said, that of all the evils arising from the excise laws, with respect to private distillation in Ireland, there were, perhaps, none more deserving of notice than the collusion which existed so frequently between the officers of excise and the persons who were in the habit of illicit distillation. He knew that country gentlemen were thought to be friendly to illicit distillation; but there was no such feeling, except it might be among the very lowest description; all were equally impressed with the necessity of putting down the practice; it was only the cruel means that were adopted to put it down that he objected to. It was true, they often suffered from collusion between the excise officers and private distillers. The hon. gentleman said, that he himself had suffered in this way once. A person who had been in the practice of illicit distillation, and hiring out a still for the purpose when he found that trade fail, and that his still was nearly worn out, thought he could do no better than hide the still in one of his (Mr. C.'s) plantations, and inform the excise officer; thereby receiving a reward himself, and the excise officer a fine. He would now advert to the particular case which occasioned his troubling the House, and to which he would request their attention. By an act of the 55th of the king, the having unlicensed malt in possession was constituted a misdemeanor The punishment to be awarded upon conviction, is a fine of not more than 100l. nor less than 10l. to be paid to the prosecutor; or, instead of fine, a punishment of six months imprisonment. At the late assizes at Sligo, among the indictments which came before the grand jury were a vast number for misdemeanors for having unlicensed malt, in which the excise officers were the prosecutors and witnesses. When the prisoners were put upon their trial, he would beg the House to attend to the way the prosecutions were conducted. The prosecutors, viz. the excise officers, advised the prisoners to plead guilty, and that they would be immediately discharged. They did so, were, of course, convicted, and fined 10l. each, for which the prosecutors, viz. the excise officers, immediately gave receipts, without payment, and the prisoners immediately left the court, hurrying, to begin their illicit practices again. It might be asked, why the excise officers had so acted? The reason was, they were perfectly certain of never receiving the fine from the prisoners whom they knew to be unable to pay; it was, therefore, better for the trade to let them go, particularly as the officers were entitled to a reward from the commissioners of excise, of 10l. upon each conviction. Now, would the House please to consider the mischievous effects of this proceeding. In the first place, the great encouragement to illicit distillation; and, in the second place, the great expense attending these sham convictions. First, the additional allowances to the military, who, by the way, in one of the instances he had alluded to, had committed a most wanton murder upon a poor labourer, who was going to his work, and who had nothing whatever to do with the business; next to the expense of the military attending on these occasions, were the additional allowances to the excise officers, the expense of the prosecutions and convictions, by the payments to the law officers, and the rewards to the prosecutors, viz. the excise officers, from the commissioners of excise. For these reasons, he moved, "That an Account be laid before the House, stating what Rewards have been promised by or in behalf of the Commissioners of Excise in Ireland to any of their Officers, for the detection or conviction of Persons having unlicensed Malt in their possession: with the number of prosecutions and Convictions for such offence within the last two years, and the Assizes at which such Prosecutions severally took place; the expenses attending the seizing such unlicensed Malt; the Law expenses attending such Prosecutions; the amount of rewards claimed or paid, and the fund from which they were so paid, and the names of the Persons to whom they were paid."

The motion was agreed to.

said, he would shortly state why he felt it right to call for some returns relative to Mail Coach Contracts in Ireland. He took it for granted, that it would not be denied, that the great end to be obtained by mail-coaches was, the conveyance of the mails of letters with expedition and safety; but by the kind of carriage contracted for, in general, by the post-office, neither of these objects were attained. The carriages, in most cases, were heavy coaches, carrying six inside and four outside passengers, which, with the coachman and guard, made twelve persons; now, it was easy to see, that this coach, with the quantity of luggage and parcels which they must necessarily require, could not travel at mail-coach rate. The consequence was, that those carriages, though the mail-coach roads were excellent, travelled at only six English miles an hour, when the very slowest of the mail-coaches here travelled at seven, and most of them at eight miles in the hour. The bad consequences of these heavy coaches to the trade and commerce of the country were very great; for, by an early obtaining of their correspondence, the merchants could better regulate their markets and their trade. It was evident, as the mails left town always at the same hour, that by increased expedition they got farther on their journey before they met the return mail; and, therefore, that, by increased expedition, many of the intermediate post towns could receive answers to letters the same day that their letters were delivered. But one circumstance, which he thought most culpable, was, the entering into contracts in reversion, sometimes for fourteen, sometimes for twenty-one years, thereby saddling the country with these heavy coaches for that length of time. This practice, he was of opinion, should be put an end to. It was therefore he begged leave to move for abstracts of contracts with proprietors of mail-coaches, stating the number of passengers to be conveyed, rate of travelling, &c. &c.

