The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-08 00:00:00

SPRING-GUNS.

would carry the principle to the fullest extent. lie would trot
only exclude spring-guns from enclosed grounds, tiut even
from locked up places ; because Innocent persons, atteMpting
to enter in consequence of the key being lost, or from any
other cause, might meet with serious accidents. It was not fit
that any person living under a regular Government should have
the power of setting an engine for the destruction of human
life. If the principle of the Bill were made to apply general-
ly, it should have his support.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that if the alteration pro-
posed by the Noble Duke was carried into effect, nobody in
the neighbourhood of London would be able to preserve any
fruit. The fear of spring-guns, where they were not actually
set, but where a board stated them to be, prevented deprbda-
tions. But this Bill, if carried to the length proposed, would
take away the fear. The Noble Earl who last spoke must
be aware that there was a great difference between going into
open grounds and climbing over a wall or entering a hot-house.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acknowledged the inconsis-
tency and uncertainty of the law with respect to spring-guns.
On every occasion on which any question on this subject had
come before the Courts, the Judges, he believed, had been
about equally divided. To those who considered the state
of the law on this and some other subjects, that maxim
which declared it to be the perfection of human reason ap-
peared absurd. It certainly was not the perfection of human
reason which made it only trespass to take from a tree a pear,
and which made the taking the same pear, when separated
from the tree, felony. It was his wish that property should
be protected, but he should be sorry to be thought that he
was the advocate for spring-guns. There had been no occa-
sion for those engines in former times: but now, when every plan-
tation was turned into a poultry yard, protection of this kind
was thought necessary. A sportsman was now thought nothing
of unless he could kill his thousand birds a day. Hut such a
thing had never been heard of in the days of his youth. There
were no pheasants in those days, or at least very few, in that
part of the country from which he came. Some were kept for
shOw, and some were to be found at the seat of the ancestor of
the present Lord Ravensworth. Now that so many plantations
had been made, and so well stocked with pheasants, how could
their Lordships expect that people who had a taste for game—
and he never knew an Englishman who had not—would not go
and look for it whereat was to be found ? Poaching was the
consequence of game being preserved and protected. He for
one never could defend the practice of setting engines to en-
danger the life of a fellow-creature for the sake of a partridge
or a pheasant.
The Earl of LA UDERDA LE was against the Game Laws in
general. He confirmed what his Noble and Learned Friend
had said, that in former times spring-guns and poachers were
not heard of. But the great evil, and an evil unknown to
former times, was the state of the country gaoLs, which were
crowded with the prisoners the victims of the Game Laws.
He would venture to say, that considering the diffusion of pro-
perty in this country, the Game Laws ought to be changed.
There never existed any where so infamous a state of things
as the law exhibited on this subject. Parliament had within
a short period created eight .hundred millions of funded pro- ,
perty, and a class of persons enjoying revenues which
amounted to thirty-two or thirty-three millions a-year, and yet
these persons were not allowed to kill game.
The Earl of CARNARVON said, that the tendency to steal
game had. been increased by the increasing capital and wealth
of the country. He was for legalizing the sale of game, and
thought if the Country Gentlemen gave up their strong hold
on that point, they would relieve themselves from a great deal
Of obloquy to which they were at present exposed. It would
be extremely beneficial to the country to have a law enacted on
the subject, which was really meant to be executed. Such he
hoped the law would be which was coming from the other
House, to which their Lordships ought to pay particular atten-
tion. It ought to be made a law really capable of defending
game.
The Earl of LIMERICK was in favour of an alteration of
the Game Laws, but was surprised to hear what had fallen
from the Noble Earl, when he recollected what had formerly
passed in that House, on a Bill relative to the sale of game.
The Earl of CARNARVON explained, that on that occa-
sion he had on his side the vote of the Noble and Learned Lord
on the Woolsack, who was, like him, of opinion that if the
seller was to be held criminal, the purchaser ought to be made
equally criminal.
The Earl of DARNLEY, alluding t 6 the subject of spring-
guns, threw out as a suggestion, that the legality of setting
them should be confined to walled grounds.
The Earl of FALMOUTH said that the ground of the op-
position to the Bill which had been alluded to was, that Noble
Lords who lived at a distance from their estates wished to have
the opportunity of purchasing game.
The Earl of LIMERICK stated, that the real ground was
a dislike that the same punishment should apply to the rich as
well as to the poor. The punishment of the pillory was then
in existence, and to that punishment the purchaser might have
been liable as well as the seller.
Earl GROSVENOR, from what had passed, and especially
what had been said by the Noble Lord on the Woolsack, was
inclined to think that the Bill coming from the other House,
on the sale of game, would experience a better reception than
the Bill of last year. The property of the gardeners in the
nighbourbood of the metropolis ought to be protected, because
the fruit which they reared was all the property of those poor
people. The case was very different with respect to hares and
partridges. He would support the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that with regard to ex-
tending the principle of the Bill to enclosed grounds, a great
deal of difficulty arose from the distinction which the law made
between trespass and theft-..-between the act of pulling a tree
out of the ground, and taking away a tree which had been pre-
viously pulled. A similar distinction was made with respect to
the cruves in which salmon were caught. The law had decided,
that as salmon were ferce.tzaturx, the taking them out of the
craves was only a trespass. Ile remembered a case of a man
who had been prosecuted for stealing. salmon out of a cruve,
and acquitted by the jury on the ground that the offence only
amounted to a trespass. A person, however, caught a salmon,
and marked it by inserting a twig through its snout. This
salmon was put into the cruve, and being stolen by the same
man, he was tried and found guilty, because the salmon was no.
longer ferce nohow, but property. The man, if then living,
was in Botany Bay, expiating his offence.
• Lord SUFFIELD said, that as it seemed to be the general
sense of the House, that the clauses of the Bill should be con-
sidered in a Committee, he moved that it be now committed.
The House having accordingly resolved itself into a Com-
mittee—
The
Duke of WELLINGTON moved that the words " or
gardens, or any place whatever," should be introduced into the
clause declaring the illegality of setting spring-guns in certain
grounds, &c.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said he was not fully prepared
at present to argue this part of the measure, and should there-
fore wish to be allowed a little more time, as he considered
it one of importance to those persons who possessed consi-
derableproperty in gardens and nurseries in the neighbourhood
of London.
Earl BATHURST suggested, that as the Noble Lord had
stated he wished for time to consider this subject,. it would be
better that the Chairman should report progress now, and that
time further consideration of the measure should be adjourned to
'some future day.
Lord SUFFIELD said, he had no objection to the adoption
of this course.

