moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Scotch Game and Fish Preservation Bill.

opposed the principle of the Bill, as being excessively severe, arbitrary, and unnecessary.

observing that those terms were particularly applied to two clauses of the Bill, the one inflicting a severe penalty on unqualified persons killing game and fish, and the other on persons laying snares, declared, that he was willing to withdraw both; and hoped, by such a concession, to conciliate the favour of the hon. gentleman, and also of the member for Glasgow (Mr. Finlay), who he understood intended to oppose the Bill.

said, that his objection to the Bill was not confined to those two clauses, but was extended to another, which he considered equally oppressive. ] He alluded to that which authorized sending persons convicted of the offence to the House of Correction, instead of the Countygaol, the usual place of punishment.

stated, that several representations had been transmitted to him from many parts of Scotland, deprecating the proposed Bill, and declaring, that its effects would be totally different from what were expected. The measure was unknown to Scotland, ill suited to the manners and feelings of the people, and consequently injurious and oppressive. He therefore should oppose it.

expressed his unqualified dissent to the measure; and that opinion was in no small degree confirmed by the assertion made by an hon. member, that it was totally unnecessary, an assertion of considerable weight, as coming from one who was himself a keen sportsman. He feared that the gentlemen of Scotland who favoured the Bill, had not attended sufficiently to its object; to afford them, therefore, more time, he would move, as an amendment, "That the Bill be read this day three months." After some further observations from sir G. Clerke, Mr. Abercrombie, sir C. Monck, Mr. Serjeant Best, and lord Binning, sir George Clerke consented to withdraw the Bill altogether.

wished to ask the noble lord in the blue ribbon, whether any arrangements had been made with Louis 18, relative to the total suppression of the Slave-trade, in the event of success in the present war against Buonaparté?

replied, that nothing should be wanting on the part of his Majesty's ministers to execute strictly the wishes of Parliament on that interesting subject. The present state of the case was most favourable to the accomplishment of that object; and he could assure his hon. friend that the subject had not escaped the notice of ministers.

relied with the fullest confidence on the feelings of his noble friend, in his endeavours to suppress that traffic—nothing could be more satisfactory than his uniform concurrence in the attainment of that object. Here the conversation ended.

rose to express his disapprobation of the war, which he declared to be impolitic in its origin, unjust in its object, and injurious in its consequences. He could not conceive what right we had to compel France to receive any particular form of government. It was true, that annexed to the Treaty of Vienna was a Declaration that the Allies would not force the Bourbons on the throne of France; but nothing could be more contradictory than the purport of the Declaration, and the 1st and 8th articles of the Treaty—by the former the right of Louis was waved; while the latter recognised it in full force. He conceived that Declaration to be nothing more than a pretence to satisfy the friends of freedom in this country, and to conceal the real object of the confederacy. As to compelling France to submit to foreign dictation, the thought was absurd—the experience of history would not warrant such a supposition, and the last war should have taught us the impossibility of effecting it.

wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what resources he looked to for carrying on the war, which had escaped every other person's observation. He could not conceive it possible to carry on the war without a deficit beyond the war taxes of about 45 millions. The whole income of the country appeared, from the property-tax returns, to be only about 145 millions; and yet the country would be called on to pay 70 millions of taxes, with a deficit, after all, of 45 millions. If he was wrong, he would be set right with pleasure. Nothing he had heard during the discussions, had changed his opinion of the impolicy of this war; neither by eloquence, nor by the technical justice of it, deduced from Buonaparté's non-fulfilment of a treaty for which no security was taken, and which, no one could believe he would abide by, if his interest led the other way, had a justifiable case been made out in his mind. The only argument that could be urged was, that it was essential to our safety that Buonaparté should be deposed. It was the first time in the world that war was made for such an object. It was the first time that it was said in that House, that the character of any individual was ground for a war for our own safety, which must depend upon our own exertions.

animadverted on the conduct of King Ferdinand 7 of Spain, who ] he contended; had been enabled to carry his detestable measures into execution, by the assistance of the Government of this country. Formerly the character of this country stood high abroad; but the noble lord, and the Congress of Vienna, had at length settled that character. He wished to know from the noble lord, who it was that inflicted such disgrace on the character of the nation, as to advise the Order of the Garter to be conferred on Ferdinand of Spain.

said, that from what he had heard, the present system of recruiting the militia, particularly in Ireland, was extremely injudicious, and conducive to a most lavish expense. He was informed, that bounties were given to recruits, who were then permitted to return home, under a promise of appearing again when required. He wished to know if such were the fact.