This motion was agreed to.

rose, to call the attention of the House to the motion of which be had given notice, on the subject of Grand Juries in Ireland. It would be recollected, that, in the course of last session, the House, after a deliberate examination into the laws which governed the proceedings of Irish Grand Juries, directed that a certain number of county surveyors should be appointed, to decide on the practicability, and examine into the expense, of such public works as should be presented to these juries. In consequence of the impossibility of procuring competent persons to fill the offices of these county surveyors, that part of the act of last session had been suspended early in the present. He lamented that it was found necessary to suspend this part of the act; and he begged at the same time to state, that in the bill which he now intended to introduce, the clause for the appointment of county surveyors would be altogether omitted; neither was it his intention to embody in the bill that provision most objected to in Ireland, of restricting the reception of presentments to the assizes at one part of the year; he meant to leave the arrangement of that business precisely as it heretofore stood. The opinion of every fair man on the state of grand jury business in Ireland, was, that some alteration in it was necessary, to prevent grand juries from being surprised into decisions on presentments, without having an adequate opportunity of considering either their necessity or merits. To remedy this evil, he meant to pro- pose, that all presentments for new works should be submitted at a full attendance of magistrates (an attendance that ought to be rendered imperative) at the quarter sessions to be held previous to the assizes, at which these presentments were to be laid before the grand jury. It was not intended that either the approval or disapproval of these presentments by the magistrates at the quarter sessions should trench upon the prerogative of the grand jury, or prevent their proceeding, as usual, to consider the grants thus submitted to them—the previous submittal of the intended grants to the magistrates was by no means intended to control or supersede the legal province of the grand jury—on the contrary, it was rather meant to facilitate and enlarge the performance of their duty, by enabling them to have better information on the presentments submitted to them, than it was probable they previously had, and thereby enabling them, perhaps, to order public works, from which they might have previously refrained from conscientious scruples, as to their want of adequate information to justify this appropriation of the public money. It was most desirable, in all cases of these presentments, that the utmost publicity should be given on the nature of the several applications for local grants. In all cases it was known, that an affidavit of the necessity of the application, and of its probable expense, was made; but in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand this affidavit was made in the dark, as to the expense, and the effect was, that little attention was paid to the sanctity of the oath, and a moral laxity of course prevailed as to the solemnity of the obligation. In lieu of this part of the former system, he meant to propose, that no person should be called on to swear positively as to the definite amount of expense, but that it should be competent for the magistrates to call for such evidence as the nature of the case admitted, in support of the different presentments. He would not, at this moment, trouble the House with any details of the measure, which might be better explained in a future stage; he would merely state, that, in addition to this preliminary regulation, on the probable expense and necessity of the proposed works, it was his wish to make more efficient arrangements for the accounting branch of the expenditure which may be ordered. At present there was no accounting for this ex- penditure in the manner that there ought. He meant to introduce a provision which called for all the details of the expenditure voted, and rendered it necessary for the party to produce proper evidence, on oath, as to all the items for which he paid the public money; and also that such inquiry should be openly carried on coram judice, and the accounts liable to be traversed until the next assizes. It was far from being his intention to introduce any irrelevant matter on this subject, or to provoke any hostile feeling, where none, upon a proper understanding of the subject, ought to exist. He disclaimed casting the slightest reflection on the grand juries: it was the system that necessitated the remedy, and not any impropriety on the part of the gentlemen who guided its operation as the law stood. To lay a parliamentary ground for the necessity of some control in the accounting part of the presentment money, he had only to state this strong and indisputable fact, that in no instance, save one (and that was looked upon as an act of romantic virtue), had one farthing been returned of the sums voted for public works—though it was notorious that the sums sworn to as necessary at the outset, embraced a major view of the expense, and always left room for eventual contingencies. When these sums amounted to half a million annually, the House might form some idea of the importance of a proper check on an expenditure so conducted. This check could be only properly had by an examination in open court and before a jury, with a liability to have the accounts traversed.—To his motion he could anticipate no objection. It did not, as he had before said, trench on the power of grand juries, but, on the contrary, it gave them a better facility of transacting their business than they heretofore possessed. It was far from his wish to take an iota from their proper authority, as he was aware of the value which Ireland must derive from the local residence of a gentry very properly exercising the right to order the necessary expenditure of their own counties. He was sure that this authority could not be vested in fitter hands, and that the law, as he proposed to have it amended, would enable the grand juries to do their business as they would wish it to be done, without being liable either to imposition, or a want of proper information on the subject of any presentment that might be submitted to them. So im- portant did this reformation in the grand jury system in Ireland appear to him, that he was determined to persevere in calling the attention of the House to the subject, nor should any consideration deter him from following up the matter. He should, at least, have the consolation of feeling that he had performed his duty; and his labours would be abundantly repaid, if he found in the result, that he had saved a single peasant from the expense of an assessment which he ought not to have borne, or protected the rights of the humblest individual from the slightest invasion or oppression. Added to this would be the invaluable reflection, that he had tried to check a system of taking oaths, which was most offensive to the best interests of religion and morality, and most dangerous to the community at large. He then concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to provide for the more deliberate investigation of Presentments to be made by Grand Juries for Roads and Public Worksin Ireland, and for accounting for Money raised by such Presentments."

