Star.
London, England, 1819-03-20 00:00:00

GAME LAWS.

On the motion for the second reading of the Game
Laws Amendment Bill,

A NEW MEMBER rose to oppose it. He said that
Game on the Continent was a marketable commo-
dity ; but this plan he learnt had diminished the
Game, and rendered that kind cf property of little
or no value. The present Bill, in some instances,
was commendable; but he thought it would rather
aggravate the evil than produce a remedy.
Sir JOHN SHELLY hoped that the House in this
instance would legislate practically, not theoretically.
The present Bill was of the latter description, and
the practice of legislating on theoretical principles'
.
for practical purposes, he totally disapproved of.
From the most mature deliberation, he found him-
self imperatively called upon to oppose the Bill. Al-
though all the eloquence might be on the other side,
(Opposition), yet lie flattered himself that all the ar-
gument would be found on his side. The Bill pro-
fessed to detect and prevent noazhers; in his opinion
it would tend to increase rather than diminish them.
The poacher would find a new stimulus to his nefa-
rious pursuits by the provisions of this Bill, and
whenever he got possession of game he would know
much easier how to get rid of it. To protect Game
by the provisions of this Bill would be found in many
instances impossible, especially where there was pro-
perty to the amount of four or five thousand acres.
Another objection he had to the Bill was the absur-
dity of holding out to the small landed proprietors
that they might breed Game for the public market.
' This proposition was fallacious on the face of it.—
Among many objections, there was in his opinion an
insuperable one, the difficulty arising in the punish-
mein of poachers. The Honourable Baronet also
objected to the penalty of £.5, or three months' im-
prisonment, which bordered on an incongruity.
rom every consideration of the bad effects of this
Bill, he should move as an amendment that this Bill
be read this day six months.
sir J. STEWART seconded the Motion; and eon•
demned the principle and the tendency of the Bill.
Mr. WILBERFORCE. although no sportsman,
yet no man valued more thit he did the good of so.

ciety and the insprovement of the morals of the peo-
ple. Judging of the operations of the proposed lap
in a moral point of view, it met with his hearty con'
currence. He denied that the quantity of Game
would be diminished by the enactment of the pro-
posed law. Proper reeulations might be introduced,'
so as to render the Bill less objectionable to those
,
Gentlemen who thought its operations would be in-
jurious. From the most serious consideration of all
the Acts which had been sanctioned by Parliament,
he was persuaded that the Game Laws of this coun-
try were highly oppressive and tyrannical to the in-1
terest and happiness of mankind. It would there-,
fore.be consolatory to the House to endeavour to
make some compensation to society for the lung in-
fliction of these obnoxious Acts, by the introduction
of the proposed law on their Statute Book. Gentle-
men ought to survey its operations in the serions as-
pect which he recommended, that for the improve-
ment of public morals. From .the best infoimation
which he could collect, poaching had been the com-
mencement of a career of crimes. By gradations,
many of those unhappy offenders had advanced ra-
pidly from being a poacher till ultimately he was led
to the gallows. Did it not therefore become them to
support a measure which had for its principle the
prevention of poaching and the diminution of crime?
In his inspection of the Laws, as they now stood,
there appeared to him such an accumulation of cri-
minality,- and such a mass of criminals, as to call
aloud for the immediate termination of the abomi-
nable Law. Let it therefore be endured no longer,
but wiped off at once from our Statute Books, as
disgraceful to our laws, and a stigma on the national
character. If you wish to prevent any unfair traiEc
in Game, give a licence for its sale, and iavest the
power of granting licences to the Magistrates ; and
hence you will instantly receive the aid of another
set of active observers, who w iil become interested in
the discovery and punishment of poachers. Gentle-
men would scarcely believe the vast extent to which
dealers in Game now conducted their concerns—
their dealings were truly immense, and in some in-
stances would stagger the belief of the most credu-
lous. He was astonished to hear that hundreds of
sacks of game were brought weekly, nay, daily. to
Town, by the mail-coaches and other conveyances,
amounting in value and by sale to very large sums
of money. The most part, if not the whole of this
amazing traffic was cartied on by the plunder of
poachers from Gentlemens' estates, now so anxious
to oppose the salutary effects of this Bill, and conse-
quently to encourage the continuance of crime. By
passing this Bill into a law, we will endeavour to
stop, not to countenance, the continuance of crime,
a change very desirable to every person actuated by.
true philanthropy. He wished for no abridgemeat
of the rights or happiness of mankind. The-landed
proprietor had his enjoyments in thecountry, so had
the monied men in town ; and he thought that neither
class should be deprived of what constituted their
comforts. The country gentleman had iris grati-
fications from town, and why should not the town
resident have his gratifications in return also from
the country? Pass the Bill, and grant a licence for
the sale of Game, and you will promote among the
Ilower orders a competition for honesty and laudable
pursuits. The present question was of extreme im-
or.rtanco. It we stiffer t 1 present luwe any lunge?.
temain in force, we would continue to chew
hostile attitude to society—continue to se.nctlon acts
of oppression. Let us therefore introduce a new and
salutary system, and endeavour to prevent the pro-
gressive increase of moral evil.
A New MEMBER followed, who stated that the
present laws were certainly very inadequate; but .he
did not think that the Bill now under discussion
would remove the evils complained of. The Bill
seemingly proposed that we should do away with all
securities. This was a strange way of protecting
property. In the protection of the duty on tea, it
would have been curious to have proposed the cluing
away with all securities. This would have been
granting a licence to smugglers; a similar operation
would take place by the enactment of this Bill, as it
would afford a. licence to poachers.
Mr. L. P. WELLESLEY supported this Bill,
which, with some few amendments, would be salu-
tary to the public. The laws, as they now stood,
were disgraceful to our statute books. What you
cannot protect, at least in this instance, you ought
to legalize. He approved of the principle of the
Bill, and thought it would tend to remove many ob-
noxious Acts.