• - -
Lord SUFFIELD moved the Order of the Day for the Com-
mittee on the Bill to make the setting of spring-guns for the
protection of game illegal.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the principle on
which the Bill was brought in, if rightly followed up, would
apply to enclosures of all descriptions. If spring-guns were
not to be employed for the preservation of game,, he could not
see why they should be allowed to be set for the protection of
roses and apples. He would object to the Bill, unless it were'
extended to another property as well as to game. 'With regard
to accidents by spring-guns, he believed veryfew occurred;
and from all that he heard and observed on the subject, lie, was
inclined to believe that the two cases alluded to the other day
by the Noble Lord who introduced this Bill, were the only
cases of the kind which could be adduced. In fact, the effect of
Setting spring-guns had been fOund. to be the preventing of
poaching, and not the endangering of human life.
Lord SUFFIELD reminded their Lordships that he had
already signified that he had no objection to the introduction of
a clause to allow the setting; of spring-guns for the protection
of property which it would felony to invade; but as no such
an amendment could be made, except in the Committee, he
thought it very hard that the motion for his Bill going into the.
Committee should be opposed for an exception which did not
yet' exist in it. With regard to the number of accidents occa-
sioned by spring-guns, lie could assure the Noble Duke that he
was labouring under a great mistake when he supposed them
to be few. It was true that he had alluded only to two cases,
because they were more immediately within his recollection •
one impressed upon his mind
bytiojeltillioerrnzo.rinopfatiriteiccuirlacrumwasstasitxroens.glylf
this
obi
ection continued
to be pressed against the Bill, lie certainly should feel himself,
at another stage, called upon to go into these details of horror
—details, the recital of which, however, he wished to be spared.
As to the principle laid down by the Noble Duke, he entirely
concurred with it : he saw.no more reason for protecting cab-
,bages by spring-guns than pheasants. He respected pheasants
as well as cabbages, and wished to see them placed on as equal
footing.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL concurred in the principle laid
down by his Noble Friend, that in consistency tile Bill should
,apply to other property as well as game. He was himself for
carrying that. principle to its fullest extent. That a man should
be allowed to:buy a trap to. shoot another in a ease which lie
could notdirectly shoot him, was something extremely prepos-
terous. There was another circumstance in which the state of
ou frail: die trees,
nit
the law was extremely absurd at the present moment. If a
man went into a garden, and took away a basket full of fruit
hev e was r
a
took
,
Y ; but if lie went
o
lie was then guilty of no offence at all, except a trespass.
l
Now there was a great number of. fruit-gardens in the neigh-
bourhood of London which would be exposed to depredation,
if it were not for the terror of spring-guns. The state of the
; • on enclosed ground
law respecting trespassing 3 ought to be
amended.
The Earl of WESTMORLANDwas
- - for the Bill, and

that in the event both parties Would make a common sac of
their partialities for the general good. 'He wouhl boldly say
that the Catholic Association had done good ; and that the com-
paratively tranquil state of Ireland was in'a great degree to be
attributed to the labours of that body. It was no harm—it Was
on the contrary, a positive good that every Catholic knew
.an
Association had existed, by the assistance of which, however
poor himself, he might assert and obtain his legal rights.
He' would contend that the Association had • sot' inter-
fered with the course of justice, but it had been pursued
with the vigour of law, and was now to be condemned,
unheard, at their Lordships bar. He knew, at the Same
time, that there were Iklagistrates who might dislike such
an Association as • this, 'because it investited their
characters, and would not quietly be trod underfoot. ' How-
ever, he was glad of the hopes now held out to the Catholica,
whatever were the causes which provoked the Association,' and
he trusted that the Resolutions adopted by the other 'House of
Parliathent Woula be allowed to realise the •just expectations
entertained by the Irish people: Let the measure pass; and
the Catholics would not persist in continuing the Association ;
but if that should fail, he could not answer for the Consequen-
ces. • The-Corresponding Society was put doivn—true it' was,
but what a minority catnposed it. A small Minority,
,not like
the si': millions of bleb' Catholics, who were-united for the pur-
pose Of obtaining their just rights.' BUt it was said, if the-Ca-
tholics obtained what they now asked, they would ask for more.
He would never dread what they asked, ear cared lie ter the
extent of the demand, if it were urjust, further, it should be
denied. 'But what •he dreaded was, the continued refusal of
Government to give them what was at once just, politic, and
reasonable. It was said that much had been done for Ireland
in the way of concession and amelioration—he admitted it ; but
that did not prevent his seeing the demerits of former govern-
ments of Ireland—nor also of seeing the merits of the existing
Government of that country. He conceived it impossible that
the Noble Earl opposite (Earl Liverpool) or any other rational
man could say that the situation of the Catholics was not such
as to cause discontent. A few trifling boons might float in the
top of the cup,. but the gall was at the bottom, and it would
turn the boons into sourness. While disqualifying laws ex-
isted discontent must exist—(Hear, hear !)—The Noble Earl
(Liverpool) knew there were two measures for the good of
Ireland upon which no Minister could venture, unless the
emancipation of the Catholics accompanied or preceded them.
The first of these measures was a pension for the Catholic
Clergy, and the second, an alteration in the present system or
freeholds. He trusted that the Catholics would submit to what
Parliament would do for 'them. Hopes had long since, and
even within a short time were held out to them ; and again he
trusted they would not be disappointed. He implored their
Lordships, as they valued the blessings of liberty, not to say
to six millions of their Irish fellow-subjects that their portion
must for ever be despair.—(Hear, hear!)
Lord CALTHORPE said, he was not friendly to the Ca-
tholic Association. He disliked much of the language which
had been used ; but still coming to this resolution, he was
bound to ask himself what had been the conduct of their Lord_
ships to their Catholic fellow-subject ? lie would not carry
this principle too far ; but no man could altogether shut his
eyes against it. Coercion should not for ever take the place of
concession. No danger was now to be apprehended except in
the case of Parliament refusing justice to the Roman Catholics.
He saw no danger from the Association except to their own
cause, or rather to the question of Catholic Emancipation. He
did not believe the present Bill would be at all efficacious ;
and yet, perhaps, it would do no harm. Let the Catholics,
however, have conciliation, and there would be no necessity for
isltstVotcAiastis,o,nc.ia Again He hada s
strong
dislikehatcoi the Catholic Religion as a religion ; its tenets he knew to he
liable to great abuse. Ile could by no means defend their
tenets, and he should object to their Clergy having seats in
either House of Parliament. With respect to the Catholic Laity
he held a very different opinion, and he thought their having
seats in Parliament would be the best antidote to their religious
tenets. He respected the virtues and the talents of the persons
opposing the Catholic Claims; but the more lie examined the
grounds on which that opposition rested, the less he respects
ed the •hearts of those who so opposed theirs: The Catholics
he thought badly treated, and that the imputation of their
not keeping their oaths was most, unfounded: He was a Pro-
testant—to be so was his pride and glory—and as a Protestant
he wished to do justice to his Roman Catholic fellow coun-
trymen. He also thought that Parliament should not visit
too severely what has been done by the Association. The
Catholics were amazed, disappointed, and mortified by the mea-
sures hitherto pursued towards them, and no wonder if they.were
not very measured in their complaints. A liberal policy was
pursued towards every State but Ireland, and why ? His illa-
jesty's Government were called upon to answer it. This House
had hitherto intercepted -the grace and favour yielded by the other
House, and their Lordships were now bound to answer why
such a state of things existed. When the Catholics were quiet,
and said nothing, they could not obtain their rights—now their
conduct was said to be objectionable, and they were promised
something. This House should set an example of justice, and
not defeat those hopes held out for years to the Roman Catho-
lics of these Kingdoms. lie would not further trespass on the
attention of their Lordships, than merely to express his hope
that the question of Catholic Emancipation would 'be speedily
settled, with a view to the peace, happiness, and permanent
strength of the empire.—(llear, hear !)
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I shall never, my Lords,
consent to this Bill upon any of the grounds which have just
been stated by Noble Lords. If this House formerly acted
unjustly—all I say is, let this House, in proper season, repair
that injury ; but let the House now do its duty to the country
at large. This Bill is to be defended not upon the principle
that has just been advocated, but upon the principle that it is
absolutely necessary for the safety of the Government and the
country. If this House did wrong before, let them do right for
the future; but let not that be the principle upon which they
pass this Bill. I vote in favour of this Bill against the Cathoe.
lie Association, simply because I think it necessary, and not be-
cautte this House may have at any former time acted improper-
ly, or committed any wrong. I even go farther, and I say I
would not consent to the third reading of the Bill if it were to
be considered as a pledge of what we were to do in future fur
the protection of this Protestant country. I hope and trust that
I feel a due regard to the great account I shall one day have tti
render for oty actions—for the past, I feel I have conscientiously
discharged my duty ; and for the future, I shall act upon the
same principle. Whatever my- conduct for the future may be
on that measure, which I cull a great measure, I shall do my
duty according to the best of my opinion. For thirty years
past 1 have considered this question—l have examined it witlt
my best attention, and I have not us yet diseovered any reason.
to make me think my opinions are ill-founded. I say,
ever, that I am open to conviction, although at preent I can-
not see the least prospect of my changing those • tipinithrs ;
but I will not now pledge my opinion in the one way orifie'
other. 1 vote for this Bill, in consequence of 'the dangerous
principles in which the Catholic Association is foUnded, -and
shall not go out of this House without stating that such motives
alone influence me in calling upon your Lordships to make it at
once the law.
Lord DUDLEY and WARD- said, that he voted for the
measure with considerable regret; because although the Aso
ciation was not justifiable, they were certainly to be excused.
The Catholics were excluded from places of ambition and of
honour, not for any crime or any wrong, but because they either
did not or could not lis which cam-

