Star.
London, England, 1824-03-12 00:00:00

111080NtilEN-IRELAND.

Lord ALTHORP rose to propose his motion for the
production of certain papers relative to the conduct of
the Irish Government. It would be in the recollection
of the House that in the year 1820, there were, consi-
derable disturbances in the County of- Galway ; and
that they rose to. such an extent • that military sepia.
tion s w ere found necessary. From these disturbances
several trials took place, and many persons neie con
vieted. A. Proclamation was issued by the principal
.Police Magistrates offet ing an amnesty to All who would'
Come under obedience to the Government and lay down,
their arms. The consequence of this measure was, that
the agitation ceased, and during a period of unparal-
leled distress that
_country was perfectly quiet. . He
(Lord AlthorP) iisted to have a copy of this Procla-
mation; and also Copies of the correspondence which
had taken place between the Irish Government and the
Magistrates of the Counties of Mayo and Galway re-
specting that amnesty. He would now state- to the
House, that in February, 1820, a person of the name of
Thomas Hughes, one of the leaders of the Ribbon
Lo.lges, was convicted. Mr. Newton Bennett, nho was
Counsel for the prisoner, communicated to the Lord
Lieutenant that Hughes was ready to make all the
closures in his poorer, and that the other leaders of the
Ribbon Lodges in Meath and the Queen's County wet e
prepared tolay down their arms. 'ro this application
an answer was returned by Mr. Gregory, that the com-
munication hid been laid before the Lord Lieutenant.
A Memorial was also presented on the same subject
horn two Catholics of the names of Lubre and Yore;
hut no ittinition .was'paist .to it, and Hughes was trans-
ported. On the 16th of Jody, Mr. Bennet again ad-
dressed a letter to Mr. Gregory, requesting to know
the decision nl the Irish Government upon Isis applica-
tion ; and an answer was returned from that Gentleman,
stating, that he had received no orders from the Lord
Lieutenant on the subject. It seemed to him (Lord Al-
thorp) extraordinary, that when so fair.an opportunity
occurred of putting down this Association, %Otitis. had
been the cause of so much anischief, no advantage had
been taken of it. It was eendoct so extraordinary that
ho Should think the GovernMent mast be able to give
some reason fin it. Btit he must own that the impres-
sion AO his mind was not favourable to the Government.
'The House would see tharwhen the first communica-
tion was made by Mr. Bennet to Mt% Gregory, it was
not intended to make use of the strong arm of the law
in Ireland, but to try the system of conciliation; yet no
answer was returned. From that system it was knowtj
no evils had arisen. He thought it desirable, however,
that. the papers he wished should be laid before the
lloose, in order that it might judge whether Ireland
could have been amended by conciliation. The Noble
Lord concluded by moving,
" That there be laid before the Muse the correspondence be-
tween Richard Newton Bennet, N,q. and Mr. Gregory, respecting
the suppression of an amnesty is the Billiton ',edam is Ireland;
ago, a Memorial kern News. latm b and Yore to the Lord Lieu-
tenant of Ireland, in the case of Thomas llughes; also, the Procla-
mation which had beta issued in the counties of Mayo and Gatveal,
together with any correspondence between the bath Government
and thel‘lagistcatro of these countiee reyfrecting• an amnesty to the
Ribbinuncn in 1820,"-- -Toe nustimn ha:4l3)K been sessuntail,,
Mr. GO.UI,I3IJRN inst.—He said that let stood in a
peculiar situation in. opposing• the notion, as lse had not
seen the particular papers to which, the Noble Lord al-
luded. He would, however, avail himself of that op-
portuaity of -stating why be thot4he it would he ince:.
laedient to furnish such papers. bona, all the, inquiry
l'&1- had wade he was not aware whether an amnesty.had
!basin gettotect or not, but he would speak. to the quest.
Nino, whether Government was justified in. pardoning
*convicted rebelts who had been. guilty of imposing ille-
gal oaths. It would he plainly seen that the real gisC
of• the motion. was to cast blame upon the Irish Gewern-
orient for not pursuing that line of conduct which the
, Noble Lord wished to have been followed. It was