Mr. COKE (of Norfolk) condemned the existing
enactments relative to game. lie recollected that
about 87 years ago, a law was introduced ►o take up
persons who were found walking or prowling in an
irregular manner on manorial lands. The law ap-
peared absurd at the time. Three lawyers of great
eminence (Lord Kenyon, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Lee),
had said, that game should be considered as pri-
vate property, and therefore the common enactments

. . -
were adequate to the object. Ia this opinion he per-
fectly coincided. In Norfolk, the produce of plant-
ing and farming, in all parts of the county, private
property had always been considered the same as
property in game. Any man has as much right to
that kind of property, without any fresh enactment,
as to his property in the land itself. This right was
indisputable, and therefore, required no elucidation.
—(hear).—lie had heard a great deal said by Gen-
tlemen who owned preserves, about their interest
and amusement. The Ilonourable Gentleman said,
he did not consider himself as sent to Parliament for
his own amusement and interest—(Cieering)—if so,
he should most likely have gone to the other side of
the .House ; he might have found his interest possi-
bly in sitting there—(Continteedcicers.)--lie had to
look to other, to more important interests—to pro-
tect those whom he represented, from the operation
of laws which were ar:Atrary, cruel, and tyrannical ;
laws whleh were not to be endured—(Meal,
" it is certainly no argument to say that I possess an
immense quantity of frame, or thnt I am a greater
preserver of game. fhe question is, what is the
best law for the good of the community at large ?"
(Ifear, hear.)—The Bill now proposed was a salutary
amendment, and therefore should have his hearty
concurrence and support. The present laws relative
to game were altogether disgraceful ar.d inhuman in
the extreme. Many instances of their abominable
gyrations could be produced. It was only on the
close of the last shooting eerier., in Norfolk,. that a
poor old woman, in croLsiug a-Lender:rm% planta-
tioa, was cruelly sltot-most des-crattly mangled