. see that light which came three centuries.
The CH AIRMAN accordingly obtained leave to report pro- ago, upon the darkness of a thousand years. He thought the
gress ; and on the suggestion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL the Catholic question ought to be carried and the sooner the better.;
Committee adjourned to next Monday hut while they were awaiting it, their conduct should not be
UNLAWFUL (IRELAND) SOCIETIES. too hardly scrutinized. He would pass over much, but where
The Earl of LIVERPOOL now moved the third reading of danger and defiance came together, there they should - stop.
the Unlawful Societies Suppression Bill. The Catholics had set up Parliament against Parliament,. and
Lord ELLENBOROUGH, in rising to oppose the Bill, revenue against revenue. He would not say the Association
said that he had not-the least intention of troubling tileit Lord. was rebellious, but it might be so, and he wished to guard
ships with a long speech. In voting against the present Bill, against any such danger. The Government should not allow
he did not desire to be understood as supporting the continu. itself to be threatened, or the next step would be an attempt
ante of the Cotholic Association ; nor did he wish to be under- to overthrow. The Catholics had able and intrepid leaders,
.„i,
stood, on the other hand, as at all approving of the principal of and a people- so led, should not be finial), or 111Stli L
the measure for suppressing. that body. Ile wished the disso. treated. The Catholic Associations hart a right
pen-
lution of the Catholic Association, not because they had done Lion-.it was the birthright of every subject of athat the Ca-
any harm, but because its further continuance would be most but it should not at the same time be forg?ttesn
and
i political
prejudicial to the Catholic cause; and, therefore, he hoped that tholic• Association held a nation in religlou
but there was
the Association would dissolve itself, in deference to the opinion obedience. There was now no danger P i?
- erth3 nsich foreign con.
of the public and the authority of Parliament. While saying no knowing when the time might come gh;reLt.°State ;
a Association wai -not
this, he was very far from regretting the existence of that Body. maim would be sought or found. This
Association had • ex- to be compared' to ordinary societies,.
'tended, however feebly,
fisted ; it had embodied and displayed the Catholic feeling of cal or religious objects, which were
tlien laws ;
and, as a decided
On the contrary, he was glad that such an
the country ; and it had made individuals of all classes and to aid the Government and support
of• tcatholic Emancipation, be
parties in the United Kingdom think more seriously of the W. and attached friend to the cause of ,
instituted for mere politi.
put down. . There were
ficulties under which the Catholics laboured than ever was done , wished to see the Catholic sia
Catholics could proceed—one way Wit*
bcfore. He had, therefore, great hopes that prejudices would two ways in which the
rsuasiOn. If they meant force, they
be relinquished on all sides, by perceiving how injurious it. was by force, the other by
pCort of Protestants here or elsewhere to the State to keep open this feverish source of jealousy, and could not expect the support ere ;

