
monopoly did exist, and such a one as had the power to affect the
prices paid by the public. lie should, for these reasons, give a nega-
tive to the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought it was
incumbent on hint to give some explanation of what he had pre-
vlousl7 offered on the subject of the coal duties. Some misrepre.
sentation and misunderstanding of his sentiments had been made
upon that subject. The northern districts had enjoyed hitherto&
monopoly in this trade; that monopoly it was not to be wondered
they were anxious to preserve, as it was guaranteed to them by Act
of Parliament. The reset= of the diminution of duty on inland
coal was, that the portion of it allowed by statute to enter the
London market did not find its way to London, in consequence of
the superiority of the Newcastle coal, with which it had to compete.
Fifty thousand tons, the quantity limited by Act of Parliament, did
I not find its way into the market. What weighed principally with'
tiovemment in the reduction of the duty on inland coal was, the'
'treater expense to which these engaged in that trade were subject
in bringing it to London. The canal was tile mode of conveyance
of inland cool, and it mattered little to the proprietors of this mut-
modity whether they paid duty to tile Canal Company or to Litt-'

vemment. It was a positive expense and tax on them either way,
which required redress. The city of London was increasing in
opulence and extent, and the demand for this article necessarily
increased. It was but fair that all engaged in the supply of coal
should have equal facilities in the supply of it, which could only
be effected by a reduction proportionate to the increase of expense
entailed by land conveyance over that introduced into the market
by coast. The taking off of 3s. Id. on inland coal was intended as
a benefit to the consumers of it. So far he disapproved and objected
to the two first resolutions of the lion. Baronet. The third
i resolution recommended the reduction of the whole duty, by means
of gradual abolition, in the course of three or four years. This was
a proposition to which it was impossible he could assent, as it would
take off 000,0001. from the revenue, on the realization of which he
had calculated at the opening of the Session. (Hear.) It would
go mainly to destroy the fabric of revenue he had raised, and would
to that extent diminish the disposable surplus on which he haul cal.
culated. The lion. Baronet, therefore, surely could not expect
that he was callable of committing so suicidal an act as he would be
guilty of were he to accede to such a proposition.
NIL ELLISON stated that there was a deputation in town from
Newcastle, with whom he had held frequent conferences on this
subject. They sought no monopoly, and only expected that they
would not be put on a disadvantageous ground, in competing with
those engaged in the same branch of trade. Ile did not himself
work any collieries, and his opinions were therefore unbiassed by
t individual interest, as far as the present duty was concerned. The
propositions of his lion. Friend (Sir 31. W. Ridley) had his cordial
support.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY thought the duty which had hitherto
been placed on inland coal operated as a prohibition on its intro-
duction into Londrp. Front the inferiority of the inland coal, no
competition could ever fairly arise between it and the coal brought
coastwise. For purposes of ordinary use, the northern coal had
such superiority that no rivalship between them could be created.
The inland coal was consumed more rapidly, and was used rather as
a luxury than for ordinary purposes. What besdies, in his opi-
nion, entitled those interested in the importation of inland coal, was
the circumstance of increased expense at which it was brought to
London. For instance, it was far more expensive to bring such
coals by canals, and deposit them at Paddington, than it was to
convey them coastwise. Under these circumstances he hoped that
the Legislature would extend its protection to the introduction of
inland coals, which was all that was sought for by those engaged in
the inland supply to the London market.
31r. S. IvoitTLEv admitted that the northern counties en-
joyed what might be termed a monopoly in the supply of this arti-
cle, but it was a monopoly which their skill had acquired for
them : it was, moreover, a monopoly of nature. The northern
counties supplied coals at a cheaper rate than any other part of the
kingdom, and were entitled to the natural advantages they enjoyed.
If coal could be brought to London from Suillordshire, or from any
other county cheaper, then. but not till then, would it be entitled
to a preference. If the northern counties had the means of supply.'
ing them at a more moderate rate, had not they the right to enjoy
the advantages of those means ? But it was not, he contended, Our
for his Right lion. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), by
the proposed reduction on inland coals, to give a boas, for the in-
troductionof coals from Staffordshire or elsewhere, to the prejudicell
of fair competition. The present duties were not imposed for the
benefit of those engaged in the coal-trade in the north of England,
but for the benefit of the revenue. What was the duty, for instance,
on the coal of Newcastle-on-Tyne? First, there was a duty culled
the Duke of Richmond's duty, which was lid.; then there were
other duties, which amounted to Bs. per chaldron. Now the average
price of a chaldron was 135.; so that the duty or tax amounted to
100 per cent. on the sale of the article. What right had the coal
front Staffordshire, he would again ask, to be exempt from like
duties with those brought to market from other quarters? Let but
a fair competition be given, and he would undertake to say that
they would beat—he would not again mention Staffordshire (a
laugh)—Warwickshire, or any other county, in the supply of
this most necessary article. His Right lion. Friend laid down the
comparative cheapness with which coal imported coastwise was in-
troduced into the market, as a ground for the proposed reduction
on inland coal This was not, in his opinion, a valid ground of
argument. If it were an available one, then should the price
of corn brought from Yorkshire be less titan that from Kent, as
the conveyance front the former was far cheaper. But although
conveyance from the northern counties now was cheaper, it might I
not continue. In the event of a war, freightage, which followed
the rate of insurance, would increase to such a degree as to render
conveyance coastwise more expensive. This was an additional I
reason foe not making the rate of conveyance r ground of legis-
lation.