replied, that as the militia regiments were not as yet embodied, Government had been obliged to have recourse to the system mentioned by the right hon. baronet. The entire bounty was, however, not paid, the recruit received only a guinea, and the remainder being withheld, he expected most of them would appear again when called upon.

said, that there was nothing to prevent every one of them enlisting in different regiments, and receiving the bounty in each.

was anxious to know whether any means were devised to correct the lavish expenditure in the commissariat department.

replied, that the attention of Government had long been directed to this subject, and he hoped that measures had been now taken to put the system under more effectual control. In Spain, owing to the nature of the country, and the scantiness of resources, which led to the dispersion of the officers of the commissariat very widely, it was found impossible to regulate the department as well as could be wished, and abuses had crept in. In the Netherlands the supplies being abundant and at hand, the same difficulties would not exist; and the appointment of Mr. Rosenhagen to the new office of controller of this department, he hoped would be attended with the happiest consequences.

complained that the whole system of the commissariat in Spain had been defective, particularly the practice of giving only government paper in the mountains of Gallicia or Andalusia, where the inhabitants did not know how to estimate its value. He had wished that a committee should be appointed upon the subject. He objected to the great disproportion between the money we were to provide, and the small force it enabled us to bring into the field. He had understood that for the service of the army the agents of Government were now in the habit of buying up guineas. He wished to know if that were the fact?

said, that if such a practice existed it had not come to his knowledge. He was happy to say that a larger sum of ready money had been obtained for the army, by regular means than had been expected.

hoped some regulation would be adopted to correct the system of billeting at present practised in Ireland, by which persons were liable to have the soldiery billeted upon them at the pleasure of the officers whose duty it was to provide quarters for the soldiers, without any regard to that fairness of distribution which ought at all times to be practised.

was not so well acquainted with the nature of the laws upon this subject in Ireland, as with those in this country; but if the right hon. baronet would point out any improvement which his knowledge might enable him to suggest, he should be happy to attend to it.

said, that a measure was in contemplation, whereby, in all cases where soldiers were billeted on private individuals in Ireland, an allowance, of threepence per night for lodging money would be allowed; a sum which, on all occasions, would be sufficient to induce the soldiers to go elsewhere; but as there were many districts in that country in which public-houses were not to be found, it was absolutely necessary that billets on private individuals should be granted.

said, his object was to have some measure adopted which would prevent respectable tradesmen and others from being rendered subject to the system of billet, as was the case in this country.

took this opportunity of asking, whether it was not now the practice to purchase light guineas for the purpose of being re-coined?

knew of no such practice.

said, that it was absurd to attempt to conceal the fact, that not only Prussian and German, but French money, was now coined at the British Mint most extensively; and it was almost equally certain, that British guineas to a great amount were melted into Louis-d' ors. He admitted that it might be a necessary expedient, but it was absurd to keep laws upon the statute book against individuals, to prevent melting the coin of the realm, when: Government were guilty of the crime to so enormous an extent.

said, that this practice appeared to him to be exercising an unjustifiable act of sovereignty over those countries whose coins we imitated without express permission. What should we say to foreign nations who should venture to fabricate guineas for us?

in rising to propose that a monument should be erected to the memory of the late sir Edward Pakenham, assured the House, that whatever delay had taken place in proposing the present vote, was to be attributed only to an anxiety not to infringe those roles by which the proceedings of Parliament in cases of this nature had hitherto been guided. The general principle had been to connect with records and tributes of this nature something of a successful issue to the occasion on which the individual had fallen, or had acquired distinction. There were, however, he had discovered, exceptions to this rule, and he was far from thinking that the present instance was not one in which the exception ought to be allowed. Monuments had sometimes been voted where Parliament had not previously expressed their approbation by a vote of thanks; and if this had ever occurred, he could conceive no reason why that honour should not be decreed to a soldier, distinguished on so many memorable occasions, and whose whole short but active career had been passed in the highest schools of his profession. He was generally admitted to be not only a good disciplinarian and an exact regimental officer, but to possess all those endowments of mind which were essential to the more important duties of command. After having acquired great reputation in the West Indies, where he was twice wounded, he applied to be sent to the Peninsula, though in very bad health, where, from the period of the battle of Talavera, he rendered the most important services to his country. He should afterwards have the honour of moving a similar resolution with respect to generals Gibbs and Gillespie. He should now move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that a monument be erected in the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, to the memory of Major-general the honourable sir Edward Pakenham, knight of the most honourable Order of the Bath, who fell on the 8th of January last, in an attack upon the enemy's works in front of New Orleans, in commemoration of his eminent and distinguished services; and that this House will make good the expense attending the same."