if conee.sion and persuasion, he wished the Catholic Associa-
tion to be put down, and he only regretted that its name and
its recollection could not easily be forgotten. He should wish to
see the Catholics in Parliament—in the Government, but he
could not consent to their setting up a Parliament and a Govern-
ineinfor themselves. The Catholics laboured under grievances
—and they always had his voice uplifted calling for their redress;
but still, he said, they were la ot to be the sole "judges ; and re-
-dress they were to have not 6y any means incompatible with the
Constitution and the Government, arid those who represented
-The people of this empire in both Houses of Parliament.
Earl RODNEY said, he merely rose to say a few words in
exnlanation of the motives which induced him to vote for this
MIL' The Association he believed to be highly dangerous—
antipathies and animosities wereawakened by the speeches dez-
:livered there—an intperim imperio was openly exercised-_
a fearful influence ,prevailed—taxes were levied--and to pre-
vent the^ spreading of such evils, he thought some measure
better than the present absolutely necessary. The Rent was
said to be a spontaneous offering— but he knew it to be taken
from persons not at all approving the proceedings of the Ca..'
tholic
man)'Assiation. Perhaps there was no force used to obtain
it, but an persons from fear of certain influence were
obliged to contribute to it. In short, if the Association were
allowed to go on, he anticipated the most fearful consequences
from it. Manifestoes were issued and pasted on the chapel
doors—apparently • they conjured the people to peace and
tranquillity, but still they conjured them by the hatred
they bore a portion of their countrymen, to remain in peace
Tl:ey called upon the people to avoid Whiteboys and Ribbon-
men, but they continually told them they were slaves and ex-
isted only under a tyranny. For himself he could say, that
there .was not a peasantry in the world who enjoyed more real
frr. dom than the peasantry of Ireland. There never was a
people undcr the sun who were more ready to acknowledge the
boons of the last two or three years, if they were only left to
themselves, and delivered from the influence of agitators. He
stated that as a fact, sad he challenged contradiction if it were
not so. He would not now enquire into the objects of the Ca-
t,ailic Association ; he did not desire to judge them by their
language, but whatever were their objects, their effects were
equally injurious, their evils were the same. The Catholic As-
sociation was left alone—that he charged as a fault upon the
Government—they were left alone, and they increased in power
avid in mischief. He hoped this Bill would prove useful in
preventing all such associations, whether they were orange or
green. He was unwilling to couple the Catholic Association
with the Orange Association, and he was glad that the time
for their existence had gone by. He wished all annual pro-
cessions wereabolished, and whether this Bill would effect that_
object or not he could not undertake to say. He hoped the
Catholics would take the advice of his Noble Friends, Lords
Fingal and Killeen, and he was sure the Association would be
put down. As to the agitators in Ireland, he hoped they
would obey the law.
" Hicmotus aninsorum, atque fun certamina tanta,
IPulveris eitiguce jactu compressa quiescent."
Ile gave his hearty concurrence to the Bill.
F.arl DARNLEY opposed the Bill. He did not think the
Irish peasantry so happy or so free as they were represented to
be ; and he was quite sure that Ireland would never be per-
manently. happy until the question of Catholic Emancipation
was carried. Their Lordships had hithert6 prevented that
ipieful, just, and necessary measure; but he now hoped, with-
out any allusion to the quarter whence that opposition came,
that a different feeling would prevail. The Government might
be divided on this subject, but whether they were or not that
great question must sooner or later be decided.
The-Earl of RODEN said a few words in explanation.
Earl GROSVENOR opposed the bill. They were now
about to frame a law which would be fatal to the peace of this
country and of Ireland, if it were not accompanied by the
measure to which his Noble Friend had alluded. They were
going to adopt this bill without hearing one word in defence of
this much maligned institution—without being in possession
of tlie sentiments of the Noble Lord who was at the head of
the Government of Ireland, which was a matter of very great
importance; and without accompanying the enactment of this
penal law with any conciliating or healing proposition. They
were proceeding to legislate in this manner when the power of
the Pone was no more. They were proceeding to legislate in
this manner when the Roman Catholic population had increased
in knowledge, and . in riches—when the numbers of that body
were not only relatively but actually enormous ; and they pro-
ceeded to legislate,.wlthout stating in any part of the Bill the
nature of the danger that,v,tas apprehended. He was very glad
to hear that some approxinaationnf feeling between the two con-
flicting parties inlreland had been manifested ; but he trusted
that the Roman Catholics would never be satisfied with any
trifling concession—that they never would .he content with any
thing Mess than a full participation in the rights and privileges
of the constitution.
The Bill was then read a third time, and messengers were de.
spatched to the House of Commons to announce the decision of
, ti.,:ir Lordships.—Adjoured at lIALF-PAST 8 o'CLoca.

Scotland.—Read a first tithe, and ordered to be read a second
time on Friday next.
A ',SISSED TAXES.
Mr. LINDSAY presented a petition from the Burghers- of
Perth, praying fur a repeal of the Assesied Taxes and Insu-
rance Duties.

Sir G. CLERK moved the Order of the.. Day for the third
reading of the Weights and Measures Bill—The Bill was read
a third time and passed.
GAME LAWS BILL.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY rose to move the second read-

ing of this bill. In legislating upon this subject, it was proper
to consider whether Parliament could not give protection to the

