The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-10 00:00:00

SCOTCH PEERAGE.

Lord BELHAVEN ruse to postpone a motion, of which
he had previously given notice. Its object, he explained,
would be to place Scotch Peers on the same footing as Irish
Peers. The eldest sons of 4i- _ latter might sit as Repre-
sentatives of Irish Counties and Boroughs; but eldest sons
of the former could not he elected to represent Scotch
Counties or Boroughs. He believed there was no law
which established this distinction, and he should propose
to remove it. He was afraid, however, there would not
be time to give the subject any consideration before the
holidays, and therefore he should postpone his motion till
some early day after they had terminated.

SPRING GUNS.
Lord SUFFIELD moved the third reading of the Spring
Guns Bill.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH rose to oppose the Bill. He
could not consent to pass an Act, which left the law on
this subject in its present state of uncertainty. This
would be the case as long as the word engine were retained
in the Bill.• That word, in its widest sense, meant any
thing which might inflict an injury, and their Lordships
would be obliged to remove every thing like a spike or a
fence from around their houses. In a more restricted
sense, if it were understood to mean any thing which
only inflicted injury by being set in motion, it should be
so expressed, and the law should be made wore precise.—
It was stated in defence of the Bill, that it was a maxim,
qui facit per cilium facit, per se ; and though this was
true, it was not the whole truth; for if persons setting
spring guns gave proper notice, the law held that it was
not they who committed the injury, but the thief who came
to invade the property, and was shot in the attempt. He
was persuaded that the contests between the gamekeeper
and the poacher, to which the Bill would give rise, would
do much more harm than spring guns did. It ought to
be tecolle6ted, too, that the evil resulting from the latter
was confined, inasmuch as it was stationary. It had been
argued, that the accidents resulting from spring guns ought
to induce Parliament to abolish them. If, however, they
were to legislate against accident, their labours would be
endless. The object of setting, spring guns was not per-
sonal injury to any one, but to deter from the commission
of theft ; and that object was as completely obtained by
hitting an innocent man as a guilty one. He conceived
that the Bill was contrary to that principle of the Eng-
lish law which gave a man protection for his property, in
proportion to the difficulty with which it could be pro-
tected by the ordinary means; and that it was calculated
to increase the temptation to crime, by diminishing the
obstacles to its commission. If, however, the Bill should
be rejected, either in that House or elsewhere, he would
introduce another Bill, declaratory of the law as it stood.
This would, in his opinion, be much better than any
change ; for he had frequently heard from those, whose
knowledge and experience gave them ample opportunities
of judging, that where any innovation was made upon
the common law, it generally appez..rd afterwards that
the principle thereby abrogated was a wise one, and that
our ancestors knew very well what they were about.
Lord SUFFIELD said, that all the arguments urged
by the Noble Lord had been so frequently answered in for-
mer debates, that he would not trespass upon their Lord-
ships' patience by any further reply to them; satisfied as he
was that they considered the Bill as a good one, and con-
fident as he was that they would pass it. There were,
however, one or two verbal amendments which he wished
to propose.

Lora ELLENBOROUGH observed that these amend-
ments could not be proposed until their Lordships had
determined that the Bill should be read a third time,
on which question he would certainly take the sense of the
House,

Their Lordships then divided on the question for the
third reading of the Bill—

Contents
Non-Contents

28

Majority
The Bill was accordingly read a third time, and passed

GAME LAWS.

On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE, the House
resolved itself into a Committee on the Game Laws' Bill.
Various verbal amendments were introduced into the Bill.
_ _

The Marquis of HERTFORD wished the provisions of
the measure to be extended to roads and lanes, as it was
well known to be a common practice for unqualified per-
sons to shoot game from suc'a places.
The Earl of CARNARVON observed that if any each
extension were to take place, it ought not to be applicable
to the Lords of the adjacent Manors, or persons authorised
by them.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that in the.progress of the
measure he would endeavour to prepare a clause which
should meet the case in question.

A long conversation took place on a clause proposed by
Lord WHARNCLIFFE for giving to persons who had
leases for ninety-nine years the same rights with respect to
game as if they were the owners of the land. Eventually,
the Noble Lord withdrew the clause.
On the ninth clause being read,

Lord ELLENBOROUGH could not agree to let the pe-
nalty imposed by the Bill be simply a pecuniary one. If
he understood the object of the Bill it was to do every thing
possible to make Game considered as property. Now the
law did not visit violations of property simply with pecu-
niary penalties. If partridges were to be considered as
property, the stealing of partridges ought to be visited by
a punishment similar in character to the stealing of a turkey
or a cow.

the stealing
stealing
repri-
manded Duke of BUCKINGHAM was not prepared to visit
of
aotfurakp7arotrridagecor:v;awtbheicshamwsaps lifneilsohnuyi.ent
Aasbtoliye
might in a mere frolic commit the one act, and it would be
intolerably severe to punish him as if he had committed the
other. At the last Assites for the County of Wilts, a
schoolboy who had run away with a tame rabbit was most
audaciously charged with felony by the owner and tried.
He was of course acquitted, and the Judge sharply
manded the prosecutor. But if the Noble Lord's prioposi_
tion were acceded to, every boy who committed such an
act would be found guilty of felony.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH by no means intended to pro-
pose that a person who stole a partridge should be deemed
guilty of felony. All that he contended WAS, that the pu-
nishment of the one act, instead of being a pecuniary one,
should partake of the punishment of the other - ier act, although
in a less degree.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE remarked that the penalty was
for the trespass.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was of opinion that
a pecuniary, and the Marquis of SALISBURY that a per-
sonal penalty was the better.

