Star.
London, England, 1828-05-03 00:00:00

,4V4L

May 23, Thomas Medhurst, Barbican. linendraper. at eleven.
flay 2, Simnel WaSatdff and Thomas Kidderminster. can
per manufacturers, at eleven. May 23, Charles thimaui, Brack-
heAth, Kent. schoolmaster, at one.

DIVIDENDS to be made In the COUNTRY.
May 24, John Cooper, sen. and John Coopsr, p.n. 14 u.thridge,
Wiltshire, clothiers and genets' shopkeepers, at rwo, at the White
Hart Inn. Path. ALI). L 7, Wm. WoOdrock, Preston, Lancashire,
timber and wine merchant, at six, at the Red Lion Inn, Preston.
May 26, Walter Hales, Bilston, S:affurdshire, mercer, at
elevens at the Whiston Crows Inn, Shropshire. Ally 2LJ. Treble.
laic at I'en►hrake, wine niercilant, at one, at the Golden Lion Inn,
Pembroke.

CERTIFICATES, MAT 23.
Hugh Seriven, Great Niariborough.street, Westminster, surgeon.
Edw. Edmunds, Oswestry, Shropshire, scrivener. Isaac I e Mart
end John T. Prestage. Wood street, Cheapside, and of Bishop's
Srortford, Hertford.hire, silk manufacturers Win. Baynes and
John Baynes, late of Paterno.ter.row, booksellers. T. Tattersall,
Ifowning.street, Chockon.row, Lancashire. butcher. Jas. Kenyon,
late of Blackburn, Lancashire, glass and earthyoseare deal. r. John
Mitchell, Lockwood, Almondbury, Yorkshire, clothier. John
Lloyd Jones, Foley-plsee, medicine vender. Jaynes Alex: Moor,
Late of Kirby Srephe.i. Westmorland, innit-Ymer.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSSOLVED.
P. Woodgate, J. P. Oxley. and Y. Wooogate, jun. Nerwkb,
Manchester warehousemen. Wm. Brown and John llrown, Buk
brook., Nontiamptonshire, coal merchants. George Pierson llnd
I Robert Pierson, Croydon, Surrey, linendrapers. Samuel Barber
and G. W. Eadoo, Cornwall road, Lambeth, Surrey, pianoforte-
makers. John G. Meyer and Edward S. Meyer, Basilighalkstreet,
wool-brokers. John Jamieson and Robert Svratman Strand,
hosiers. Samuel Atkinson and Benjamin Saxton, Leeds. Yoiri-
shire, cloth manufacturers. J. S. Dunn and C. A. Richards",
Kelvedon, Essex, schoolmasters. Jas. :M•Kinnel, and FL Akorrie in,
thetstone, Warwickshire, tea dealers. Richard Bennett, .en.
Henry Bennett, jun. and Richard Bennett, jun. Spiral-square, Nor-
ton Folgate, silk manufacturers (so far as regards R. Bennett, sea.)
John Price and Thomas Howell, Clapham and Balham-hill, Surrey,
coach proprietors. William Hart and Joseph Porter. Waibrook,
wine and spirit merchants. William Gennnell and George Pagan,
Manchester, cotton manufacturers. John Manrose Reed and Jas.
Brett Peck, High-street, Poplar, tailors. Benjamin Eyre and
Charles Heaton, Sheffield, Yorkshire, file manufacturers.

Imperial Weekly Average of the Prices of British Corn, which
govern Importation, conformably to the Act of the 7th and fttls
Geo. IV. cap. 87. made up to April 25.
Wheat 575. Bd. I Oats 201. Bd. I Beans 371. 9d.
Barley 31s. Bd. Rye 31s. 11d. Peas 40s. 4.1.
Aggregate Average Prices of the several kinds of Grain, for the
last Six Weeks, by which the Duty on Foreign Corn now in
bond is regulated, agreeably to the 7th and Bth Geo IV. cap. 58.
Wheat 551. 7d. I
Oats 20s. 9d. Beans 38s. incl.
Barley 30s. 10d. I Nye 325. Id. Peas 311 s. 4J.