hear)—Her screams at length biouglot
keeper up to her; and all the censoiaf on weoe
could obtain for this violation of humanity .0-
-
,the keeper telling her that she had only gOt
".kaded ;" whereas, had she gone a little furtho
the plantation, she world certainly have beer,
rough the body and killed. Application was
rade to the Magistrate ; and who did the hi:;,:
thtinrate prove to be? Why, the owns cf tl e s;;:
--,Hear;—The noire would ask, what tent:.
he extend to her ? He gave her anscrder on the
rish for a weekly sum of s.!
exclaimed the Honourable Member, " is this to be tr
duced in a civilired and a Christian country?
acts of outrage are cleteStable ; bat that tncy sho
pass with impunity was a crying sin against their.
nt of, justice and the dictates of humenitr:'—fe.,
chtering).--Ilie Honourable _Member concluded
promising the Bill his warmest support. •
A New 'anima said, •he gave his unecnleee,
aupport to this Bill. If game were to be nnet
ticularized as private property, something morel,
tine ought to be introduce! into the Bill. The ile
rourable
•Member indicated his readiness to eizt•
amended clause; but as this was not the proact sirs
of the business, he would avail himself of the ,]
portuniry in the progress of the Act.
Mr. ISANKES, in reference to the 'story cf
game-keeper, and the wounding of the poor woe;
in Norfolk, asked what had been discovered in::
present Bill which would prevent similar 'accident
His Honourable Friend (Mr. WilberforCe) had L.
he believed, read the Lill, otherwise he would In
observed oranfincongruities in it. Gentlemen sal
that by the continuance of the present laws
would be an increased portion of human wise:
Let them not come with large words in their nue.
to frighten men from propriety. With all the ;7
tensions to objects of humanity which had been
commended by this Bill, it was curses to find, I.
two of the most rigid Acts on the St:tate-beck vi
• 'el in it ; indeed it could mt. do we'.l rif,:.
preserved
it. Occupancy was the right to property, and w'e
ever game appeared on the Lend occupied here
the property of the individual in whose posses..
the land was. Some Gentlemen condemned t'.e
fir •r tetaishing a man for killing a hare. r.;c
certairly a trespar-a on private property, and
fore reeiuired some penalty. N%ith all the comme
dations of the present Bill, was a peacher in a Set:
state' No. Lock at the Bill. It reminded Von
the privilege assumed by an old man, who, or.
right of private property, attempted to amuse hi
e.:l* by a kind of monopelh. by tiring at all thebi
at ()nee which had arisen from his small piece
ground, when he killed one bird, and ail the
thew away. This was in some measure emblem;
cal of the new law, for the old laws were so has'
up and garbled, that all the good things were tc'
ted, or ?lew away from the new law. -His Hone
able Friend behind him (Mr. IVilberforce) had
fessed himself no sportsman; he was consenee.
no pm:et:eel judoe of tte.operations et- the qn.
that had moved him was the supposed preeerio:
poachers. a system which was thought a nursery
crimes. But the Bill tended to increase poach:
for where yon now had one, you Would, by the
fects of the new Pill, hare at least five Bes;
ull that, gnrne would snob be destroyed; and a g•
of vagabonds, poachers, he meant', would be
loose upon the pablic, to the annoyance of evi
landed proprietor in the kingdom. Out of Mt
tenders, by the operations of the Act of last Sess
9; were liable to the severest penalties; so that
law did not defend-the general condemnation wl
some Geatlemen had been pleased to stigmati;
with. The proposed Bill was anomalous iu its
sent stare, and could not, in his opinion, be
amended as to be 'rendered palatable. He shold
therefore oppose it.
Colonel WOOD was about to :Arra, that the •
woman, whose case had been noticed by the
nourable and humane Member for Norfolk,
been wounded most ferociously by that detestate
instrument called a spring-gun, but was corrected'
Mr. COKE, who said it was not a spring gun.
Colonel WOOD proceeded by observing, that
Bill would operate as a protection against spri
guns, the most unwarrantable and ferocious puni
meat which could be Inflicted against any ()tient
But he did not think that killing a bird ur a hare
served the loss of a limb, far less the loss of life.
the sale of game be legalized, and you do avee
once with all poachers, and all spring-guns.
necessary to supply this great town with game,
you cannot do it so effectually a: by legalizing
sale of it. No poacher ever goes out without ka
ing first the market that he is to supply. If he
not make this previous arrangement, game b,
such a perishable commodity, he might as well
maia at home, or turn his attention to some otlict
ject of gain. Even were the present Bill to p;
some few poachers might perhaps continue for a'
to commit their trespasses by stealth, in the
manner as some vagrants steal geese or fowls.
poulterers of London, a respectable set of men,
the Colonel.) would rejoice to find that you had It
lized the sale of game. Where are the supplies;
duced from whkh serve to gratify town custom(
From four preserves: for notwithstanding every e
Lion, this kind of property eaanot be protected.
argument had been sue-ted against the Bill, eh
would remove a number of Gentlemen from I
residences, because, by the destruction of the g:
there would be no attraction. But there were Di
sports mere congenial to many Gentlemen, than kh,
ing game ; consequently, their residences is h'c
country would not be abandoned. The Celoma purl
ticularised fox hunting, which was in every respect
more congenial to Gentlemen in general. Neer"
of preserves frevently went beyond their ceenais-
sion, by poisoning foxes,ailthough they were a Sreties
of game piized by many of their masters. Formehlv•
Gentlemen delighted in going out to the field wi.%
their gun to kill game, but now the custom was to
collect as many pheasants as possible together in
preserves, like so many barn-door fowls. lie meter
hid' been in France; but he 'was told, that in that
cotuary, the practice was to surroand a certain ones
of woodland, drive out the animals, and then .eichi
takes his she: at him ea pessent,—x,y this they c4•'
hunting! This mode difFered as much from Engli•3
hunting, as French Gentlemen eiffered in their man-
ners from English Gentlemen. Ile :tepee: the Ere'
posed law could pass rarliament.
M-. FRANI:LAND LE \Vi.": was. cenvinre4