amusements of country gentlemen without doing injustice to
the country at large. The evils which resulted from the_pre-
sent system were many; but the most important was the great
increase of pbaching, which, such was the effect of existing
laws, was not looked upon as a moral offence by almost any
portion of the community. How was that evil to be diminish-
ed ? Severe laws, he was convinced, would be of no avail ;
it was necessary to generate a different feeling amongst the body
of the people. That, then, should be his first object; and the
next the opening of the market for the sale of game, and there-
by destroying the menopoly which the poachers at present en-
joyed. The existing system of qualification to kill game was
most absurd. To be qualified to kill game, a man must have
an estate of inheritance in his own or his wife's right of the
yearly value of one hundred pounds, or an estate for the term
of ninety years, of the annual value of 1501. Those were the
two principal qualifications; but there was another curious
mode of qualification, derived, not from any thing belonging to
the person himself, but from the accident of birth. The eldest
sons only of esquires and persons of higher rack were allowed
the privilege of shooting. He proposed to remove all qua-
lifications, the only effect of which was to engender ill blood,
and to give to every person who held land a property in the
game which was on it, and a power to prevent any per-
son from destroying it. lie apprehended that there would
be no more difficulty in making game property than fish in a
river which ran through several estates. Ile certainly did not
propose to make the taking of game a felony ; but there were
many articles well protected by the laws which it was not a fe-
lony to steal. Ile did not believe that the change in the law
which he projected would increase the number of shooters. If
the bill should pass, it would be necessary for an individual,
after taking out a licence—he must go to the ex pence of that—to
have the means of shooting. Under the existing system many;
persons went out to kill game who had no right to do so, and took
the chance of being found out. When it was considered, that
according to the provisions of his bill, a person who went out
to shoot must first purchase a certificate, and would in the
next place be liable, if he were found shooting on another per-
son's land without his consent, to be taken before a magistrate,
he thought there was ground for presuming that the number
of shooters would be much diminished. The great objection
which was urged against the Bill last year was, that it would
have the effect of destroying fox-hunting—that was to say, that
farmers and other small land-holders, having property in the
game on their land, would gncl it to their interest to kill the
foxes. But when it was recollected, that foxes were generally
to be found only in great woods and preserves, where they
might be protected by those who thought it worth their while
to preserve them, lie did not think that that objection was en-
titled to much weight. He should, indeed, be sorry to do any
thing to the prejudice of fox-hunting, which he considered a
most manly and truly English sport. Another objection to the
Bill was, that it would render game so common in the market,
that country gentlemen would soon give up all idea of sporting.
He did not believe that : for his own part, he could say, that he
did not feel less pleasure in shooting woodcock or wild fowl, or
catching a fish, because he could buy such animals in the next
town. After declaring that all the objections made to the Bill,
were quite threadbare, lie concluded by moving the second,
reading of it.—( H ear !)
Sir J. BRYDGES said that the present Bill, as it seemed
to him, instead of checking poaching would go to encourage it.
All that the poacher wanted was a free vent for his plunder,
which this measure of the Hon. Member for Yorkshire went
precisely to afford him. He was decidedly:opposed to the Bill,
as regarded its effect upon the preservation of game ; and not
the less so because it added a new felony to.the statute-book,
in making night poaching (the third timer) A transportable
offence. Tinder these circumstances, he should move 4 that
the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. LOCKHART .supported the amendment of the Hon.
Baronet opposite, and was surprised how any one could think
that the measure before the House wes calculated for the pre-
servation of game. The effect of the Bill would be, by making
every land-owner a legal dealer in game, to render the small
farmer's house a constant resort for poachers, and the man him-
self an agent for the sale of their commodity.. He should have
no objection to.support a proposition for extending the existing
scheMe of qualification ; but, for the Bill of the Hon. Member
for Yorkshire, he thouht it would create more crime than it
would prevent. With respect to the right of preserving game,
he thought it quite unreasonable that Gentlemen should be
asked to resign any right or property, purely because there
existed on the part of some persons a disposition to violate or
destroy it. He should, certainly sit. down by supporting the
amendment.
illn PEEL had come down with a determination Is vote for
the Bill before the House. When he looked to the day in which
the Game Laws had been framed, he thought it more than likely
that their spirit should not suit the present time ; and when he
saw them in their ordinary operation and practice, lie confessed
he was less satisfied with them still.—(Hear, hear !)—The
whole system of game, and of the sports connected with it, had
changed, it should be recollected, within theslast 30 or 40 years.
Gentlemen were not cootented to follow their birds now, as
their fathers had done before them;; every little cover almost
throughout the country was a nursery sfor pheasants, and took 1
rank as a preserve. The list of the killed and wounded after a
week's sport became perfectly extraortgnary • he hod himself
seen in one larder no fewer than a thousand pheasants, the 1
product of three days' shooting ; andeyet, for all this immense
mass of commodity there was no legal sale.--(Hear, hear!)—
Now the increase in the quantity of
,game found in the
country had produced a change and A new feature in the
public taste. Game was a fashionable dish ; society would
have it; they did have it ; and there was no preventing
them from having it.—(Hear, hear, hear s)—lt had been
humorously said, but very justly, " You cannot hinder the
three per cent. Consols from eating pheasants"--( Hear ! and
i laughter)—oven if it were desirable to hinder them front doing
so, which did not distinctly appear. Without going at all, there-
fore, into the question of detail, he thought there was enough
in the Bill of his ,Hon. Friend (the Member for Yprkshire) to
warrant its being read a second time ; because it :was perfectly
possible for the present, without making game a property, to
give every proprietor of land the power of killing, and selling
it on ,his own, estate ; and was it reasonable that a man who
chose to preserve game should send it to feed on the crops of
the neighbouring farmer, who had no right to kill it ?—( Hear,
hear!)—He was far from thinking that the effect of •the Bill
would be to foment squabbles between the rich and the poor ; a
fair compromise was what would suit all parties best; and that
was the end to which it would quickly come. The small pro-
prietor would not find it worth his while to preserve game, and
he would sell his right to his richer neighbour for a reasonable
con sideration—(H ear !)—Theremightbe some little difficulty,as
there was in all alterations, at-first ; but after people had found
out their rights, they would find out their convenience, and then
all would go well. And let the,Houselook at the way in which
game was preserved under the existing system : it must be pre-
served either by spring-guns or by an armed force.—(Hear,
hear !)—lt was an armed force certainly up to this point—there
were five or six keepers on an estate, with thirty assistants at
their call, who went out, in case of any attack, to repel, force by
force. These did not use arms, unless they found arms used
by their opponents ; but the struggle frequently came to that re-
sort in the end.—( Hear !)—Thenfor the spring-guns,besides the
constant liability to accident from the use of such engines,their ef-
fect was to take away life,whicloovertly,the owner of the property,
under the same circumstances, would-not be justified in taking
away.—(Hear, hear !)—Then it was said that, under the pend-
ing measure, there would not be a satisfactory possession of
game as a property. What kind of possession was there under
the existing system? Surely that was bad enough !—(Much
cheering.)—With respect to the
,Hon. Member's (Mr. Lock-
hart's) suggestion of altering the scheme of qualification, he
thought that would be a plan attained with great difficulty and
inconvenience ; and to let the matter rest where it stood, was
really, in times like the present, quite impossible. According
younger song—
' to the present law, a gentleman might have an estate of several
thousands a year, and yet not be able to qualify his second son to
shootwhln The very, part of his family—his
• trate; they might breal
would be anxious to give that diversion to, he could not i
might be called upon to
might actually be a magis
t of the question allow_
q u alifygh.3ellue
pthuetliatiivh;fearnzed 17a,iinnsthaisleoifIni.ciizrlocapawchayo,
gaenstirdpboyrtathnet
ingthis state otthings
already established, and the
between the working of a system h
re
to remain*.-i-t( Hear! )--H e felt the difference
establishing:the same system elsewhere
fact, nevertheless, that a system very
andsideraby increased. In
many years past, the game had very con
present Bill was pursued in Scotland ti that in Scotland, for
e Like elThtaitt wassug
1-'that
up property. A t
qoalify whoever he pleased 'to kill game .
Scotland, every man who posaessed a plough rate of land, could
id not think the Bill
the same time lie was free to admit, lie
I had been •
Those who were afraid of it would find that t tey had
ben
. is-
taken before the House would fulfil the expectations of either party.
ofgame in this
ed : for the truth was, looking at the quantity . taken ; and those who supported it would perhaps be disappoint-
acted upon two motives couritry, he did not think that any measure would entirely put
down poaching.—( II ear ! )--The poacher
h man who liked to
.the love of sport, and the love of money.. The love of sport
I
would operate under any system of law t c
shoot pheasants for amusementolfould 51100,t them. But the se-