IMPERIAL PARWMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS. MA' 2.
The Logo CHANCELLOR. Lord Mammas, and two other Peers,
set at ten o'clock this morning, in the House of Lord*, to hear Ap-

peen.
MR. MRLIARLIT AND HIS CHILDRIM
Tha arguments of Counsel in this long pending csuse were re-
sumed. Mr. lloorte spoke at great length on the affidavits, but
nothing new was elicited.
The Archbishop of YORK presented Petitions from the Arch.
deaconry and Clergy of Nottingham, and from the Clergy of the
town and neighbourhood of Sheffield, against further concession to

the Catholics.
Lord GODERICII presented Petitions from the Roman Ca-
tholics of Etberington and Sidney Bransby, Yorkshire, praying to
be relieved from their civil disabilities.
Also, a Petition front Knaresborough, against further concession

to the Catholics.
Lord GODERICH presented a Petition from the Mayer, Al-
dermen, Sheriffs, Masters, and Journeymen Weavers of Norwich.
This was a Petition from a class of persons whose condition bad
frequently engaged attention, and whose conduct, as well as the
vicissitudes to which they were exposes!, had at all times entitled
them to the consideration of the House. This observation applied
to the majority of the Petitioners; and the purport of their prayer
was, that a law might be passed providing that in all cases where
the majority of masters and workmen consented to a certain rate
of wages, such agreement, during the time it was to exist, should
be binding on the minority of both parties. The Noble Viscount,
in consenting to present this Petition, stated to the Petitioners that
he could not undertake to support their prayer, apprehensive that
If such a law was passed, the effect would be contrary to what the
Petitionets expected. At the same time, as the Petition was signed
by a great many respectable people, he had no hesitation in pre-
senting it, confident that it would meet the serious attention of
the House.
~Lord TEYN HAM presented a Petition from the Carpet Wea-
vers of Kidderminster, praying that the House would interfere to
settle their rate of wages, there being a complete variance between
the manufacturers of that town.
The Nost.z Loan postponed till Nienday his motion to Inquire
lato.the State of the Agricultural Labourers of England and Wales.
The Duke of GORDON presented a Petition front the Medical
Gentlemen of Aberdeen, praying their Lordships to adopt men.
sures to facilitate Dissection.
Earl SPENCER presented a Petition from the Catholics of a
Parish in I ancashire, iu favour of their Claims. Also a Petition
from the Unitarians of Northampton, praying for the removal of
an Religious Disabilities.
•Lord RADNOR presented a Petition from Windsor, in favour
of the Catholic Claims.
Lord KING presented Petitions from the Catholics of a Parish
near Warrington, Boston, Horsham, Carlisle, Yarmouth, and Moe-
peth. in favour of the Roman Catholics.
The Marquis of CLEVELAND presented a Petition from a
numerous body in the County of Durham. against the importation
of Lead Ore.
Lord DA H N LEY presented a Petition from the Roman Cw't
then-es of Canterbury, praying for the removal of all their dis•
abilities.
Earl FITZ W I LLI A M presented a Petition from the Catholic!
of Worksop to the same effect.
Lord CA li NARVON presented a Petition from Herts to the

same effect. .
Lord Y A It BOROUGH presented a Petition from die Governor.
of the Lunatic Asylum, at Lincoln, praying that they might be
exempt front the operation of the Act.
The Nom.x Lotto also presented several Petitions from Lanai
owners in different parts of the country, praying for a protecting
duty upon c .rtt
Earl 6 REY, in presenting a Petition from the President and
College of Physicians in London, praying that the impedimenti
now thrown in the way of procuring subjects for dissection might
be removed, expressed bis opinion that the object of the Petitioned'
was not likely to be attained by discussion either in that Hosts et"
elsewhere.
The Earl of ROSSLYN presented a !Millar Petition.
MUSSON FSOM THE COMMONS.
LIDDILL, Mr. CASTVISIONS. and others, from the Cetiti.t
mon% brought tip some private Bills, which were subsequetitit
read a first time.
VS the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the ['unifier
Navigation Bill, and the Lincoln Improving Bill, was read a third
time and pas•ed.
The Cards and Dice Duties Reduction Bill was read a second
time.

GANG LAWS.