ropogd would tend to the better pserra-
rime,' and die prevention of poaching re.
Game
:`-4,.t to be con-Ia:el as good property as any other
‘..c.4ace nn es..ite. The sale of it ought to be le-
L.t a licence or some other plan be adopted,
't:leicial elects would soda be obvious to
ialiereat observer. Some Gentlemen
.;ht that such a would tend to invalidate
,ins.. Ix: them recollect, that horse-dealers are
and yet their licence does not invalidate pro-
:el,, lie approved also, as an Honourable Mem-
'•
:.ear him (Mr. Wilberforce,) had remarked, that
▪ hr the prevention of mime would greatly
dto the improvement of public morals. When a
ye.
".tc::crWilS once granted, people would not risk their
and lives for game. After passing this
you ought to confine your severe laws to those
,topurchase stolen game, to the thief as well as the
:tttchker. lie had no objection to make this part
I.r.v tremendously severe. He though the
:.e,;nt system of cinalifications very deficient, and
ts,./nmended to the Honourable Mover (Mr. Brand)
rant a licence for a qualification through the
of some clause.
;!Ir. CHIPPS could not believe that the number
criminals would be diminished by the operations
if:he new law. He would therefore oppose it.
fir. BRAND, in reply, hoped that the Bid would
be Wirth! to pass into a Committee, when it might
receive such amendments as might render it less ob-
pionable to those who now opposed it. His object
fu gained if the moral feelings of the House were
awakened to the system of Game Laws, which was
opposed by the concurrent interests of the lower orders.
The House then divided— For the second reading
0.-For the Amendment 83—Majority for the
•27. The Bill was thea read a second time, and
c:.!eretl to be committed on Wednesday next.
Pit23I:NTS TO FOREIGN MINISTERA.

Do Order of the Day having been read for taking
;go coa idcration the Report on Civil Contingencies,
DJ the adjourned Resolution liar granting £79,154.
Ls giii. for Arrears cf Contingencies of a Civil nature,
Mr.IILiTCIiINSON said, he hoped the Right
Noa. ticatletnan opposite (Nlr. Arbuthnot) had by
;::s time come to the opinion that the part of the
C:ret amounting to £22,510. 6s. 7d. intended for
!...1:;oxes to Foreign Ministers, was one of the most
es::,icAinary and extravagant proposals that had
cc: came before the House of Commons. It was
!!•.e d.f.y of that House to keep a strict watch over
...-e expenditure of the public money, and in doing so
;:ey strengthened the hands of Ministers themselves,
:3,'. enabled them to realize their professed intentions
ofeconorny. There were many of the items, of which
re proposed grant was composed, to which he ob-
'wed, besides what had been expended in presents.
Rethought that it was most extravagaut to have
year £3195. 12s. in furnishing, not the whole of the
Llial Yacht, but only one room in it, as it would be
An by the papers before the House. He also con-
c'ied that £8432 for the expenses of the Noble Vis-
:...it and Noble Doke (Lord Castlereagh and the
i).:ke of Wellington) at Aix-la-Chapelle, was more
t-..a was necessary. That expense, he was convinced,
to not contributed one iota to the furtherance of the
pet object then in view. He had no doubt both the
grhle Negociators might have remained at home,
ad have suffered the business to be carried, on by
ice usual Messengers of the State, without any detri-
ant to the Public service. For he believed that no
;i:4l had been discussed at Aix-la-Chapelle, and
:ea all had been previously agreed upon between
'ac Allied Monarchs before they had their meeting.—
Re objected to £13,300 having been spent to enter-
un the Grand Duke Nicholas, and contended that
:::e provision for spch Royal Visitors ought not to
come out of the public purse. He thought the charge
e £20,000, for law expenses excessive, as well as
tlit of £10,397 for fees, and objects of that &scrip-
Ul. Bat when he came to the enormous sum of
e 2,510 6s. 7d. for snuff-boxes, he could not con.;
tine on what ground such „extravagance and extra-
edinary waste of the public money could be justified
—(Hear, hear, hear). He trusted the House would
sot be satisfied with a mere reference to established
mom. lie had heard of an elevated individual, the
Wu' Duke Nicholas, having so far attended to cus-
tan and followed the example of the Noble Lord, as
tabev.ow a snuff-box on the coachman who had had
tilonoar of driving .him in this country—(Laugh-
o+» lie hoped the Noble Lord would not cloak
4c37.41 with such a precedent. If ne effectual relief
geld be granted to the suffering portion of the. peo-
: e, :e thew a wish to economize would tend g,rm- th
:szquillize them. After such votes as had lately

:•17assed--after rzfusing to reduce the number of
-e 1.-Ids of the Admiralty, the House could not be
in looking closely at the estimates laid on
It was but a few days since a salary of
year, as Royal Equerries, had been refused
:3 Officers mast highly distinguished for their*
:,s, whilst such a sum as that wasted in snuff-
would probably have been more than
to pay those salaries during the whole of their
e. coasidriiitg the ar,,e which they had attained.
couvinccd that t y watching attentively over
ez:per.diture, thousands miFlit be saved to
Ile then moved the following Resolution:
the V.IZI of ,C3e.,510 Gs. Id. which, in the papers be-
linate, was stated to have been expended in snuff-boxes,
, ”
• Fu:tae and improvidxnt expxnditure of the public