The Larl of CARICARVON warned the House against
exhibiting too much lenity in the treatment of crime. While
they were diminishing the temptation to crime, they ought
to be cautious not to render the punishment of crime too
light. He did not conceive that the great increase of
crime in the country arose so much from the Game Laws
as from much deeper causes. Whatever had a tendency to
throw the population of the country out of employment,
and to shut the paths of honest exertion must essentially
contribute to the growth of crime. With respect to poach-

A''
Ai ..-.P411
)
)
©-,.,,,•....-.: --,,...,_,,t,,c,,...54:,..,
toseried to far the parpoes
of itiPbting the iint.tla may, ea frequently u for the
purpose of supplying the P°oll2o, with the meant of de-
bauchery. There were few Leonia* of industrious
labourer, who were poachers.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH move!, as an Amendment to
the clause, that any offender-should be imprisoned and kept
to hard labour at the oriecietioU of the Judges, for any term
not exceeding three days. • '
The Amendment val.:negatived without a division.
The original anise was then agreed to.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY' proposed that
their Lordships would adjourn the further consideration of
the Clauses of the Bill at present.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH had no objection to any rea-
sonable proposal of delay on the ground of the thinness of
the House; but he certainly did not see any reason why
their Lordships were to continue to postpone all business
day after day, the moment the dinner hour arrived. If,
however, it was intended to move for delay, with any hope
of getting rid of the Bill altogether, he would give such a
motion his decided opposition.
Earl DE LA WARR was•willing to consent to the Ad-
journment, but not, as the Noble Baron seemed to fear,
from any desire to get rid of the Bill by a side stud.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE, while he protested in am
strongest manner against any delay, could not resist their
Lordships' wish for that delay, when it was so decidedly
expressed.
Lord DACRE thought their Lordships might go on
at present with all the 'clauses up to,those which involv-
the question of the Licensing System. That point, as the
most important, might be reeerved for another occasion.
Lord LONDONDERRY said, his intention, and he did
not hesitate to confess it, was to protract and to oppose the
measures of the Noble Lord (Wharneliffe) by every means
in his power. If he could effect that purpose by delay, he
would not hesitate to resort to it ; but, at any rate, he was
prepared to contend that a Bill, every one of the details of
which appeared to him of the utmost importance, ought
not to be disposed of. in a House when not more than half
a dozen Noble Lords were prevent at tht discussion. If
the Noble Baron therefore persisted he would certainly
take the sense of the House upon the question of Ad-
journment.
After a few obser\ ations from the Marquess rf QuEsics-
BERRY and the Marquess of Sauseuesr, whc wished the
whole question postponed until after the holidays,
Lord CLIFDEN begged their Lordships to consider
how discreditable ; t must be to let it go forth to the world
that their Lordah'lll were unwilling to continue their de-
bates upon any 'while business after the dinner hour. He
hoped they would see the propriety of avoiding. such an
imputation, and allow the other slasses to be taken into
consideration.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM thought that a measure
which went to overturn all preceding regulations with re-
spect to Game ought not to be considered in so thin a
House. It was notorious that all public business excited
less attention far two or three days before the holidays.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY repeated his objec-
tions to go on, and observed, that he was the more deter-
mined to oppost. the Bill from there not being a single Mi-
nister in the House.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, that was the first time
he had heard that the Noble and Learned Lord was no longer
one of his Majesty's Ministers.—(A laugh. )---Ile saw no
pretence for delay, as the details might just as well be ob-
jected to after the Report was printed.
After some further observations from Lord LONDON-
DERRY and others,
The Marques of SALISBURY moved that the House
resume, in order to postpone any further consideration of
the Bill at this time. Their Lordships then divided.
For the Adjournment 6 I Against it $ I Majority 2
On our re-admission we found the Earl of CARNAR-
VON moving a Clause, by which all persons found after
an immediate pursuit with Game of any kind in their pos-
session, or having about their person any Snare-gun, or
other engine for the destruction of game, shall be consi-
dered as trespassers upon the ground, and liable to th- isi-
unities enacted by the Bill.
This Clause, after some conversation, was agreed to.
Upon the next Clause, excepting those persons engaged
in Fox-hunting from the penalties of trespass under the
Bill,