Mr. T. COURT EN.IY said, that the tax upon sea-borne coals
pressed very heavily, and he called on those persons representing
the western parts of this country to press its =policy upon the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, it was a tax upon
• necessary of life; and, in the next place, it affected the poor. and,
it further prevented the increase of large manufactories. He wished
all persons to be placed upon an equal footing, and that the whole
iltax should be gradually reduced.
Col. WOOD observed, that the Newcastle coal would always
' put the inland coal out of the market, which bore no duty. If the
whole of the duty on sea-borne coal was taken off, it would drive
the Vi'elsh and Staffordshire coal out of this market. Ile thought
the repeal of this duty could not, on the ground contended fir,
be taken off; and if nine hundred thousand pounds of duty were to
be taken off, he would say, take it off windows rather than coals ' •
give him light, and let other Honourable Members take to goal
bring. With respect to the duty at the pit's mouth, nothing could
be len desirable.
Lord 3IILTON said the discussion hitherto had been one car.,
ried as between Newcastle and Staffordshire. lie agreed with the
Hon. Member who had just spoken, that good light was preferable
to a good firs, and he further considered, that the repeal of the win.
dew duty would be better received than the partial repeal of the
duty on coals. There should be no geographical scale of relief any
more than of the infliction of taxes. It was hard upon the rest of
the community to be obliged to
.pay, in other taxes, the sum re-
mitted to the benefit of the city of London, which amounted to
100,0101. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this reduction
was only a prelude to the general and gradual reduction of the
whole duty, and lie hoped the country would soon have that pro-
mise realised. lie was not surprised at the call made by the western
counties, for if they did not contain much iron or coals, still they
were abundant in Members of Parliament—the county of Corn.
wall, containing about 200,000 inhabitants, having as many :Mem.'
bers as the counties of York and Lancaster, containing as many
millions. He wished both sets of resolutions to be for the present
withdrawn, and one agreed to, that as long as the window duty
continued, it would not be advisable to repeal that on sea-borne
coals. The people generally should be relieved, and no geo-
graphical principle acted on in the repeal of taxes. Capital and
wages had accommodated themselves to the existing duty and no
partial repeal should he extended.
Mr. N. CA LVERT thought that if an unequal pressure of duty
existed, the persons suffering front it should be relieved. Ile thought
that the repeal of the duty on coals would materially increase the
comforts of the poor.
Mr. THE3I.I NE was of opinion that great caution should be
observed on the question ; but, as far as we understood the Hon.
Member, he supported the resolution for the repeal of the duty.
Sir T. LETHBRIDGE said he was much afraid, that if this
tax were now taken off, the coasumers would derive but little
benefit from it, and the amount repealed would fall into the
hands of the great coal owners. He should oppose the resolutions
of the lion. Baronet (Sir M. W. Ridley).
31r. L.l 311ITON admitted that he had a deep interest in the
subject before the House ; but he would leave it to the Com-
mittee, only being inclined to justify himself, and those with whom
he had acted. He denied that any limit had been put to the supply
of coals to the London market; on the contrary, the increasing
supply would prove the reverse. There was every day in the port
of Lontlea a greater number of cargoes of coals than were put.
chased. He denied that any monopoly existed ; all he and others
asked was, a clear stage and no favour ; all they asked was, to be
placed upon a fair and equal footing with the inland coal owners.
They should not be driven from the London market without being
allowed to send the article elsewhere. Every year 40(1,000 char.
dress of coals were consumed on the soil in the north of England,
in consequence of its inferior quality and the high duties placed
upon its export. If the tax be taken off, let the coal owners be
allowed free export to other markets. Again, he repeated, they
wanted no monopoly, but a clear stage and no favour.
sir T. ACLA LI thought the only fair way of proceeding In
this cause was to relieve pressure where it existed, in the first place,
and then proceed whit the total repeal of a duty which pressed
heavily on many parts of the kingdom.
Dlr. NEIV3IAN considered the duty on coals to be harsh and
oppressive, and that it should be repealed as speedily as possible.
.Ir. AIONEV supported the repeal of the tax, and observed,
that every thing should be done that tended to keep up the tratfie
ill coals by the colliers, as he considered it as the great nursery for
seamen.