On the 'notion of the Marquis of SALISBURY. the House
resolved itself into a Committee on the Sale of Game BilL
The Earl of MA LIM ESBU It Y saline had some observations to
make on the Bill when the House went into Committee.
The Alarquis of SALISBURY said. if he understood the Noble
Earl rightly he did not object to that part of the Bill which related
to the Sale of Game.
The Earl of MALNIESBURY did not r bject to that
part as an experiment. Although he felt that it was an
erroneous notion that legalizing the sale of game would
diminish poaching. upon a former occasion. when he
was informed that this measure was intended merely as
an experiment, and that it was to contioue in operation
for only two years, yet he now found that the Bill had
assumed a new appearance. He therefore felt it a duty
to dissent ft om it in Soto.
Lord SUFFIELD hoped, that he as had hitherto
abstained ftom add'essing their Lordships on the sub-
ject of the present Bill, he should be pardoned for of-
feting a few . bservations upon it. He rejoiced that be
had been no party to the Bill before the House, because,
had be been engaged in framing it, he would have re-
commem'ed the adoption of some more general tepeal
than the Bill now comprehended. lie also rejoiced
that he was no pity to it, because it enabled him to
give the Noble Lords under Whose auspices it was
brcught for ward that applause to'liebich they were so
justly entitled. Although the Bill did not go so far as
he could with, it was still a matter for congratulation
that it gave up that exclusive system which was the
main evil in ail the Game Laws. That monopoly
which had hitherto rrevailed was a cause of a very
great pottion of the evils which every one must deplore,
however they might differ as to the causes which pro-
duced them. It, in fact, rendered the laws inoperative,
because the public odiuM attended the system. The
opinion of society was such, that these laws could not
be enforced. Julies were averse to convict poachers,
and if he 'might judge by a recent dictum, it would
seem that some r f the Judges were nearly of the same
sentiment. if men were permitted to buy game, much
of this feeling would be removed. If this subject could
be placed upon a satisfactory footing, it would be a
matter of congratulation to this House and to the
country. It lie had 'followed the dictates of his own
judgment, he would lave moved the repeal of all the
statutes for the protection of game, Mid would have
been content to leave it to the common laws of the
land. The present measure did not go so far 4 but so fat
as it did go. it had his entice approbation. There was
notori, usly less poaching in Nottolk last year than had
eve, been known b' fore, which the Noble Lord ascribed
to the greater indulgence of the great landoorneys ti
their 'tenants ith respect to game.
Lord REDESDALE approved of the Game Laws
as •a Matter t f licy, for since the days of RObit
Hood the "idle and d.ssolute.had been fond of th,
pursuit of gan,e in preference to the pursuit of lassie
iadastly. He knew an Alderman of London. who,
• ItOipikality lie well remert,baed, and who asked him
he thought Alder Man with'plenty of sisoisey:ritul

_ .
be plevented fiom boying'same if be wanted it?
appealed to him etre:atilt to be a folly to attempt

prevent a thing ssh;th tl ey must know they it*ve
could prevent. He was tinter/met fillop3#le to thi

pre.entßilL Witlinspect to the right of Iciiting gni

be had no objection to gig( that right to any man on
bits min land.
Lord SI3FFIELP'said, tbat'tbe first law ever passed
upon the subject was in the reign of Richard 14 this
preamble of which was that it was to send the peopin
to church. It was a pretext, in short, for disiiiiing tb.
piople.
Tie House Oleo resolved itself into the Committee.

The Marquis of SALISBURY stated the diffeeioco
•betsteen this Bill and that of his Noble Friend, which
stood this night for st second reading. The immediate
Object was to permit the ale of 'fame hythose to whom'
the game belonged, and thus to establish a proper me-
thod of supplying the mat ket, and diminish the temp-
fat:on to poacliing. He had limited the right of selling
game to persons possessed of 1001. a year in land, be-
cause any lower qualification would be an inducement
to persons to purchase a small piece of ground in the
neighbourhood perhaps of a presetve, to pay the rent,
and obtain a profit by the sale of game. lie did anxi•
ously hope that the Bill would be permived to pass
without alterati.m. Any further improvement which
was thought necessary by other Noble Lords might be
introduced in a separate Bill.
Lord SUFFIELD said, the Nible Marquis had not
contrad cted a single word he had uttered.
The Earl of MA LM ESBU la thought the Bill would
disappoint the expectation of his Noble Friend. He
could not conceal, besides, that he was aver se to become
a dealer in poultry or- game; he preferred to give it
away to his friends, to show them that he had not for-
gotten them. It was, besides, he thought, injudicious
to encrease a privilege which in its present extent was
considered in an invidious light.