- , -

0

'known to the House that an association of persons ha
beeo.established in Ireland, who c4edthernielviet Rib•
bonmen, the object of whose combination :was to sub-
vert the established Constitution of the country. From
the very constitution of such a society, and the secresy
which was imposed upon its members, it became a mat-
ter of diffieulty to bring home the crime to any indivi-e
dual ; and it had 'always been necessary to have recourse
to the parties actually connected with it. It happened,
however, that in the beginning of 1820, the Govern.
ment was furnished with the means of bringing one
member to trial. He was not a person who held a su-
bordinate situation, and who might have been drawn
inconsiderately into the society, hut it was proved upon
his trial that he was one of the leaders• of that society,
end had been the moving conductor of the whole trans-
actions. He was tried and convicted; and a question
arose after conviction, whether it would be proper to
.extend the mercy of the Crown to • him ? A Petition
'was presented from two individuals to the Lord Lieute-
nant, and they founded the -claim to mercy on two
grounds ; one of whictrwas, that the society to which
the convicted person belonged was an innocent one; and
the other, that if he were pardoned, the Ribbonmen in
general would be contented to give up their arms and
return to their allegiance. The Petition was also ac-
companied. by a statement that the Ribbonmen Were
about 13,000 in number, and that they were possessed
°farms. Would it be said that any Government ought
Ito listen to such a ptoposition?—(lienr.) Any plea as to
;the innocence of the societrcould not be listened to for a
.moment. Its objects wete most mischievous and illegal.
In the Petition it was admitted that the individual was
the leader of the society; and he (Mr. Goolburn) con-
.ceived that if there were any person who was more fit
than another for punishment, it was certainly that indi-
vidsal —(Hear, hear). Every one knew that the Lord
Lieutenant was lenient and merciful in his government;
hit had he been guilty of such imbecility as to grant
the prayer of the Petition, his poster of administering
justice hereafter would have been destroyed.
Mr. ABERCROMBY agreed with the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that if the propositions made to Govern-
ment were such as he had .represented them, no atten-
tion should have been given to them ; but he (Mr.
Abercromby) wished to know what the propositions
really were, as be had nothing but the assertion of the
Right Honourable Gentleman that they were so and
so? He never saw a stronger prima facie case made
out than that which stood recorded on the evidence of
wino passed between the person who made the applica-
tion and the King's Government. His Noble Friend
who had seen the correspondence, stated that theie was
no condition or qualification annexed to the offer, and
therelote it behoved the Right Honourable Gentleman
to disprove this fact. Why was not the House supplied
with the means of jueging of the truth? What mis-
chief could arise from the information ?—(ilear, hear):
would net say that the truth was important; but
where there was :u. It a distinct opposition o( statement,
it was the duty of the King'sGovrnment, for the satis-
faction of themselves and the Country, to supply the
papers that were called for. Government was, there-
fore, put on their defence, to spew why they bad not
taken measures for securing the peace of the Cpuntry.
Tbe)e Associations 411- Orange and Ribbonmen were
dangerous in their purposes; lie wished to GOD that
they had never existed ; and it ss as the duty of wise and
rational !Ministers, when a fair opening occurred. for
putting, them down, to take immediate advantage of it,
and not to treat it in thew ay which had been done.
Mr. PLUNKETT stud he much doubled whether
the pioduciion of these papers were not matter of
couttesy; acrd to call for a coriespoedeece in order to
see whether there might not be sohiedting on which to
found a charge, was certainly rather an unusual pro=
cee4ing. He believed, that befac papers could *
called tor, there must be spa's* prima-facie case against
the Government; but lie put it to thl House, whether.
from anything which had fallen from the Noble Lord,
there cupid be any ground for such an idea? Tice pera
son alluded to had been, with the advice of all the stead
'persons, arraigned as out of the principal movers is a
conspiracy. It was scarcely possible to suppose the ex-
tent of mischief that a person in the humble station of
this Hughes was capable of. He was employed io
swearing in the loner orders of Dublin to a secret asso.
ciation, the purpose of which must be to-undermine the
Government of the country. The schemes of these
peetwits were wild, impracticable, and chimerical, btle
it was not the less necessary to check them. This per-
son war convicted ; and
.after this opportunity had oc-
curred of making an example which was due to jitstices
an application was made to the, Lord Lieutenant, rest-
ing on. no other authority than, that of the Gentleman
who had been.concerned as Counsel for the prisoner on
his trial. It would have been cep tainly rather extraor-
,dinat y, if the Lotd Lietrenatst bad entered into a treaty
with this band of conspirators through the medium of
this Gentleman, but he had fortunately failed in estab.
'fishing his ctedentials ; or, instead of an amnesty, the
procArediot would have led, to a very different result.
it ithout rneauing to speak with any disrespect of
member oldie profession to which he himself belonged,
he must say, that great inconvenience had been felt by
the Government from having before listened to propo-
sitions of so vague a nature. The House Iseult' ob•
serve, that the documents called for were not sojely in
the.'possession. of the Government. The -Noble Lord
(Althorp) seemed perfectly well acquainted with them,
and he (Mr. Phinkett) wished that he bad stated them
mot c in detail, when they would have appeared not to
'contain that unobjectionable proposition which the
Noble Lord had been led to believe. But arguing it on
the Noble Lord's. own statement,' here were persons
combined in an illegal association. If they had chosen
to abandon it, what was to prevent them doing so with-
,out any stipulations with the Government? But sup-
posing the paraionpf Hughes was not to be the con-
dition, it must then have been put thus :—Here are a
certain number of this body who are willing to give up
their arms and abandon these associations, on condition
of belying an amnesty ; but if the amnesty be not granted,
'then, say they, we will not,give up our arms, and will
continue to associate. Were they to be allowed thus
to beard the Government? Would they not, if they
had listened to such a proposition,
.have disrobed them-
selves,af their authority, and deprived themselves of the
support of every respectable man in the country ?
Soaae condition therefore must have been annexed,
either that Hughes should
.not be punished, or that there
shnurd be an amnesty to the body. There was another
circumstance to drew this. A part of the system of
these persons was to get arms, And to a certain extent
they had effected their object, but not so as to rendet
'them •formidable ; however, soma. arms they had, but
'no, proposition .waS made in. the first instance to.giveu;
their arma: Would it nor appear in the correspondence,
that if they ever made such an offer, it was tetracted i