'a SPEAKER stated, that as the Resolution be-
:4e •ile House was one fur £79,1.54., the best made
'',':rwatiir.ent would be to propose to deduct the.
O ota t,f it.
•k li~'fCHjNSOl (!id not wish to refuse that
"Icis'-'.ce it had been expended, but to express the
'rarri- the House as to the nmrawr in which the
tae been applied.
SPEAKER then suggested the propriety of
:12.4ret.'..): to the sum proposed, and then bringing
licnourable .Tember's
CASTLEREAGH, in rising to give the ex-
.•a.„
required by the Honourable 'Gentleman,
Lfr. promise to speak to every point, as there
ttaally out of his own. department, and
he must icier to his Right Honottrablo friend
Ir. Artrathaut). He perfectly undersioixithe }Jo"
:.Cllrable (;C:ltlerliaa I.:0C to have 3314 any thing
PeriAmal charge by his agition, but to have
gl,t it forward merely out of a sense of Omty to
as economical aPPlic.l6'nof the pu 114walc
With resrct to the fittUsg oat of the
%;euld s.iy nothinq for he knew kkeuVillP
the

observations of-the Honourable Member had been
rather of a political than a financial nature. He had
contended that no helefit had been derived from the
mission : that all had been conclucled•before-hand,
and that the business might as well have been con-
ducted by the usual State Messengers,. as by the
Noble Duke and himself.. But as the Honourable
Gentleman had remained silent when the Treatrand
Protocol of Aix-la-Chapelle had. been laid on the
table, he (Lord Castlereagh) should not now take
the time of the House with the defence of its provi-
sions. With respect to the expense, it amounted
to only £3,000 for each of the negotiators, and if
the Honourable Member compared it with former
items of that kind, he would find that economy had
by no means been neglected. An objection had
been raised to the expense incurred on account of
the visit of the Grand Duke Nicholas; but a spirit
of courtesy now existed between this Government,
and those of the other Powers of Europe, which
he (Lord Castlereagh) conceived should not be dis-
couraged—(Cheers, chiely
.from the Opposition
And the House would not think that this country had
made any great effort of hospitality towards the
two brothers of the Emperor of Russia, when it
should know that the Emperor of Austria ,had re-
ceived almost all the Sovereigns of Europe in his
capital, and entertained them for months at his own

expense, during the Congress of Vienna. With re-
spect to the snuff-boxes, it ought to be observed that
the charge was not for one year, but for two, from
1816, to July, 1818. Fur the last three years
the Diplomatic Department of this country had not
been in a natural state. But even on this point there
was a criterion to which the House could refer on the
subject. Other Members besides the Hon. Gentleman
had also thought it their duty in former times to turn
the attention of the House to that point, and if he
looked into the Journals, he would find that the result

of that enquiry had sliewn, that in seven years, an
average of 10,0301. a ye.tr had been applied to the
purpose of making presents to the Ministers of Fo-
reign Powers. The sum now complainedof, though
in more busy times, had scarcely exceeded the usual
average amount. He was aware that a dkposition
naturally existed, to consider every thing in the shape
of a present, as a thing which might have been dis-
pensed with. He also admitted the necessity of con-
sulting economy most closely. But he should contend

a"ain-si the al;olition of thi; species of expense as
prejudicial to the public .service. lie could not con-
sent to abandon a system as old as monarchy itself in
this country and on the Continent. It was true that
the United States adopLed the principles of not al-
lowing their Ministers to make or to receive any pre-
sents; but he should think it most unwise and inju-