3lr. 11. SI.'3INER entertained the name notion on the subject of
this tax as he had always done ; it was unfair to call on the Chan.
cellor of the Exchequer for the repeal of the taxes in the manner!
that had been done ; he did nut understand that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer was pledged to the reduction of any particular tax ;
he bad brought forwanl the Budget most impartially, and he had
no doubt but that in the event of a surplus of the revenue that he
would apply the relief accruing from such surplus where it would
be most beneficially tat. (Hear.)
Mr. Alderman BRIDGES remarked, that the question had
undergone so full a discussion that very little was left to be said on
it. lllanv observations had been made on the citizens of London.
He would beg to mention, that the city of London was as anxious';
that the duty should be lowered as any other class of his Majesty's
subjects.
blr. Alderman WOOD said, that the wages of the coal meters
had been lowered at the solicitation of the coal-owners. The tax
on coals brought into the port of London had been laid on for local
purposes, which having long ceased, it ought now to be abolished.
Sir 11. W. RII)LEY matle a few obervations in reply. His first
resolution, he said, was that the duty of 3s. 441. per chaldron now
reorsed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be repealed, should
one in such a manner as to affect equally the coals carried
coastwise and those carried inland. His second was, that a further
reduction of 2a. should be made next year with the sante provisions ;
and his third was, that the tax should be afterwards gradually but
totally repealed.
Lord 3111.T0N wished it then to be distinctly understood, that
the Resolution the Howse was about to divide un was to affect the
City of London only.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY—It was so.

Stranierit were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided
on the tint resolution, when there appeared—For it sl—Against
it Ird—"Alajority against it 32.
During the exclusion orstrangers the Ilousedivided on the other
two propositions of Sir M. W. Ridley.
For the second, 54-. Against it 81.--Majority 26. For the
third, GO—Against it 72-51ajority 19.
GAME LAWS.

On our to-admission to the gentry we found the House in •

Committee on the Game Rill, and Mr. S. WOR TLEY imprint
clause, reserving to the landlord of demised premises on exisan
leases the right of shootinir over the ground. g
Sir J. I,VROTTESLEY mowed as an amendment, that the
word " existing" should be omitted, and the word " future' sub.
stituted.
Mr. J. MARTIN said a few words in favour of the clause.
Mr. S. 'WORTLEY would rather strike out the whole elau,
than agree to the amendment of the lion. than. (the 31ember for
Staffordshire).
Colonel DAVIES observed, that if the game laws worked weg
at present, they would work just as beneficially with the amend,
inent.