for no arms had been given up, and no persnLad
come in to take the oath of allegiance. He !Me
Plunkett) quite agreed with the Noble Lord, that nn
}tiniest lawyer could make any distinction between
illegal associations. It was no defence to say that th-
objects were defensive. He could not listen to the aue.
gation that it was necessary to have Orangemen to pet
down Ribbonmen. They must be put down by dither.
and not by lawlessness. Fre thought no-case had been"
made out to justify the-motion.
Lord A ertionP and Mr. A:hairnet rose together, bra .
Mr. MARTI,' having caught theaSeamota s eye, the
.Noble Lord sat down.
Mr. R. MARTIN thought, that even taking the tuts.
anent of the Noble Lord for granted, there was no grouiA
for putting the correspondence oulhe table.
Lord ALTHORP, •in a lOW tune Of voice, said i.e
should, in compliance with the appeal niade to him I v •
the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Attorney-Genet :a
for Ireland, read the document WhiCh he held in his
hand. The Noble Lord then .read reenacts, which la
contended justified his statement; and called upon the
Rouse to support his motion. Re agreed withalre
Right Honourable Gen:leman that the sentence of
:Hughes ought to hare been carried. into execution,.
t(llcar, hear). But he thought when an oppoitunity et'
this kind presented itself, that die experiment ought ta
:have been tried; and that the Government, in not hat. •
kg made such an experiment, had been guilty of a de-
reliction .of duty.
Mr. G. BEgNET said it appeared to him, from the
opposition made to the motiou by the Honourable Gei, •
tleriren opposite, tha: the Ir ish Government possesse,t
some papers which they were afraid to produce, or that.
his Noble Friend did no possess all the documents tir4
had passed upon the occasion. From What was re4d •
by his Noble Friend, aro gran cotild conclude that rte
offer to deliver up arm: had been retracted. It
statement of the Weak lionattrable 'Gentleman (fir.
Plunkett) was correct, be Musehare got his idioms-Mao
' from a different source to that whence his Ilottiletitierat
had derived his information. From )14 ereeteki at
the conduct of the Flouse tenon such -occaileio, i!id
not entertain any strong expectation that tire m 'tire;
would be accededto; but he \Vac not wiltoorsoine hope
that the difference-between die. ,tir :talent's of the Right
Honourable Gentleman and his Noble Friend would
justify the House in calling for the production "of the
papers in the possesSion of the Irish Government.
Mt. C. H. HUTCHINSON falt that he never had a
more painful duty to perform than be now had, when
hefelt himself bound to vote against the motion made
by the Noble Lord, who, he was satisfied, in bringing it
forward had nothing in view but the interests of the
Irish people. He, as an Irishman, istil no reason to be
satisfied with' the Government of the Noble Marquis
(Wellesley), because those expectations which he had
formed on the appointment of that Noble Person to the
head of the Irish Government were to this moment not
realised. Ile gage credit,to the Noble Marquis for the
best intentions towards Ireland, and he felt grateful to
him for the benefits whioh he had conferred upon he-
land, and which were in progress for that country;
but he must still confess that Ire had expec:cJ more
from the administration of that Noble Fermin. iI. did
riot rise as-the athrocateof the Irish Government, hut he
felt that the Noble Lord had not made out his case, and
he should therefore vote against the motion—(Hear ).
Mr. Secretary PEEL said he had thought the speecia
of the Noble .Moser would have been the concltehria