•
coed motive, the vieW to gain, the Bill before the House would go
to weaken considerably. The poacher now supplied all the
markets with game; he had no one to compete with him, and
:iis trade was a lucrative one ; but the case would be meth

altered when the gentleman who had a thousand pheasants to
dispose of, and not 'even friends to give them to, came to Un-
dersell him through thick and thin.—(Hear !)—The poacher
now furnished the whole supply; if the Bill before the House
was carried, he would only furnish part of it. And he would
furnish-but a small part; for all other articles sold openly were
purchased from those who came fairly by them : and what
was there about game to place it in a different situation ?
There were one or two arguments used, too,- which struck him
as a little extraordinary, by the opponents of the Bill. It was
said by sorne,:that Gentlemen, upon principle, would not like,
to sell game. Now that principle, he confessed, lie did not
comprehend, Gentlemen sold their rabbits already, without
remorse, and why the person who sold a couple of rabbits
should not sell a hare, he could not tell.—(Hear, hear !)
Another statement was, that the desire to pursue game would
cease when it could be openly purchased ; but to this there
seemed, as had already been suggested, to he a complete and
immediate answer. Partridges and pheasants could not now be
bought in the market, woodcocks might ; but no one thought
of shooting a pheasant or a partridge where there was a chance
of a woodcock being found. His opinion was, decidedly, that
the present bill would work perfectly well before it had been 3
years in operation ; but at all events it was absolutely neces-
sary that the game laws should be revised,-and settled upon
some reasonable principle.—(Hear, hear!)—The best thing
that could be done was to throw the same sanction round game
that belonged to other property : at present it had not that
sanction, and the state of the whole' thing was pretty nearly as
bad as it could be. In case the bill before the House was
thrown out, he should feel the prohibition from selling game in
the market so severe a loss that he certainly would introduce a
measure calculated to get rid of that particular inconvenience.
To allow a man to sell that which lie had already power to give,-
could do nobody any mischief; and he should certainly, if this
bill failed, at once bring forward a limited one, the object of
which would be to give, for 3 years, the right of selling game
to those persons who had now the right of killing it. The
Right Hon. Gentleman sat down, amidst considerable cheering,
by declaring that (details apart) he was quite satisfied with the
bill before the House; in case it happened to fail, then he
would endeavour to get what he considered the next best course
agreed to.
Mr. S. WORTLEY explained.
Ilr. CARUS WILSON supported the Bill.
Mr. JOHN DOUGLAS opposed the Bill, as tending to
destroy all the game in the country. If people were allowed
to purchase game openly, they would eat so much of it, that
there would soon be none left. Eating game would become a
custom ' • and people would look for their pheasant on the Ist
of October, as regularly as they did already for their goose on
Michaelmas-day. The Honourable Member supported his ar-
gument against the Bill, by observing, that if foxes and other
game were destroyed, country gentlemen would look to other
sports, and would, very probably, dissipate their time and their
money in those graves of property which were kept up in St.
James's-street.
Sir J. YORKE said, it must be evident that the present re-
strictive laws on the sale of game did not prevent it being sup-
plied in the largest quanties in the metropolis. It was proved
in the Committee up stairs, that two poulterers said they could
furnish the whole House of Commons twice a-week with two'
head of game for each Member ; and one of them added, that
on one occasion he threw 1,000 head of partridges into the
Thames, not being able to obtain a sale for theta.
Mr. W. PEEL oppose(' the bill, on the ground that much
evil would arise from legalizing the sale of game. The pro-
posed alteration of the Game Laws would, in his opinion, in-
terfere with the recreations of the country gentlemen.
Sir J. SEBRIGIIT supported the bill. The law, as it
now stood, was • extremely objectionable, as it operated to
prevent men from doing what they pleased with their own
property. Some Gentlemen seemed to have great prejudices
against any innovation on the Game Laws, because they
looked upon the present state of things as perfectly natural.
__A friend of his, when informed that game was publicly
sold in several large tracts of country on the European con-
tinent, which he called " abroad," expressed his great sur-
prise at the information, observing very gravely, that it was
quite " unnatural." Prejudices of this kind were not uncom-
mon in the House. They had heard, a short time ago, some
gentlemen opposing the repeal of the usury laws, because they
considered that 5 per cent. was a " natural" interest of money ;
and they had also heard of some lion. Members opposing the
Bill for Catholic Emancipation, because, forsooth, Protestants
were " naturally" opposed to the claims of the Catholics.
These were the prejudices. of habit, and ought to be got rid of.,
He would support the Bill, because it tended to put an end to
the present system of Poaching. The Chancellor of the Ex.
chequer, on a former evening, had described to the House many
of the evils which resulted from smuggling, and had very pro-
perly expressed his anxiety that it should be put down. Ile
(Sir J. Sebright) thought the , evils of poaching were nearly
similar, and that it would materially benefit the country to have
it abolished.
Sir A. DUN and Mr. C. PELHAM said each a few words
in support of the Bill, but they were inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. J. MARTIN.said he would support the second reading
of the Bill, as he agreed in its principle ; but he did so in the
hope that it would be modified in the Committee. Some clauses.
he considered so objectionable, that if they were not amended
before the third reading, he would oppose the Bill in that stage.
Air. JAMESsupported the Bill. He thought game ought
to he considered the property of the person who reared it. The
House then divided, when there appeared—.
For the second reading -
For the amendment
Majority -—5 O
On return to the gallery we found that the Bill had been
read a second time, and was ordered to be coMmitted on Friday.