The Bill was then read clause by clause.
On the clause respecting the persons to be licensed as dealers in
game being put,
Lord It EDESDALE said, that the persons who prin-
cipally wanted to buy game were inn or tat ern keepers,
and these were not licensed. He recommended to the
Noble L• rd to amend ills Bill in This respect, or it v►oald
nr t answer his purpose. 1-le supposed nobody
,►►ottld
find any difficulty in haring a game dinner at the Ca,'

of London Tavern.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought the Noble Lord_
misunderstood the scope of the resolution. Toe object
was to appoint certain channels thrnugh which only
game should be permitted to find its way to the public ;
the suggestion of the Nibble Lord would defeat that
object. Tavern keepers were by the Bill permitted to
have game in their possession fur the use of their own
houses.
After a few words from the Marquis of Sausleav-411se clause
then before the House was agreed to.
Lord WARNCLIFFE said, that it now became his
duty to move the Amendment of which he had given
notice, in pursuance of the recommendation of the
Comniittee above stairs, and he beggedlloble torch td
Consider that the rn• st, or iather the only effectual ;bode
of preserving game, was to give the small landowners;
the farmers, and the laboerers about their eitates,
interrest in its Oreserbatior. It was unjust that a per sols
pbould not be permitted to kill prise on his biln tench
He 'entered to say this, although he knew that the
assembly he was addressing were great landed pronviei
toes, arid lealotrs of their privileges as such. The law
of ROA/cation Was most anomalous. The son of an
-Esquire, or "other person of higher degree, was quali-
fied, but unless fie bad is qualification in property, when
he became the E-quire or person of higher degree him-
self, he ceased to be qualified—Lords of Manors nere
not goateed—lrish and Scotch Peers were not qualified
—the 'second tons of their Lordships acre not qualified:
These were anomalies which they otglit to correct.
When they made game stleable, in Order to put down
Faiching, they must, to be consistent, do whatever was
necessaty to ensure the market being well supplied, for
othernie poaching would, instead of being checked, be
facilii.ated. It was not to be eseected that the small
proprietor would suffer the gr at landlord, who had tl e
preserve in his neighbourlscod, to derive all the benefit
of the game which he had contributed to feed. He had
seen an advertisement in the Nottingham paper, asking
any man of one hundred pounds a yearlanded property
to come and shoot game on the farm'of the advertiser,
which was clo,e to a great preserve. This was natural,
and it was, he did not scruple to say, what he would do
himself in the same circumstances.. He did not wish to
give a license to the small proprieftirketeepting to *hoot
upon his own land. This was ail. He hadattempted
more formerly, and he_still wished for more; but with
the view to a successful result, this was as' far as he dared
now to go. The Noble Lord here entered into a detail
of the difficulties and tie litigation to which the pre-
sent state of the law gave rise, and with a view to
correct these evils he wruld give a right of summary
process in cases of treseass. This system prevailed in
Scotland, and was found advantageous. They should
show their determination to protect the boundaries of
every man's property, and when this system was once
established, the boundaries of propertywoold be re-
spected. His resolutiOn 'inured' the' tights of Lords of
the 'Minor now existing, and the'rights of persons hunt-
ing upon horseback in pursuit- or recent game. He
would wish this truly manly and English spott to
flourish more and more; and, although they were tres-
passers, he left them in possession of the protection
which the law gave them at present, that of being only
liible to an action. He had now gone through the
particulars of his measure, and he begged in conclusion
to say, that without this addition, the legalising the
sale of game would only be adding injustice to injustice,
And would be sure to excite resistance in the country.
The Earl of M ALM ESBURY gave his-Noble Friend
full credit for the zeal and perseverance with which, for
so many years, he bad followed up this subject; *bile
he cheerfully bore this humble testimony-to thy. met it%
of his Noble Fr lend, he regretted that he could dot-agree
'nith him in opinion upon this subject. If lie had had
the honour of being on the Committee, he would have
called before it Magistrates and keepers of bridewells
in the game counties, to know from Them whether the
persons committed for poaching were 'not generally
agricultural labourers driven by the distress of the-times
to this mode of ekeing out a subsistence. If be had not
been misinfermed, they would have• convinerd • their
Lordships that the increase of poaching had' Wien from
the distress of the agricultural population. The increase
in the quantity of game, and theincrease of wealth and
luxury in the towns had, no doubt, contributed to the
effect.. lint, in fact, the increase was not so Cobiiilerable
as was generally imagined. In .1821, the number of
convictions for offences against the Game Laws in the
county of Wilts was 181 ; in 1822, the number was 149;
in 1823, the number fell to 97 ; in 1824, it rose to 153 r
In 1825, it was 140; in 1326, 109; and in 1827, it wap
128. This increase was not disproportioned to the
increase of other crimes. The persons convicted of the
crime of larceny in the same-county, between 1821 and
1826,fisr instance, had increased throughout the whole
country from 6,499 to 8,081, which was an increase of
no less than 1,800. This general increase of crime was
variously accounted for. If they asked his opinion, Is 4,
ssoUld say that it arose from the diminution of employ:'
theist, or, which was the same thing, from the diminished
means'of the employers, the income of most of these
being reduced in the proportion of one-third at least.—
The Noble lard must excuse him if he now entered
into a brief analysis of his Bill. Could his Noble Friend
inform him what was the legal meaning of the word
Esquire? He did not know what the word meant, and
he did not know any lawyer who could inform him. Then
with respect to the small proprietors, he had no doubt
that the measure proposed would operate as a bounty