speech of.the debate, and he had, therefore, intended
not to trouble the House with any observations; but the:
speech of the lion. Member for Shrewsbury had mit,:e
a material alteration in the question. The argument
of that Hon: -Member was, becau:e there was not in
the letters read by the Noble Lord any mention if ti:e
offer of giving up arms having been retracted,•thcie-
fiwe the statement of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. P:en-
kett) was without foundation; but the kion. Member
should have remembered that. it was the duty of the
Noble Lord at the head of the Isi.lr Government to
form his judgment upon he whole easel and he (Mr.
Peel) looking at the whole ca,e, was satisfeJ that
it' justified the Nable Marquis refusing to interpose
the prerogative of mercy, and in refusing to accede to
conditions* to which if he had acceded he (Mr. Peel,
would say the Irish Government had been guilty
of a gross dereliction of luty. He was satisfied that
if upon a case like this the House called for the state-
ment made in the prisoner's behalf by his Counsel, nut
a single man would in future he convicted without being
prepared with a statement by his Counsel, and a state-
ment, for the productiossof which, acceding to this Trio.
don would furnish a precedent; so that upon all cases
of convictions by Juries in Ireland, the House might
be called upon to try the parties again upon documents
which necessarily mast be partial. There wasAone do-
cument which the Noble Lord had overlooked; he
meant the document furnished by a Catholic Barrister.
Perhaps the Noble Lord had never seen this document.
,Lord ALTIIORP—P I have never seen Then that
document furnished a complete justification of the Nobie
Marquis's proceeding. That document was dated the
24th of February ; and the writer stated,,that in a con-
versation which he had with Hughes, he (Hughes) had
held out hopes that he could have arms delivered up,
and make many of the conspirators come, in an:l take
the oath of allegiance, provided a general amnesty
were previously granted: To such conditions what but
refuse his consent could the Noble Marquis do?—
(Hear, hear). The writer then went on to say that he
should wish Hughes to be delayed until-April, when he
could sail by a convict ship from Cork; but that the
request was refused, and that Hughes was sent off by
the first convict ship. How did the Noble Marquis
know that the immediate executionsof the sentence of
this ringleader would do more good than by acceding
to his request? How could he have known that the
prompt punishment of this man according to the of-
fended laws of his country would not have the imme-
diate effect of preventing those misguided men front
organising any more bodies ? These were questions en-
tirely for the judgment of the Noble Marquis; and his
judgment was discreetly exercised by acting as he had
done. With respect to giving up arms, even if such an
offer was made, he would ask those who were conver-
sant with the meaning of that phrase in Ireland what it
amounted to? There might be given up perhaps about
ten stocks without bairi_is, and_eleven barrels witbeut
stocks-'-(.1 laugh)—aid perhaps a few side arms, %%Inch
had been Concealed for a long time in a bog or in an
out-house, hut arms of value would not be given up—
(Hear, hear) But it was stated that Mr. Luke Hughes
had eo objection to accompany Mr. Plunkett to itul
part of the coubti ar, provided his sentence were con-
rowel Now Only see, or imagine to yourselves, Al-.
Luke Iluelitsaraeelliogas a negotiator with Mr. 1/irin-
keit, eva,,,,,terizing the country and preaching against
-'a auu iuLui lection—( A lank ).. A person Af