rious in this country to take such a tone amongst tie
nations of Europe—( Cheers front the Opposition.)—
It might also be contended, that the presents re-
ceived by the East India Company were brought to,
market for the benefit of the funds of the Company.
But presents in Europe were given on public trans-
actions, and not what was acceptable to other States,
but for the treaties approved by the respective Courts,
for they were only made when the ratifications of
treaties were exchanged. Neither were those pre-
sents made particularly to the Secretary of State,
but to the person who had actuallinegociated the
treaty. In the two last years there had been twenty-
four such presents, and he (Lord Castlereagh) hav-
ing been more employed in the diplomatic line than
was usual for a Secretary of State, had received five.
Would it be decent that such presents should be put
to auction?--(Hear, hear, hear!) With respect to the
diplomatic line itself, he knew of no profession in
which it was more difficult to live without injuring
one's domestic affairs, and he never heard of any in-
dividual who had left it as rich as he had entered it.
(Hear, hear, hear!) At the same time he did not
mean to disparage the merits of those who exposed
their lives in the army and navy. As to replacing
the presents in question, it would be most difficult to
do it. Most individuals preserved them as memo-
rials of the services they had done—(Hear, hear!)
And he owned that the value which he attached to
those which he had received was connected with and
derived from the transactions in which he had been
engaged and for which they had been bestowed—
(Loud eheersfrom all sides qf the House). His family,
he hoped, would attach no other value to them after
—him—(Cheers). He therefore should think it im-
proper to abolish a practice, which had not been car-
ried beyond what Mr. Pitt had contemplated, when
he had laid the Civil List before the Howe. It
would be unwise in this country to abandon such a
system, unless there was a disposition in all the other
European States to do the same. It would be pre-
judicial to the public service. It was a practice
placed under so many guards, as to its limitation,
and coming so directly under the eye of Parliament,
that it was impossible it should he abused. He could
not conceive that an amount of 1.:10,000 could be
considered an improvident expenditure of the public
money, if it was not applied without the knowledge
or against the feelings of the country—(Loud cheers
front all parts of the Horse).
Mr. FORBES complained that Officers in the Navy,
to whom the Noble Lord had alluded in the course
of his explanations, incurred a considerable loss from
the state-of exchanges, from which Diplomatic Mi-
nisters were exempt.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that the point had
been settled in the Civil List three years ago, when
salaries had been fi:ed, and £50,000 had been set
apart to cover any deficiency produced by the course
of Exchagge ; an arrangement which had produced
considerable good.
Sir M. W. RIDLE.I7 gave the Noble Lcrd creel
for the correctness of all that he had stated. But
that. Noble Lord had not gone far enough, and had
not done justice to himself. For the country was in-
debted to the Noble Lord for having considerably
diminished the number of presents which would have
been given and received for the Treaties concluded
at Aix-la-Chapelle, and by which he would have
greatly profited.—( Loud cheers, chiefly from the Op
positioa.)le had raised -his voice against them,
aud, instead of many, had caused them to be reduced
to one.—(Loud cheers.)—With respect to the other
items, it might be expected that whatever Royal
Dukes came to visit us, should at least have the
means oftravelling through the country. Qr „if we
were to pay their expenses, we.ought at least .to take
care how they are charged, and not .toiat diem be
asked one.hundred pounds a 4j, .p Svie t
howl in Ediubursl2,4o7, hor4-.41c,4111M0P119,

the application of £3OOO to furnish a single room in
the Royal Yacht in a style of extraordinary magniti-
' cence, most injudicious. And he objected stiti more
to the £3OOO or 124000 spent in maintaining the
Alien Offize—an establishment disgraceful to the
honour and character of the country.
Igr. CANNING wished to stiPthe Hon. Baronet
right. What he had stated resecting the disinte-
rested conduct of his Noble Friela was correct with

regard to every thing but time .and place. It was at
Vienna, during the discussions of the Congress,; and
when so many Treaties were concluded, that he had
proposed on the part of this country, that they should'
all be considered as one and that only one present
should be made. This proposition having been
adopted, had produced this difference, that whereas
45 presents would have been given, only one had
been received by his Noble Friend.
After a few words from Mr. CLIVE and Sir M.W.
RIDLEY, the Resolution was agreed to.
The question was then put on Mr. HurcutstsoN's
Resolution, which was negatived without a division,
the shout of Noes being particularly loud on the side
of the Opposition.
Mr. C. HUTCHINSON said, his object would at
present be answered by having his Resolution entered
on the Journals. It would go against the precedent
being established. lie gave credit to the Noble Vis-
count for what he had heard, and had no intention

of imputing any thing personally to him and to the
practice which had prevailed.

TRIAL BY BATTLE ABOLITION BILL.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAI. moved the Order
of the Day for the further consideration of the report
on this Bill.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said the Bill was called
a Bill for the Abolition of Trial by Battle, but it
went also to take away the right of appeal, with
which, he conceived, it had nothing whatever to :!o,
any more than with an indictment at common or

statute law. In fact, the Trial by Battle might be
considered as completely obsolete. The principle
was—" cesqante ratione cessat lex ;" and he conceived
that here, as well as in the cases of trial by ordeal,

by fire and water, and by receiving the sacrament,
and other cases where the,judicia De i were resorted
to in the absence of other means of proof, the law

had completely ceased, and might be considered as
quite obsolete. These were in fact all done away,
:,nd why should not the Trial by Battle be considered
as done away also? He was aware of the objection
which would be made to the appeal, which he con-
.

tended ought to be albr,ved in c;t;es Of murder—that
it exposed percons to a sk.:ond trial for the same of-
. .