arm poaching, so far as they were ememised. He
could not help thinking :that the summitry proceeding
in Pius of trespass would lead to great litigation, nor
wat-he the less inclined to this opinion on account of
diotorlt Advocate of Scotland having said that it did
nbt pttfddce much litigation in that, country. They did
not malt know how' Muth* litigation that Learned
Gentleman might tilktk too much. He begged also to
call the attention of his N ible Friend to the clause

which protected hunters on horseback from this sum-
mary process. Was he to understand that if a man
rode upon his lind, so long as he remained upon horse-
back he must not touch him, but if he could by any
means get him off, hi might then take him? After
several other Oservations, the Noble Lord conclUded
by expressing Mk inability, for the reasons he' had
given, to concur in the Bill.
Lord WHARNCIAFFE contended that the clause
should be retained in its present shape, or otherwise it
would lead to endless litigation.
Lord CALTHORPE supported the Bill. He did not,
ascribe the increase of poaching so much to the distress
of the agricultural labourers, as to the temptation of a
market. of whichs by the present law, poachers had a

monopoly.
The Committee then divided on the amendment proposed by
Lord WH•IINCLIFFIL.•••
•
Cont vitts . 33
Non Contents . 18
Majority in favour of the Amendment —1.5
Several other clauses. no the motion of Lord WH ARNC MITE,
were then added to the Bill.
On the elau.e being put excepting persons on horseback, huntinZ
or coursing with any hounds or greyhounds, from the summary

peneess against trespassers—
The Fad of MA LaIESBU RI moved that the words canning

ind greyhounds be left out.
Atter some convertratiott between Lord Wetmore:mg, Lord
Surimalisom.s. the Marquis of SALISBURY, and Lord !torts, the
Committee divided on the question that the words, "or coursing,"

stand part of the Bill— -
Contents . . 46
.
Nun Contents lB
Majority for the Amendment . —8
The House then resumed, and on the motion of the Earl of
SIM FTESBUItY, the Bill was ordered, with its amendments, to
be printed.
I,IIIIIIX DISTRANCHISIMIXT BILL.
Their Lordships then resolved themselves into a Committee of
the whole Douse upon the Pentyn Disfranchisement Bill. Counsel
were called in, several witnesses were examined, after which the
House adjourned at a QUA RTIR to Ei MIN O'CLoCK.

I