illt

I

' Parsd•
*ngof
1481
A rfc3.-ui,
ipifftelio
4be.aril
lettlint,
aro s, ani
oisute-'-(1
40 listen
td3he so I
-eyes a d
'Aspect tc
ought tto
tedent fog
Ipteventie
ided ne

'cleitredic

S-

Mr.. S.
Game La
Sir J.
Petition
any neces
aneno wh
than at p
would be
property
uman c(
to pat Or
as those,
that cohi
they were
tended,
to tenkirle
Besides,.
under: a
produce
oils A
noove
trtc mnnt)
Ma. W.
,of this Bi
pat an c
was g.im
prints-pal
most itob
• Bill passe
of Count
most int`i
Mr. it

itoportan
orders of
pcular •
me 'reo,d
iteinewle
bibitoty
gante
staters o
other lar
ties %% ere
and haw
the passil
one coal,
Scotland
part of t
think th;

radii
trench of
Gentle!!
Mr. L
latity of
out of it
taking av
out new t

of the pr,
rannicat
Wab ill
lichoe
perty of
for the li

By this r
.n2an's

apprenen
fistrates
kr; and
affrays?
game, si
creased t
were tint:
the privi
did not 4.
with ver
could he

Mr. $
Bill was
great cv
should v
the powe
eapeidien
Lawi we
tatiori.
sinslortal

AT Rh ,vei
Lewd rn

the argt
and Le!

rank an
so. A c
of thh
cuuld, • I

more ab
Mon of a
was 'tam
periAn ,
el that

own,
sal
twist g
Theft; A
quail OCi
PosilOssis
*yeah%
of game
he was
414)1'41
• ttte etisi
resultini
11.4 d bee
1148,the
Itn's eF t
'tich th
I.4ke ib

• Z.,
:

, .
name of Lebre, who petltionedin favour of the con-
spirator., said these men were not influenced by any
I,eling of ill-will towards the Sovereign or against the
• mad government of his Excellency the Lord Lieute-
mint. roor Mr. I.ubre, in the amiable simplicity of his
Icirt,"thought that these men were not influenced by
any feeling of ill-will towards their Sovereign or against
.the mild government of his Excellency the Lord Lieu-
tenant, Whilst they were burning houses, robbing. for
arms, and killing those who offered them any resist-
ance--(Hear, hear, and laughter). Was it possible
to listen to such proposals? IF Irish Government had
(One so they would have lowered their dignity in the,
ryes of those who ought to be taught to look up with
,esaect to the Government. Satisfied that the ttousg,
oughtitot, by acceding to this motion, establish a prea!
cedent fiat interfering with the prerogative of mercy by
preventing the due course of law, he should give a de-
cided negative to the motion.—The gallery was then
cleamdfor a division; but after strangers had withdrawn
no diviiion took place, and the motion was negatived.
s
. . . (JAKE LAWS.
Mr. S. WORTLEY moved the second reading of the
Game Laws Amendmeot Bill.
Eir J. SHELLEY said, as there bad not been a single
Petition against the present Game Laws, he did not see
any necessity 'for the present Bill. Ile put it to Gentle-
..men, whether there ever was more game in England
than at present ? If 'this_ Bill should pass, snore laws
would be brOught in. It was impossible to give any
property in animals that could not be subjectesf(to a
honour conttoul. The Honourable Gentleman wished
to pot theGarrie Laws of England on the same footing
as those of :Scotland, which might be well adapted to
that conntry, where estates were large, but not where
they were greatly subdivided, as in England. He con-
tended, that there was not sufficient game in England
to enable it to be Sold 'openly, and without control:0:
Brides, the poacher tetuld always undersell the fair
stager.; and istrotter inconvenience was, :hat this would
produce endless squabbles by increasing the number of
persons authorised to follow fame—(General Laughter).
He moved that this Bill be read a second time that day
six months.
Mr. W. PEEL seconcledthe motion. iSornevf the fi iends
of this Bill *ere sanguine enongh to think, that it would
put an end to poaching, entitely, but so long as thole
was game in the rautory there would be poachers. He
printivally objected to the Bill, .as going to destroy that
wost noble and manly amu,ement of fox-hunting. If this
Nil passed it would go much to discourage the residence
of Country Gentlemen on their estates; which *mild• be
most impolitic, as -was sheer n by the state 'of liehind.
Mr. BOSS contended that this Bill would have the,
impoitant effect of reconciling the lower to the higher
orders of :he country. Every one knew how very un-
popular the present Game Lases were among the people.
He read extracts front a poulterer's book to stew the
immense quantity of game sold under the present pro-
hibitory last. On one day he had odd 228 head of
game. It a as see y rental-liable, that the greatest con-
sumers of game were the tradesmen in London and
other large cities. Every one knew how reluctant Ju-
ries a ere to convict for offences against the Game Laws,
and how often the offenders escaped, by appealing. to
the passions, and not to the reason of the Jurors. No
one could say that there was any scarcity of game in,
Scotland, an;.' yet there was little or no pdaching in that
part of the country. Ile was not so sanguine as to
think that this measure would entirely put ad end to
poiclurg ; he was satisfied the measure would neither
trench on t!:e amusements nor privileges of the tOnntry
Gentle': en. to whom the country was much indebted.
Mr. LOCKHART had 'heard much of the uripopu-
lathy of the Game Laws in that'House, but hardly evet
wit of it. • This 13111 would be most unpopular, by
t.:king away the privileges Of some classes, and holding
out new ones to others, without bestowing them. Some
of the provisions of thii Bill were the most Onjtist, ty-
rannical, and unconstitutional, of any he had ever read.
It was intended to make game the property of 'him on
wl.oe lands it might be teund; but not at all the pro-
perty of the farmer whose crop it reeds on. So much
for the liberality of the Honourable dentlethan's Bill !
By this measure, any petion sporting over a Gentle-
man's lands, though allowed by.the owner, might be
appreneoded like a felon, arid dragged before the Ma!
gistrates; and was that a measure that would be popu-
lar; and would it not lead to endless bloodshed and
affrays? This Bill could not be meant to preserve the
game, since, in his iernenibrante, the game had in-
ceased ten-fold ip this country. If the Game Laws
were unpopular oil account of the restrictions, enlarge
the vrivileges and qualifications if they would. He
did nut defend the Game Laws ; but he would say that,
with very little alteration, it was as good a system as
could he devised for its purposes.
Mr. Secietai y PEEL said, that as the object of the
Bill was to provide a .e . edy for what he considered a
great evil, the legal prohibition of the sale of game, he
should vote for the second reading. reserving to himself
the power sof prop,si,ig any modifications he might think
expedient. Another point on which the present Game
Laws were greatly defective was with respect to qualifi-
cation. Had the Honourable and Lea, ned Gentleman
uncle, taken to defend them in the pi ovi.ions upon that
Lead, he felt assured that he could not have been WC-
CeiSfUl. His Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.
Lockhart) said it would be highly improper to intei fere
unit vested rights in the manner proposed. He had
aeard much of vested rights before, but he never knew
tire argument on the subject carried so far. his Hon.
arid Learned Friend would reserve qualifications for
rank and science. The law as it now stood did not do
SP. A Clergyman could not now possess a qualification
of thi, kind. True, indeed, he might beget those who
coma, but he was excluded himself. What could be
more absurd than such a state of the law ? The second
%seri of a per.on possessing 20,0001. a year killed game it
was title, but he was not qualified; and yet this very
pers,,n acting as a Magistrate might be-called upon
in that capacity to ' puniih for an Act of which his
own son was guilty every day. Was it possible to
resist a proposition for amending such a state of law ?
There acre different parts of the kingdom in which the
qualiticatinn differed very':niuch: In Ireland, a •man
possessing 1,0001. personal property was qualified. In
Scotland any person might kill game by obtaining the
yermLsion of the proprietor. With respect to the sale
4 game, the more he considered the subject, the more
IT was cruivniced that it would be for the interest not
only of the proprietor, but of' society at large, to remove
the existing prohibitions. What were the consequences
ii
,Tesulti, hrn o th,. present state of the law? A union
had been entered into with Scotland and Ireland, and
Iltas they had invited here some of the greatest 'proprie-
tois of limit countries ; but yet the state of the law was
:11 ch that they %% ere' not qualified to preserve game-
ii-.ke the case of a Foreign Ambassador : such a person