The Duke of BUCKINGHAM objected altogether to
any such Fox-hunting Law. There were scarcely any
persons who did more mischief than persons engaged in
that sport.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said, the Noble Duke had a
remedy before by an action of trespass against such in-
truders, and he had the same remedy still. Fox-bunting
was a favourite amusement, he confessed, with him and
many others, and his only object was to exempt it from the
penalties under the provisions of the present Bill.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM declared his opposition
to the clause. Nothing was more annoying than the tree-
passes committed by those who followed game in that man-
ner into grounds. They trampled upon ladies' flower gar..
dens, and did a great deal of mischief long before any one
could peesibly warn them off.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, this was one
of tke evils of the Noble Baron's measure. By the first
clause he repealed all the existing laws upon the subject of
game, and then he found himself embarrassed with the
details consequent upon the repeal. He could not, how-
ever, understand why there was to be an exception in
favour of hounds without including greyhounds.
Lord DE LA WARR apprehended that the affect of the
Bill would be to multiply the number of sportsmen.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that the Bill would have
any such effect ; the number of sportsmen must be much
fewer when no man could go upon another person's
ground without leave. Their Lordships seemed also to
forget, that there was such a thing as the Law of Quali-
fication still untouched. If a person sported without a
license, he was liable to a fine of 20/. ; and if he had a
license, he was still liable to an action for trespass. It
was, however, he apprehended, altogether impossible to
impose any penalty upon persona following hounds.
After a long conversation upon the propriety of in-
cluding coursing as well as hunting, in the exceptions,
their Lordships divided upon the question of allowing
coursing the same privileges as hunting, when there ap.
peered to be—
For the addition of coursing 8
Against it
Majority —l
—Upon a division the clause was car-
ried weause foundsitoge altogether.
D. uke
Heofsi BUCK_
INi
UGplimonkoluroprpoe-asidnmgis
a very unpopular thing, but he couei Lot
ried
ghievewiats his icnogn sent.

-Contents 9 Nen-Contents '7 Majority... 2
Upon the next clause, giving a power to seize nets and
other articles found upon it poacher for the destruction of
game,

Lord ELLENBOROUGH did not see why the gun of
the poacher or trespasser might not be seized as well as any
thing else.
Lord WH..kRNCLIFFE thought it a very dangerous
thing to give a power to seize a gun, and be had intention-
ally omitted it.
After some discussion it was determined, however, that
the power to seize a gun was not to be excepted.
Upon the motion for the consideration of the 16th
clause,
Lord DACRE asked if that was one of the clauses re-
specting the Licensing System ?
Lord WHARN havinz replied in the affirmative,
The Marquis of SALISBURY moved than the Chair-
man do
Nobledooilh
tvprogress, and
would
to hopepostpone
h
the further consideration of the Bill until after the holidays.
the
thenß repo
He wished that co-use to be adopted the more earnestly, as
it would not be is his power to be present at any discussion
to-morrow.
Lord ViTHARNCLIFFE begged their Lordships to recol-
lect, that this important Bill had to go down to the other
House after it hAd received the consent of their Lor(lships.
He hoped that the convenience or inconvenience of any in-
dividual would not influence their Lordships' decision upon
the propriety o: expediting a measure so important.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH believed that there was no
other business before their Lordships to-morrow, and he
•might therefore calculate
thought they both upon time to
consider the provisions of the Bill, and a very full attend-
ance of Noble Lords for that consideration, up to the fatal
hour of half-past seven.
Lord CARNARVON alluded to the time approaching
when the Sessions were to he held all over England, and
expressed his hope that their Lordships would allow the
Bill to he put in a state fit for printing and circulation
before that time. It would be a matter of great
portance to have its provisions made known to those as-
sembled at these Sessions.
Lord LONDONDERRY, having again expressed his
determination to oppose the Bill by delay, and having de-
clared his continued conviction that its provisions were
equally oppressive and unjust, and that it could not be
known whether they would not prove even more oppres-
sive and unjust than those which the Noble Baron aarac-
terised as the object of repeal ;
Their Lordships divided upon the Question of Reporting
Progress—.
Contents, 6—Non-contents, 7.--Majority, 1.
During our absence, it appeared that—
The Marquees cf LONDONDERRY had moved the

further consideration_ of the fill that day six week. ; and,
on our return, We fcrad—
Lord Diten Appealing to the Noble Marquess, whether
it was agrteable to the courtesy of Parliament to move a
question in.-01, ring the fate of the principle of the Bill, after
it bad been the understanding, on both sides, that the House
was raer'.4 to occupy itself with the details?
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY then consented to
substitute for "six weeks " the words " after the holidays."
Lord WHARNCLIFFE protested against such delays.
great many Noble Lords would remain in town even
during. the holidays. It was not, indeed, very likely that
they would leave town, under present circumstances, and
he could not understand why they might not employ them-
selves in considering the provisions of the Bill.
Their Lordships then divided upon the motion, that the
words " to-morrow " stand part of the question.
Contents 6—Non-Contents 7—Majority 1.
Strangers were not afterwards re• admitted ; but \ve un-
derstood that their Lordships, eller some diwttssion, finally
put off the further consideration of tike Hill until the 7th
of May.—Adjourned at Nine o'clock.