fence. Ile was as much an etemy to a second trial
generally as any man ; but .he conceived, that in the
case of murder, the appeal ought to be allowed,
because it wen to check the illegal exercise of
the power of the Crown in pardoning criminals.—
The trial by battle was only resorted to in cases
where it was supposed all other mode of proof failed,
and then the parties looked to the judicia Dei, or
judgment of GoD. This was in a great measure the
case in the instance of Colonel Ramsay and Lord
Rae. The Court to which the matter was referred,
ilat which the Earl Marshal presided, came to the de-
termination of allowing the wager by battle, but it
was only on the supposition that no other mode or
proof remained. This was in itself an argument to
shew that the wager of battle was only a sort of el-
:issue, remedium. He confessed that, looking to the
present attempt at abolishing the right of appeal,
and considering the quarter in which it originated,
he could not (though he meant nothing personal
whatever to the Honourable and Learned Mover, the
Attorney General) view it without strong feelings of
constitutional jealousy. It was, he conceived, a
measure which went to increase the power of the
Crown, inasmuch as it went to deprive the subject of
an appeal against what might be an illegal and un-
just extension of the power of the Crown in pardon-
ing criminals in eases of murder. He was not ob-
jecting to the abolition of the second trial in must
cases, or to the wager of battle ; but he contended,
that this right of the subject should not be done
away with. In support of it he had some of the
highest legal authorities. Lord liolt and Mr. Dun-
n,ng had said, that it was one of the main pillars of
the Constitution; and the Peers of the Revolution,
when they objected to the practice of trying any one
of their body by Commissions appointed by the
King, soon afterwards passed a resolution, that this
should not at all trench upon the right of appeal.
He was also anxious that this right should be pre-
served from the instances which had occurred in the
present reign, in which the most scandalous abuses
had been practised of the power of the Crown in
granting pardon to persons convicted of murder.—
An Honourable Member for Knaresborough (Sir J.
Mackintosh) had said, that the clamour on this sub-
ject had arisen from the writings of Junius on the
case of the Kennedys. Here certainly was a case
where the power of the Crown had been abused.—
These men had been found guilty of murder, and
had been pardoned. The circumstance which led to
their pardon was a proof of the force of his argu-
ment—that the power of the Crown was often abused
in the pardon of criminals. The sister of these men
was the mistress of the then Lord Sandwich. If she
had been honest her brothers would have been hanged
—but because she was the mistress of a person who
had some political influence, they were pardoned,
after having been found guilty of a foul murder. The
Hon. Baronet next alluded to the case of the man for
the murder at Brentford, at the time when Wilkes
was Candidate ; and also to the case of a young man
a gardener, who had murdered his master, an old
man of 80 years, in both of which cases the crimi-
nals were pardoned. Here he conceived was an undue
exercise of the assumed power of the Crown. Hi
said an assumed power, because by stet. 2d of Ed-
,ward 111, the pardon of murderers was expressly pro.
hibited, except in cases of self-defence. If it was
absolutely necessary, at that time, to have this law
of appeal, it was more so in the present day, when
a sort of military government was resorted to ; when
soldiers were introduced on almost every occasion in-
stead of the civil power, when such aid was unneces-
sary. He could not omit to notice an anecdote of the
opinion of the Noble Lord to whore he had alluded :
A crowd of persons had collected round a 'house in
Holborn, where it was supposed a number of im-
,pressed men wem, who had been kkinapped to be
seat so America. -
*the nsilitasy, and the platter was contmunicated
APPlication was made for the aid
-tcitord Akik, lie ..d the Wise. asho twastent