could not be qualified at present. Wes 'it possible to
support a system which•thtis excluded file greatest ro-
-prietors of Scotlairdrand Ireland—which excluded per-
sons filling so high a station ae that of Ambassador, end
by which even Minces of the Blood might be excluded
from the means of having game sinless they possessed
land? What was the use of retaining prohibitions of this
kind, which were seldom or never enforced, which were
every day violated? The effect must be tai hold out the
dangerous example of violations punished by those who
themselves violited the very same laws. ft the sale of
game could'not be prevented, would it not-be better to
repeal at once the law by which it was ineffectually
attempted to repress it? It might be said, that in the.
argument he (Mr. Secretary Peel) took the sale of
.game for granted. But did it not appear in evidence
before the Committee, that it took place in London as,
openly as the sale of any other article? It might be
said that it was the evidence of poulterers, who, being
interested persons, could not be entirely-depended u ppm
But it was not confined to London ; the luxury ageism
was obtained with as little difficulty in other great:
towns. He selected three or four of the largest in t nga
land for the purpose of ascertaining the number of
convictions that had-taken place within a period of five
years. He selected such places as were notorious [me
their hospitality. If the Honourable Gentleman best'
acquainted with the town he should mention .did not,
dispute the facts, he should take them for granted.
The first place he should mention was Meese. There
no person had been convicted for five years, either for
the sale or purchase of game. The Honourable Gen-
tleman (Mr. Bright, we believe), smiled, but he did not
think that the Honourable Gentleman would deny that
such was the case. The next case was that of Liver-
pool. The reply of the Mayor to Mr. Robhouse's letter
was, that for five years no conviction had taken place.
From Manchester the answer was, that within the same
period, four convictions had r;ccurred ; three in 1321,
and one in 1822—a1l for selling game, none for pur-
chasing it. In Glasgow, it appeared that the proper
authorities were not called upon to convict in one in-
stance, and they stated, in their answer, diet such
offences were usually prosecuted before the Justices
of the Peace in the County —(4 loud laugh). If in
these four large towns, within a period of five years,
no More than four convictions had taken place, was
it riot conclusive evidence that the legal prohibition •
wasof no effect? It was in vain to think that men of
wealth, that the members of" a Corporation, or any others
who could afford to purchase the luxury, could be pre-
vented from enjoying it in the present state of society.
Would it not he better then to legalise the sale? Was it
not highly probable that it would have the effect of di-
minishing the great evil of poaching ? • Poachers were
led to their pursuit he two motives; pleasure and the
hope of gain. With the first inducement it was hope-
less to contend by any effort of legislation. It would
always operate in some degree.• But the far greater
pal eof poachers were influenced by the desire of gain;
and the consequence of the present state of the law was,
that they exclusively supplied the markets. If proprie-
tors were permitted to send their gamer) market, it was
impossible that it must not have the effect of depriving
the poacher of that mar ket which he before supplied.
What objtction could there be to this? What evil could
arise from the sale of a part of the game fiequentlyl
destroyed, of which no other use could well be made?—
He had seen is much as 1000 pheasants lyieg in
parlour at one time, which could not be disposed of in
presents, for all friends had been already satiated with
game. If a pelt could be sent to market, would any
person say that it must not hale the effect of diminish-
ing the calls upon the poacher? The law was totally
inoperative, and it was impossible it-could be otherwise.
He would take the case of salmon. Would it preserve
salmon to say that it must not be sold—to enact that no
person must enjoy that luxury but they who enjoyed
the advantage of a salmon stream on their estates? The
Honourable Baronet (Sir John Shelley) said, let such as
wish to enjoy the luxury of game purchase an estate,-
*lid then they will have the same advantages as others.
It might be said with equal justice, what right has any
person to enjoy salmon who is not the owner of a
stream, or to enjoy turtle who has no estate in the
West Indies ? He had no doubt that if the, market
could be supplied from legal sources, a great propor-
tion of the supply would come from honest means.
Take the case of venison. Fifty years back the sale of
venison was a penal offence: the consequence of this
was to make the crime of deer-stealing more prevalent.
Now, hoWever, a Gentleman might send his venison to
market,. and the consequence was, that such an offence
as deer-stealing was not of frequent recurrence, the mo-
nopoly having been taken away from the illegal hunter.
It had been objected, that under the regulations of the
present Bill a person, by sowing a few_ acres of corn,
could seduce away all the game from any Gentleman in
his neighbourhood, and send them to market for his
Ibsen advantage. Under the existing laws, might not
the possessor of four acres of freehold do the very same?
Might he not seduce away and kill any game that he
fouled on his freehold ? If They were to come to the
justice of.the case, was it, he would ask, just that any
person should preserve such a quantity of game as en-
tirely destroyed his neighbour's crop, and yet not allow
The person thus injured the right of killing a single head
of game? He believed the consequence of this Bill
would • be, that the rich man and his poor neighbour
would find it their interest to arrange their affairs ami-
cably, and that in most cases such an adjustment could
be entered into without difficulty at the expense of a
few pounds. It was always the interest of the poor
man to keep on good terms with his wealthy neighbour;
but if his crops were to be destroyed without compensa-
tion, he (Mr. Peel) could not comprehend the injustice
of his endeavouring to lessen the breed (Hear).—
By geturns•laid upon the table from Suffolk, Norfolk,
Sussex, and other Counties, which most abounded in
game, it appeared that the'tonvictions for possessing
game were not near so numerous as those for being seen
out at night fir the purpose of destroying it. He was
fully satisfied that the Write Laws wanted correction ;
and it was upon that ground he would 'support the se-
coed readieg of the Bat. Nothing could persuade him
that it would be prudent td pieserve them as they stood
at present, .e hen he aaw that in the course of si"x or
,even years not less than 8000 or 9000 commitments,
that was at the-rate of 1200 a-year, had taken place un-
'der these laws. They bad tried the system of increased
penalties, but it did not succeed. The safer course
then would be to enable the legal possessor of game to
enter into competition with the person who came into
the possession of it illegally. These were the grounds
as which he would support the motion. He regretted,
however, that his Honourable Friend (Mr. S. Wortley)
.
had carried the measure so far. The change was too
violent and sudden. A gradual abandonment of the pre-
sent system would, in his mind, have been preferable.