- 82
- 26

REPORT OF SUPPLY.
On the motion for bringing up the Report of the Committee
of Supply,
Mr. HLTME said, he was sorry that he was prevented from
attending on Friday, when the resolutions for the increase of
our army were agreed to. He could not concur in the proposed
increase of cur immense military establishment, and that, too,
in a time of profound peace. It was monstrous to think-of the
proposed force as a permanent peace establishment, from which
no relief was to be expected, and which precluded the hope of a
further reduction of taxes; and that, in addition to the absurd
system of keeping up five millions of taxes, which ought to be
dispensed with. The force now intended to be continued was
out of all proportion greater than any peace establishment which
was ever known In this country. He did not mean to say that
we ought to reduce bur armies to the standard of 1792, but we
ought to approximate that standard as nearly as possible. It
was said that the increase in our military establishment was re-
quired,-in order to strengthen our garrisons in the colonies.
He was prepared to show that our present forces in the
colonies were fully sufficient for any purpose, unless a
state of war was expected. The •large disposable force which
this House left at the command of the Ministry, enabled them
to continue that pernicious system of government in
Ireland, which had led to so many misfortunes in that country.
He could see many reasons why it should be diminished but not
one why it should be increased. His Hon. and Gallant Friend
below him said that the garrison of Gibraltar was not adequate
to its defence. He found by the List returns that vie had 3,900
men in that fortress; and with such a force lie considered it
perfectly safe during a time of peace, when it was defended as
much by the faith of treaties as by the force of arms. An-
other Honourable Gentleman had said that additional troops
were wanted in our colonies. He should like to know in what
colonies. Was it in the lonian. Islands or in the Cape of
Good Hope? He allowed that the condition of the lonian
Islands had been much improved since the accession of the re-
sent Governor, but he still believed that if Greece were free,
the inhabitants would shake off our protection, in conse-
quence of the insulting regulation with which it was accompa-
nied. At the Cape of Good Hope we had a Governor who was
exciting discontent by the most arbitrary proceedings, and who
was compelling the most valuable of the colonists to return
home to England, to obtain shelter from his oppression. If
fresh troops were wanted to confirm the authority of arbitrary
governors, he for one should be unwilling to grant them. In-
deed; he was of opinion, that if we tolerated the present aug-
mentation of the army, we should never again hear of a reduc-
tion of its numbers mentioned, but that the amount at which
it was now fixed, would be taken as the proper amount of our
military force in a time of paace. Instead of increasing the re-
gular army to 86;000 men he would reduce it to 68,000 men ;
and by so doing he would' get rid of the window-tax, and have
a considerable surplus to spare for other purposes. If we to have
an excess in any part of our armed force, it ought to be in our
moment for war.
wanted no permanerin'at
T??,7, which was cur heat and most -effectual expence.--,.An
Hon. Member had said that we ought to have our garrisons
iwneaspheroummanneontthasvtactea
20 years'
defence, so as to be prepared at any
thairsrilsiodawsou.
alda(riel
pect that we should speedily have 9 occasion to go to war. We
next,fitilaiat
had had a 20 years' war
eaanred he could not see any reason why
peace. Indeed, he thought that
the probabilities were ally 'in his favour, since people always
grew wiser tolfleaallidonhoatt
etxve.
as theew older. To put his sentiments upon
record; he which he knew would
should move res lution,
meet the approbation of
a o 1 out of the House, whatever
might be its fate •
. • sin the House. The
Hon Member with their representa.n.e.
• s --" Resolved
then read the following resolution . .
time
that, in the
opinion ofthis House it is not necessary in a
. .
of profound for' the service of the current
Peace,. to maintain
land forces, exclusive of
Aar the nuniber of 86 438 regular Alannes of
those for India, and alp exclusive of 9,000 Royal ,
4tH)ut7)Boo of Royal Artillery and gngineers, of 03,258 en,

rolled militia, yeomanry, and volunteers in Ireland ; and of
55,000 militia, and 43,000 yeomanry and volunteers in Eng-
land, and of 3,000 veterans; making in the whole 257,496 men
actually in arms, or ready to be' called out if necessary ; exclu-
sive, also, of colonial troops at Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope,
and in Africa, amountbss to about 4,000 men, not included in
the above number.

---Col. jOIINSON, in a few words, seconded the resolution.
Mr. WILMOT HORTON contended, that the proposed
augmentation of the army was rendered necessary by the in-
creasing population of our colonial dependencies, and the in-
creased duty to which some of our garrisons abroad had recent-
ly been exposed, in consequence of certain unusual occurrences.
Indeed, the duty which some of our colonial garrisons were ob-
liged to go through was so harassing, as to be destructive of
the health 'both of mea and officers. The state of the West
Indies rendered it necessary for us to have efficient garrisons in
every island ; and almost every Governer had sent pressing re-
quisitions tothe Government at home for an increased number
of troops to defend them. The same was the case in New
South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, where the military had
to perform the duties of the police. Under these circumstances,
aided as they were by the full exposiion of our military esta-
blishment which bad been given by his Noble Friend on a for-
mer evening, he had no doubt that the House would see that
this increase to the army was required by imperious necessity,
and was not of such a nature as to excite fear in any friend of
constitutional liberty.
Mr. BRIGHT said, that if the duty to which our army. was
subject was as harrassing as it had been represented, Ministers
were deeply to blame for not having come forward before this
late period to relieve it. He did not, however, believe it to be
so severe as to cause this unusual augmentation to the army in
time of peace. He recollected that, in Feb. 1821, 4,500 men
had been voted, on the express ground that they should be sent
to defend the West Indies. He wished to know whether that
force had been sent there, and if it had, whether it had been
found insufficient ?—(Hear, hear, hear !)—He complained that
we had now been engaged in three wars—the Algerine war, the,
Ashantee war, and the Burmese war—on which no informa-
tion had ever been given by Ministers to the House. Was this
treating the House with proper respect. He thought not. He
contended that the proposed extension of our army was utterly
uncalled for, and that the circumstances of the country required
a reduction of it rather than an increase. Ministers, though
they had gained, had not yet deserved any popularity by their
reduction of taxation. In point of fact, they had not reduced
the revenue by it, but had obtained the same revenue from a
diminished taxation, in consequence. of the spirit of enterpriie
with which the people of England entered into all commercial
transactions.