incae
thdishpiemrse w?
haltilieleawn°sati•lerd Wad° Bs:atilt 'ehecr°fr'woudiddidgmtive
orders to fire upon them,. for such were the inslruce
bons be had received. Then, Sir, (replied pna
consequence e:ny ad,tdehr
were
Lpv
e suchoonnuro
not
)pitui
on ists) i fyaesot
i,houialuilsel
illoaai
tll id..w:beithrlesai:ltatcenhoigati
nlettedert
h." yb:o te
Thed(r
ion
sol
rs
of the police were found
orderedtshitiehiclieoliiitoo
utztibbliteue part} ani eei t,ty,t
was in thrda.tHdoalte continued
iopinionsotls
o i a
toes
nh i
z. heal upon
power,
eh
01 a:.v
tn'flicAhPfveeaiightsoouiFelh;
. .
not tiros opinions to have at the present rnonient, when
the military system ecemed, in many instances, to
have superseded the civil—when barracks were erect-
ed in every part of the country. The law of appeal
would, he conceived, he some protection, though per-
haps a weak one, against the abuse of such a system.
As to the argument, that the law of appeal was- in-
consistent with Bert principle s.viiich went against two
trials for the same offence, and that its abolition was
connected with that of the wager or battle, he should
only say, that no two objections coold be more easliy
obviated. It would be only necessary to bring in
small Bill to do away with the wager of battle, and
to repeal so much of the Statute of Henry NH. as
allowed one trial for a particular offence bea plea
in bar of a second trial for the same (dence, leaving
the appeal open in cases of murder. In order to have
this matter iuliy discussed, he should move that the
Bill be recommitted; and he would afterwards mdve
the amendments ‘vhieh were necessary. The Hon.
Baronet then alluded to the case of " Ashford v.
Thornton," which was so fully betine the pubiic a
short time ago, and regretted that the appellant •in
that case had not common sense enough to pursue
his appeal to the last ; because then it would be seen
whether the:.law was really considered one which
ought to be acted upon or mot—whether the Chief
Justice of the Ccurt of King's Bench would have
gone into Tuthill-fields to see two men beat each
ether, first with cudgels, and afterwards with sand-
bags, for a whole day. lie was sorry the law had
not been brought to such a test, as he was convinced
the result would be an argument in favour of what
he had asserted, that it was one which ought not to
be acted upon.
The Report was then ()lettered to be taken into fur►
Ater consideration, and on the motion that the amend-
ments be agreed to,
Sir F. BURDETT moved, as an amendment, that
the Report be taken into further consideration.
Mr. Serjeant COPLEY said, as he understood the
intention of the Honourable Baronet, it was, that the
Law of Appeal should. continue without the Trial by
L':tttle. In his feeling o 1 the subject he should- prefer
that the Bill of his lionourable.and Learned Friend,
(the Attorney-General,) should be lost altogether,
than that it should be passed with such an accompa-
niment; for he wished, that if the Law of Appeal
were to continue, it should be contieued with as many
objections as possible. • The Honourable Baronet had
objected to the Wager of Battle as an obsolete law.
He was surprised to hear such an assertion, after the
recent decision in the Court of King's Bench. If it
were so, was it not astonishing that such an objection
should never have occurred to the Learned Counsel;
who had condticted the case for the appellant ; or to
the Learned Judges who presided? That such a de-
cision as they had come to was (if the law was obso.
lete) sufficient to render the Court of King's Bench
ridiculous, could not be denied ; and that very cir-
cumstance would in itself be a sufficient ground for
the Legislature to ititerfere—(Hear). The Honoura-
ble Baronet had cited the authority of Lord licit in
support of that law, and certainly a more enlightened
man could not be mentioned as a Lawyer ; but the
Honourable Baronet had omitted to mention, that
this opinion of Lord Holt's was one on a party
question. The Honourable 13aronet should have
recollected that the whole ef the authority in this
respect, did not equally bear him cut. There were
other authorities which the Honourable Baronet
might have found in the same place where he had
discovered thisopiniun of Lord Hods, and which, in
fairness, he should not have omitted—one was of
Lord Chief Justise Trehy, a man as enlightened on
the subject as any other who could be named.—
Yet this lawyer had given his opinion quite in oppo-
sition to that which the Honourable Baronet had
mentioned. ' Another authority was that of as emi-
nent a Statesman as any which he could 'tame—a
man who bad been one of the 'brightest ornaments of
that House—he meant Mr. Fox. That eminent
Statesman had strongly objected to the law of ap-
peal ; but he supposed his (Mr. Fox's) was on autho-
rity to which the Honourable'Baronet would not be
ready to bow. He had exprersed himself in favour
of the power of the Crown to pardon: he had shewn
that it was a power held, for the benefit of the people,
and that they had a claim upon it ; . but perhaps the
Honourable Baronet had no respect for such autho-
rity. Passing that subject, however, he shnufd en=
to anether part of the Honourable Baronet's speech.
The Honourable Baronet had denied that the Crown
had the right to pardon in cases of murder? He would
ask why should this power be talcen frOm the. Crown?
It was exercised fcr the benefit of 'the people, and ac-
cording to the practice of every civilized nation this
power wan-vested in some'eart ef the Government.
Would the Honourable Baronet. who was the pre.-
fessed friend of civil liberty, deny thht 'the power of
pardoning an offence ehould.exlst in some branch cif
the Government e and ilk ahl exist, in what branch
could it better be placed than in, that which by an
analogy of prerogative ought to hold it—the Crown?
It would net be maintained that, it should be vested
in a private individual; 'who 'Might be induced to
exercise it from party or 'factious motives. One
great objection to the Appeal olif Murder was,
that it might be used -fere purposes 'of vengeance, to
support it faction, or newer private views, by
being employed as the thehrte of extorting money.—
This last had happened in the cage of the Keonedys ;
for the widow there had beery bribed 'by 500 gui-
neas, which to iherease'ehe temptation, were connirit
before her, at the suggestion of Lord Ashburton. It
was also attended by Many absurdities ; for instance,
a widow, told bring an Appeal if she did marry
again, bet a.clangtster could not. The Honourable
Baronet, *so 'amlious for' the rights of the subject,
ought to be the last 'titan to insist upon the ciwinu.
ance of the 'Appeal I for all' the ordinary guards in
vases di ,aldie.; and instead of information upon
oath, andit Initfeend; wafEdavit. .by thenppelf.