„A. '

Mr. N. lii COLIORNE contended, that the legali-
sing the sale of game would increase the trade of poach-
ing, for in that way the poulterers would rather be sup-
plied .than 'from the landlords. 'Every peach, pine
apple, and grape in the cottntry would find their way
to Covent-Garden-market, if it were not for the inter-
vention of stone walls.
Mr. BENE:IT confessed hiMself so thoroughly dis-
gusted with the present system, that he most heat tmy
wished for anything that would change it. He had
been obliged to convict so many men under tLe Game
Laws, that he would sooner have all the game in the
count!), destroyed than that the system strould be al-
lowed to continue longer. The only .way to stop poach-
ing was to do away the inducemelit, which was-tlie high
price of game. The farmer, whose property was de-
stroyed by it, kilted the game in the egg, and while
young, to a much greater extent, both by !himself and
his servants, than all the poachers in England. lie
should content himself by declaring, that he was a warn!
'friend of this Bill.

Lord MILTON was not astonished that every one
was disgusted with the Game Laws, on account of the
enormous quantity of clime which they cm:tender
throughout the country. Inasmuch as this Bill went to
legali,e the sale of Game, he was a friend to it ; and it
the House refused to do so, it would only be keeping up
a monument of legislative folly. Bit he wished for
no provision on the subject ; he merely desired the Act
for prohibiting the sale of Game should be tepealed ; and
he thought his Hon. Friend would have so framed his
measure, had he consulted his own good sense only. Ile
did not wish to see any transfer in the property of
Game from the lord of the manor, to the proprietor of
fifty acres. Call the lord of the manor a tyra'at, and a
remnant or the feudal syqem, if they would ; but this
Bill would erect fifty petty tyrants the room of one :
and this measure would be productive of oppression,
and consequently of unpopularity, 'among the people,
to an extent never yet pro.luced by the Game Laws.
' Sir M. W. RIDLEY was in favour of the Bill, which
would diminish the number of poachers, by taking
away the temptation _to it. He ihould be gird to
know by whom the game laws were accounted into.
hr ? in his opinion, they were unpopular to all. He
trusted the Bill would be' agreed to be read a second
time by a large majority.-
Mr. S. WOItTLEY replied, and defended the 'Bill
&Om the various objections that had been urged against
it, but he was not wedded to many clauses in the Bill,
should they appear inexpedient in the Committee.
The House divided—For the second reading 105—For the
Amendment 31.