Mr. 1.1./CKIIA ItT suggested, that the clause should be annulled
altogether.
Mr. JAMES agreed in the opinion expressed by the Membe
who had spoken lasi.
Sir J St:BRIGHT said, that the clause objected to would rat
affect the interests of common farmers, since game was always Pry.
served to the lanslionl by special contract. The only way in winch
it would operate injuriously was, in the effect it would have opus
those gentlemen who had purchased country boxes for Napo" of
sporting.
311..311Ln seal% Mr.Jom ES, and Mr. 310NCK, thought the claw.
most objectionable and unjust. The tenant had now the nght, a.
there was no earthly reason why it should not to be conuoued
them. _

The !louse then divided; and the numbers were_
For the Amendment - 41 p Against it . 33.
Majority for the Amendment - a.
On our atlink.ion to the gallery, we found the Committee di,
cussing whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
The question was put and negatived.
On the clause authorizing owners of .50 acres to permit persons to
shoot thereon.

Mr. 1.01!K HA ItT said that if the party was qualified, and the
' land inclosed, no person could prevent such an invitation.
r. S. WORTLEY said, if the law was correctly stated by the
Hon. Gentleman, unquestionably the clause was of no utility.
Sir J. SH E1.1,E1" observed, that the clause was not beneficial,
since it did not in any way interfere with the snaring t( game;
and if it passed, it was quite certain that thvy would have as mart
game snares as rat catchers, in every village in England. fle
would propose the extension of this clause to une hundred saes.
3lr. THCOTE thought the clause must objectionable, and
in principle there was no reason, nor was it consistent with justits
to limit the right to the number of acres.

Sir J. SEIIRIGIIT thought it right there should be no suck
clause. Indeed he saw tro earthly reason for limiting the pcirdegt
to the possessors of a given number of acres.
Mr. H. COLBORNE thought it quite clear that this claw
would be inoperative.
Colonel 1./AVI ES supported the clause.
Lord MILTON protested against that aristocratical mode of
'egislation, which gave privileges to the possessors of one hundad
acres that it withheld from the proprietor of a leas portion of land.
Sir .1. WROTTESLEY conceived the clause would be perfee4
inoperative.
The Chairman (Mr. BROOMS) observed, that in this elita.
(the latter part of it ; a licence was reitiiied on the part (Wilmot slo
gave the privilege of shooting on their estates ; it was quite dm
that such a clause could not pass, except in a Committee of Supp.,,
The former part of the clause was negatived, and the latter pin
of it was, under the Chairman's explanation, withdraws,
On the clause relative to punishing of trespassers,
Sir J. IVROTTESLEY observed, that he did not think the
penalty of 101. a just one ; he would propose a fine of 11. on vid
trespass, and increase the penalty of 495. on every additional bill
killed, because in the first instance it might imply chance, silky
could not be in the other.

Mr. S. WORTLEY did not think the penalty of *Os. would
be sufficient if the trespass were proved, as was necessary, btid:r
a iflagiurate.
Sir J. IVROTTESLEY raid he certainly should press the
question, because he still thought a penalty of 51. too great.
After a slight discussion, it was agreed that the penalty should
not be leas than Ors. nor more than M. _

On the clause that, after notice given, if a person oxidant to
trespass, be shall be liable to be taken before a Magistrate,
Mr. MONCK objected to a trespasser being treated as a felon.
but did not object to his being fined 101.
Mr. S. IVORTI.EX said, that if a person came into antelwr'•
wood, and persisted in cutting down his trees, after sufficient wart.
ing, he would be fully justified in taking him up.
Mr. MONCK said, if tne House matte the Bill too severe t
would be extremely severe. If the Hon. Gentleman did not thir.
a fine of Mt. sufficient. he (Mr. Monck) would not eeriest to hit;
but he did not think it would be just to ',Lice such a trespasser IS I
common felon, although game was made property.
Colonel M'Ot propostd that the notice to trespassers should E!
given in writing.
Mr. lAICKIIART said there was nothing in the Bill to Ruth*
rise the seizure of persons who took quantities of phessants,
snaring them at night.
Mr. S. IVORTLEV said, that the clause applied wall palm
using snares.
Mr. lA)CKII.%RT said the persons so trespassing sould yak
off; and derive the law of the power of seizing them.
Mr. S. II ORTI.EY observed he would '• aye it to the proprietor
to discover, ano take proceedings against them.
After some verbal amendments, the clause was agreed to.
The other clauses were then disposed of; and the Chairman re•
ported progress.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and tin
House adjourned at ONE O'CLOCK.