The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-16 00:00:00

I

F]!

Iri
l~

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

MOUSE OF OF LORDS, TUESDAY, Menem 15.
1
1 CATHOLIC Ci.Alel.9.
At three o'clock, while the Lord Chancellor was hearing appeal
anuses,
aauses, the Duke of Gloucesuer presented et petition from the Cali.
Torbay of Cambridge against the I mitotic Claims. His Roy 11
Highness presented the petition as Chancellor of the University.
—Read and laid on the table.
, In the absence of the Earl of Shaftesbury, Lord KENYON
presented a similar petition from the betel& and inhehitants of the •
town of Wenlock, in Salop.—Read and laid on the table.
The Bishop of PETERBOROUGH presented a petitinte from
the Dean and Chapter of the Diocese of Peterborough, praying
that their Lordships 'mild not grant any further coneesiti 'as to the
Catholics. The Noble and Reverend Lord stated that. the peti-
qoners disavowed all feelings of an unchristian nature towards the
Roman Catholics, but that they believed their %entire ants towards
tee Established Church were unchanged, and that sehile such was
the case, it would be neither justice nor policy to 'pant them any
further concession. The petition was discreetly and respectfully
woalea —Read and laid on the table.
The elarquis of LA NSDOWN presentee a petition frbm the
merchant,. hankers, and citizens of the clue of D„iein„ praying
that their Lordships would consider, and iv sane sonic of the re-
striction. on trade in Ireland, and parr ialarly the Coal Duties,
which the petitioners stared were neemos,' in the use of ma-
chinery, sod particularly of the steam eeline, an object most ins-
Fertant to the prosperity of Ireland.—R tad and laid on the table.
SMALL nxiirs.
Lori CA LTIIORPE presented I petition from the merchants
blotters and tradesmen of the town of, gingmereepen.hgele praying
the House for some alteration in th A laws for the recovery of smell
debts.—Laid on the table.
SPRINGjf JUN'S BILL.
Lord ELLENBOROVGII eeeenree a petition horn en indi-
vidual of the name of Atha I
i I, a market-gardener of Chelsea.
against the Bill fur prevent! tag the use of spring guns.—Laid on
the table.
1k Lord SUFFIELD 5:4,
trading of the Order ee see Day,
that preparatory to his moving the
he meant to propose to their
i
t Lordship, a Bill to nixt.e the steeling of ill vegetable production.
, larceny. A Noble Deice (Wellington), with more zeal thad dis-
t eretitni, had accused him of not having dare enough to remove
the use of spriegrans, and had suttee that the Bill ought to
be extended to all gardens as well as to game preserves. There
wit. a material difference, however, in these two cases ; and the
difference was, that the prnservation of gime was a mere matter
of option, but that of vegetables of necessity, as they comoi-
tuted the whole propertre of many persons who had no other
means of procuring a teeing. ft was matter of astonishment to
him (Lord euff)eld) tit at that Noble Puke had taken the part
be did on the debate /es a former night, because rumour had
ItallaTte't that the Nakk , Duke came down to the House for the
enrpoid of opposing 0 he Bill. The habits of that Noble Duke
had accustomed hiin to scenes of horror, more perhaps than any
other Noble Lord, and he (Lord Suffield) was at a loss to se-
aura for the rewire _ why the Noble Duke had taken the part
he hail taken. W eether the Noble Duke were sincere or in.
omate was ame •ter of doubt. If he were sincere, he had
used a very stet .nge arg unmet in support of the Bill for
Fraleattae spring. guns. fie had asserted that instances of acci-
dents, by mean,, of those tristreinents, were rare, and he would
hardly hive init.,/ Need sus h an obi ervatinn if he had been sincere
in the course he f ad taken. But lie (Lord Sitaield) would suppose
the Noble Dull to be insi were. No objection had been made to
the Bill ; r•ot a word had been raised against it, until he proposed
the introductiot . of a claw e to which many Noble Lords had de-
chledly obeetee e...-• clans i to ex:end the Bill to all gardens., well
as to all plait&
.tions. TO .s appeared to be a ease ele Amerre of the
Noble Duke s, and was a. proof against his sincerity. If it were an
artifice, it we .an artifice of the Cabinet rather than of the held,
sod one will et the Noble Duke must have learned since he left the
victorious a ray which It : led on the Continent. But he could not
attributes teh an artifice: to the Noble Duke. He (Lord Suffield)
treant to follow tip tee Bill he had now proposed by another, to
rahthita .he use of spiing.gurs in all walled gardens. As doubts
had arts nin the minds of several Noble Lords, it would be his
Ceti WI .en he came to diseuse this subject to state some anecdotes
in proo' ;of their injurious effects. During the last week he had
eetaitO 1 numerous volumes of communications on this subject,
wane 1 ,f which expressed considerable suspicion that the Noble
Duke should be ignorant of the number of accidents that bad
occue as.
Tea t Doke of WELLINGTON said, he did not rise to repel
any s f the Noble Lord's (Suffield) insinuations; that Noble Lord
boa been perfectly unparliamentary in his observations, in com-
p,' a ng his (Lord Wellington's) conduct in that House with his
'eat duct on (Moer occasions, with which it had no connection. His
1 'Ora Moo on the Bill now before the House wan, that it contained
we 7 unfair insinuating against those country gentlemen who
w/ abed to preserve their game, and who wished to preserve it with-
al •t the Rid of game.kospers, by a mode which would be more con-
e/ stem with their foments, than perhaps it might be with the for-
t ine of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had said that a great
4 tap of in schief had been done by those instruments; but he had
I of stated what this extensive mischief was. He ( Lord 1 Veiling.
I et) would nut deny that he came down to the House for the pur_
nee ea °opening the Bill; but when he heard the subject argued,
i e had determined not to do so. The Noble Lord had done
i . him injnetice in saying that lie had not expressed his sentiments ;