Sir ROBERT WILSON should not have risen to address
the House, had not his Honourable Friend, the Member for
Aberdeen, seemed to think him mistaken when he said that
the present garrison of Gibraltar was inadequate to its defence.
His Honourable Friend had said that Gibraltar might as safely
be left with its present garrison, since it was defended by the
faith of treaties. It might be so; but he should think the
Government very criminal if it left Gibraltar to that species of
defence, while the French army were in possession of Cadiz,
and a large French fleet was cruising in the bay. He believed
his Hon. Friend had been at Gibraltar ; but if he thought it
could be defended by 4,000 men, he had never looked at it
with the eye of a soldier, or the knowledge of an engineer. Ile
was quite as great an economist as his Hon. Friend, but with
this difference—he was a provident economist, and would spend
1,0001. now upon our garrison, to prevent our spending millions

hereafter.
Mr. TRANT had recently been at Gibraltar, and begged
leave to add to his testimony to that of the gallant officer, to
the inadequacy of the garrison to perform the duties of the
place.
Sir C. FORBES contended that we had been the aggressors, and
not the aggrieved party, in the Burmese war. The Marquis Wel-
lesley and Lord Hastings were not men likely to permit them-
selves to be bullied ; and yet they had bOth evaded a war with
the Burmese, when there was great provocation to commence
it. He maintained that we had no prospect of succeeding in
a war with that people ; and said, that even if we gained pos-
session of the Burmese capital, we should have done but little
to subdue the spirit of that high and gallant nation. He re-
gretted that we had not sent 15 or 20,000 men to the East In-
dies; as the sending of such a force would place our empire in
the east out of the reach of all danger. He complained of the
manner in which troops were sent to India. The vessels which
conveyed them to that country were noble ships ; but then they
were crammed and loaded in a manner which almost defied cre-
dibility. The Inglis had on board of her the other day 700
troops, and so much cowded, that before she left the Downs her
captain requested, but in vain, that 100 men should be taken
out of.herC Intelligence had arrived that day of an accident
which had befallen another of the COmpany's ships, in which a
similar number of troops were packed together ; and had it not
been for another vessel, which fortunately came in sight, every
soul on hoard must have perished.—(Hear, hear !)—He could
not but express his astonishment at a very singular
practice of the East India Company's sending out each
ship singly, when they had two or three sailing about
the same time to the same place of destination. It might
have been expected that they would be glad to send them toge-
ther, in order that they might afford assistance to each other in
case of accident ; but he believed that they were sent separate.
ly, with the express intention that they might not assist each
other. His reason for thinking so was this :--Two vessels had
sailed about the same time from China to England. In pass-
ing through the Straits of Sundy one of them got aground ;
the other quickly came to its consort's relief, took out a part
of her cargo, and, by the exertions of her men, saved the ves-
sel to the Company. OH her return home, the Captain of the
vessel which saved the other made a slight claim of 1,5001. on
the Company for demurrage. The Company refused it,
under the idea that one of its servants would never think of
going tO,law with it for such a claim. The Directors were,
however, mistaken ; the Captain brought an action against
them ; and, instead of recovering one thousand five hundred
demurrage, recovered 12,0001. for salvage. The Company
therefore determined that no two ships should ever sail again
together, to prevent their ever being called upon in future to
' pay for salvage.. The Directors had a right, if they thought
fit, to risk their tea in this manner: but they had no right to
to risk the lives of the brave men who were going to fight their
battles in India.
:Mr. LINDSAY stated, that the ships provided by the East
India Company for the conveyance of troops, were better and
more commodiously arranged than those of the Government at
home, and had 18 inches of room allotted to each soldier's
birth, while 14 were only allowed in the British service. He
hoped that his Majesty's Government would .unite with the
East India Company in doing something handsome for the ship
which had so providentially rescued the crew from the late out-
ward-bound vessel which had unfortunately taken fire at sea on
a late melancholy occasion.
Lord PALAIERSTON denied that this augmentation of
the military force was required for any purpose of patronage,
and declared that the promotion which arose out of it had been
made without the slightest regard to political interest, and only
With reference to officers of- old standing ; for instance, the.
lieutenants promoted were in general of 17 years standing.—
(Hear !)—With respect to the augmentation for garrisons, he
was ready to rest the necessity for it upon the testimony of the
Hon. and Gallant Member for Southwark.--(Hear!)
Sir R. WILSON was anxious to know whether the pensions
of wounded officers would be in future paid quarterly instead
of half-yearly, the advantage of which shorter period he had
hinted on a former evening.
Sir CHARLES LONG thanked the Hon. and Gallant Offi.
cer for calling his attention to this subject, and assured him of
lyfrionmsteathde
the anxious desire which his Royal Highness the Commander.
in-Chief had always evinced for the accommodation and com-
fort of this meritorious class of officers, and he (Sir Charles
02f4thof
.June next, the recommendation
ld ot c • h oncur mt e present estimates,
Lord MILTON cou n
Long) should take caretocarryfionrtoqueffaretcetr,
which exceeded, and on frivolous pretences, by half a million of
half-
yearly payments.—(
money, and 19 000 men, the estimates for the year. This aug-
ted to be justified ti
mentation was attemp n the apprehension
f impending dangers from abroad, which
were, he thought,
° ble felt by some Honourable Members. Did
quite unreasonable
the colonies now require treble the amount of force which Mr.
Hear !)
Pitt thought sufficient in the year 1792 ? He certainly thought
not, and believed that it would look much better in the eyes of
foreign Powers to place the strength of Great Britain upon the
foundation of her national wealth and prosperity, instead of the
numerical amount of her military force.—( Hear !)—He should
therefore protest against this unnecessary and uncalled for in-
' crease of the standing army.
Sir F. 011IMANEY strongly recommended that the quar-
terly payments to wounded officers should commence forthwith,
instead of in June.
Sir CHARLES LONG explained, and the House divided,
when the numbers were—
For Mr. Hume's Resolution 8
Against it - . 102

Majority - . 94
-
Mr. HUME moved for a reduction of 3000/. upon the cx,
pences of the Royal Military College. The vote of the Corn
mittee was 13,1501.: he would move that 10,000/. be substi
toted. _ _

The motion was negatived.
Mr. HUME complained of the inconvenience suffered by
various individuals from the delay in bringing up the arrears of
military accounts. He thought that some lenity ought to be
shewn to military accountants, as well as to civil ones. He
wished to know of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would
have any objection to allow a Committee, to try if some line
could not be drawn so as to determine the proceedings with re-