bore testimony to the gallant behaviour of general Pakenham, who, when first struck, had advanced within thirty yards of the fort, which was the only difficulty which remained to be surmounted; he was then struck by a ball, and being about to mount a horse which was brought him, he was struck by another ball in the spine, which terminated his valuable life. He hoped there would not be a dissentient voice on the question.

suggested the propriety of entering the several votes of thanks of the House to general Pakenham, to the number of six, which having been done, the motion was unanimously agreed to.

wished the committee on this Bill to be fixed for Thursday, on which day he should propose a clause to limit the operation of the Bill.

observed, that the object of the Bill was to restore to the public the advantage of bathing in the river Thames, of which they had been deprived by a clause introduced into the Thames Police Bill, at a late period of the last session, which left a discretionary power to the magistrates, of which they had availed themselves, by prohibiting persons from bathing on the shores of the river Thames, from Blackwall to Battersea-bridge, under a penalty of 20s. As this was a most injurious encroachment on the comfort of the lower classes, there being at common law sufficient remedy against public indecency, if any such were complained of, ] he thought the Bill should be allowed to pass in its present state, to put the law upon its old footing.

thought that some power of summary punishment, by fine, should be given against offenders against decency, as the common-law remedy was expensive, and the punishment severe.

observed, that the Bill before the House would go to sanction the indecency frequently committed on the banks of the Thames, and would be a declaration of Parliament that it was expedient that persons should expose their naked bodies on the banks of the Thames.

said, the hon. gentleman had committed a pious fraud in his statement of the case, because the Bill would merely declare, that it was inexpedient to make a provision to prevent all bathing between the West India docks and Battersea, there being already a law against any indecent exposure of the person, either in the Thames or elsewhere, which had been exerted against one of the most celebrated wits of Charles the second's court, sir Charles Sedley. Nothing, he thought, should be left to the discretion of the magistrates on this subject.

observed, that the country had gone on extremely well under the old law on this subject; and if decent females who look the water were annoyed, it was better they should stay at home than that the health of all the lower classes of the metropolis should suffer for the accommodation of their delicacy, Queen Elizabeth, with her maids of honour, used to go from Whitehall to Greenwich, or to Richmond, in barges, and the archbishop of Canterbury to pass in a barge to attend his duty in parliament, at times when the practice of bathing in the Thames was more common than at present. Besides, the Police Act had no provision against persons undressing or exposing themselves, so it was not with an intention to bathe.

said, if bathing was prohibited in the Thames, a similar law must be passed with reference to every other river in the United Kingdom, as it would be unjust to legislate for one place without extending the benefit of the same legislation to others. Thus the inhabitants of Dublin, Liverpool, Bristol, and other great towns must be subject to similar laws.

thought that the clause ought to be repealed, as it had been introduced without any notice.

thought that the House would be more nice than wise, if they were to legislate on such a subject.

said, that with regard to Dublin, to which a right hon. baronet had alluded, he apprehended it would not be very necessary to pass any law for prohibiting bathing in that city, as he understood the river Liffey, which flowed through it, was not of that pellucid nature which would afford many inducements to such amusements. He did not consider the antiquity of the practice of bathing in the Thames as an argument for its continuance. If this was once admitted, many other practices might obtain, which would be injurious to the peace of the metropolis, but which had been abandoned for years. It was only a few days since he dined with a gentleman who had shot snipes and woodcocks in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. However correct that amusement might have been formerly, he did not consider that it ought to be permitted at present. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.

moved that the committee have power to amend the Thames Police Act. He thought it would be proper to revive the provisions as to bathing, somewhat modified; one reason for which was, that the want of deference in the lower classes towards the higher, which had increased so much of late years, rendered some alteration in the law necessary.

wished, in the first place, to oppose the amendments, and then to throw out the Bill altogether.

then put the question, that the Bill, with its amendments, be engrossed.

lamented, that some gentlemen of great abilities, who intended to oppose the third reading of the Bill, were not then present; but as he had intimated his intention of opposing it in every stage, he would then declare, that it seemed of a dangerous and alarming nature. It ] called on the members of the established Church to support the dissenters, and exempt certain places for the gratuitous instruction of the poor, where no religious instruction whatever was given. A right reverend prelate had recently preached a sermon before the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, wherein he maintained, among other points, that we should guard against all the modern doctrines of liberality and toleration, and that indifference to forms of faith was indifference to truth and falsehood. The hon. general, therefore, sincerely embracing these opinions, moved that the Bill should be engrossed on that day three months. This amendment was put and negatived, and the original question carried.