the Noble Lord might recollect, that lie (Lend Wellington) had
i' • mantra out to him the very plan he had pursued in proposing this
4..ause ; and the Noble Lord, he believed, had stated his approba.
Coq of it. He (Lord Wellington) had proposed this clause, be.
cease without it lie thought an insinuation could be thrown out
atesinst the country gentlemen, whom he wished to protect.
Lord SUFFIELD was desirous to assure the Noble Duke that
he did not mean any thing disrespectful towards him. In the dis-
cussion of the measure it had been necessary to use arguments, as
rl he thnueht that the Noble Duke was taking a by.way of oppos-
ing the Bill, which, in consistency with that Noble Duke's tbs..
Meter, should have been done in a more open manner. But with
respect to the argument of the Noble Puke relative to country
gentlemen, he could say that he believed the main principle of the
Bill was sufficient to carry it through the House—that no one had
a right to shoot any man for committing a trespass. He should
have no objection that country gentlemen should enjoy what they
could legally protect ; but be contended that they had no right to
i enjoy whet they could not. He shout I bring in his other Bill In
concurrence ivith the suggestion of the Noble Puke. sad the wishes
of other Noble Lords. He would now more the first reading of
the Bill to make the stealing of vegeable productions larceny.
The Earl of 31ALMESIBITY said he had never used, and
never should use, spring-guns in his grounds. Ile thought that the
Bill would meet the views of all, if the use of spring-guns were
declared illegal between stir-rise and sun-set, and if used on the
b'gh road or near a dwelling-hoes:. He was of opinion that there
were cases in which spring-gun, might be permitted. If the Bill
in its present form were allowed to pass, it would appear on the
etatete book as ievidiou. against country geetleinen. There was
one specie; of property in the country which was very liible to
theft, and which might perhaps be defended by spring.guns—it
was young trees. He would certainly support the Bill, provided it
e'd /Kt indirectly allude to country eeentlemen.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that he should have no objee-
tien to the first reading of the Noble Lonl's Bill ; but as the Noble
....
~,
lord memo to bring in a Bill respecting the setting of spring-guns
it. gardens, he would ask the Nettle Lord why he would not at
(tate make his Bill general ? Teere was as much horror in shooting
is man fin stealing a pear or a parsnip as for killing a pheasant or
hare. It would be ninth better if what the Noble Lord (Suffield)
prouosed respecting gardens wereineorporated with the original Bill.
Earl OBObVENOIt differed at opinion from the Noble Emil
(Liverpool) as to the best mode of proceeding. The House woe
sigreed on the main principle of the Bill—that the ure of spring.
. glum ought to bo discontinued. The only questioo then for their
...cWeiroil Wellington). kt. lernieitips to consider was, whether they weela pass the Bill in its
.•mbered.
or with th
was hetranenradleint eerrotrp.;zlr.bpeintthoen islohbalel Duke
thus
arquia of SALISBURY said he was a friend to the
. • . . .. ure, but he cook'. not see soy objection to making it
i se
. Bill was then/tad a first time.
•", . ird SUFFIELD said that he hoped the proposed amendment of I
"obit Duke might not be allowed to interfere with his Bil:, but
le i it might make a separate legislaeee measure. For that purpose 1
should new propose to their Lordships a Bill which was in per-
fJ „et accordance with the seutimente of the Noble and Learned Lord
on the Woolsack, as well as with those rat other Learned Loots. I
The Bill be was, about to propose to their Lordships was that the usn 1
oe epring-gans or other offensive weapons, in all gardens, orchards, i
referees, and cultivated grounds, should be declared unlawful.
Be recollected many instances, aed he had teen furnished with
niany others, of the accidents that had occurred in consequence of
the used spring.guns. Some of them had occurred by day and.
others by night. The Noble Lord then read from several public
papers amounts of these accidents.
o' The Doke of WELLINGTON said, that although he did not
- (repose the Bill either at its sewed reading or in the Committee.
he protested against this latter_peinciple being considered as hie
Ile believed that if the Noble• Lord (Suffield) was to state all the
accidents that had occurred for years past, and then to ascertain
hew many gardens had been saved from robbery, it would be found
that spring guns had preserved more lives than they had taken.
' Lord ELLENBOROUOII agreed in the opinion of the Noble
Duke. He thought that if the House were stultified to legislate in
this case, they should legislate to twevent accidents in any way.
He hoped their Lordships would recollect that propeny to a very
liege amveant was protected in the neighbourhood of London by
those instruments.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE said, lie was of opinion that the
object of those three differ', t Bills might he expreaud In a very
few words, and this clumsy mode of legislation be avoided, if
their Lordships were coneiuced that punishment ought to be at.
etched to certain mimes whit.) now go unpunished.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said there could be no objection
to the firm reattiea of the Bill. He thought there would be no
difficulty in so conschelatieg the three Bills as to make one answer
the purposes of all. It was his opinion that some protection should
be telt:idea to those whose property was often and materially ex-
posed. It had been an for a long series of years: it was so by an
Aet of Elintheth, and by an Act of the 6th of the late Kittle Par.
hamtnt had made it highly penal testes! fruit front a garden. The
punisement was a fine of Ole. for the first offence, of 51. for the
second, and of transportation for the third ; and if the fruit were
seolee in the uight-tlme, of transportation for the second offence I
but et would he ton %Lee Lordships to consider in what way they

~' !

'~S

I

~A

[pi
1
s

I.