concurred in the motion of the right hon. member, and expressed his hope, that although he had but slightly hinted at the necessity of requiring sufficient security from the treasurers of the counties in Ireland, that this important matter would not be forgotten.

did not rise to oppose the motion. He fully concurred in the opinion, that if any part of the system of grand juries were found injurious in its operation, the legislature ought immediately to apply a remedy to the evil. He could not, however, help observing, with reference to the proposed bill, that it did not contain a single principle which was not already provided for by the existing law. He saw no additional security provided on the subject of the oath: it was already publicly taken, and the alteration was only that the party on whom it seemed no reliance was to be placed, should undergo an examination on the strength of that obligation, to which it appeared he was indifferent. The right hon. gentleman then stated that no modern alteration had taken place in the mode of levy for these assessments. In the county with which he was more immediately connected, no alteration in the assessment had taken place since the time of lord Strafford. The grand juries were not chargeable with any defect in this branch of the system. It should, besides, be kept in recollection, that of the large amount said to be levied by these bodies, a very considerable portion went for quite different purposes than the building bridges or roads—it went to pay the local establishments of the police, and constables, to support the gaols and pay the expense of carrying sentences against prisoners into execution, to support certain charities; in fact, there were a variety of expenses of this kind, and to a very large amount, which these assessments included.

approved of the general features of the bill, though he certainly would prefer it with any provision for making another effort to carry into execution the system of county surveyors. Out of a list of eighteen surveyors, three had only been found competent before the commissioners as candidates for these offices, and nothing would be more unfair than to suppose that, because no return of approbation was made, no competent persons were to be found to execute so important a duty. The real fact was, that a most extensive weight was imposed on the surveyors, a part of which might be spared if a modified measure were considered. By the former provision they were not only called on to estimate the expense, and superintend the execution, but also to examine into all the details during the work. They might, under a modified scale, be relieved from a part of this duty, and yet left with enough to perform for all public purposes. Another alteration might be made in the mode of managing the public expenditure; this should be done as much as possible by contract for the works, and not by a daily superintendence of the details.

said, that he had been last year friendly to the appointment of county surveyors, but on mature consideration he had seen reason to change his opinion. On this subject he might be considered a disinterested witness; for government would have had the appointment of a surveyor for each county. The hon. baronet had said that the commissioners decided on supposition that persons qualified for the office were not to be found. But there had been a fair trial, and it was not till after such trial that the commissioners reported that they could not find any person sufficiently qualified for the office. On other grounds he was averse to the appointment of county surveyors; it would be difficult to prevent the appointment from degenerating into abuse. No dependence was to be placed on the certificates of the persons who applied to be county surveyors. Every certificate produced to the commissioners bore on the face of it the most respectable qualifications; but the certificate was not borne out by subsequent examinations. No less than ninety-five persons had applied.

Leave was given to bring in the bill.

said, he did not think that the discussion of a bill of such importance should be brought on in so thin a House. He therefore recommended the hon. gentleman to postpone the second reading till there should be a fuller attendance.

objected to the postponing of the second reading any longer. He had put off the discussion too often already at the recommendation of honourable members. It was extremely necessary that the second reading should take place before the holydays, if it was to take place at all. If there was no desire now to discuss the measure, the bill might be read a second time that night, and discussed in another stage, either on the question that the Speaker leave the chair, or the motion for the third reading. The hon. gentleman then said he would enter into a short statement of the object of the bill, and reply briefly to the objections brought against it. He had reconsidered the measure now proposed, and saw no reason to alter the opinion he had formerly stated. He had brought in the bill on the principle, that every branch of the law should be rendered effective, so long as the law itself was not repealed. So long as we had statutes against the sale of game we ought to give them effect by provisions calculated to ensure their execution, and proceed as far as we could in preventing the punishment for offences, by taking away the temptation to commit them. This bill placed the purchaser of game on the same footing with the seller, and levelled all distinctions of classes, by subjecting them to the same penalty. He knew that there were gentlemen of a different opinion from that which he was now supporting, and who thought that game ought to be allowed to be sold in the most unrestricted manner. A report had been made to the House on the game laws, in which there was a recommenda- tion to make game private property. That report had been laid on the table of the House two years ago, and had as yet produced nothing. When any member should bring forward a comprehensive measure founded on this report, he should be willing to agree to the repeal of all the game laws; but so long as they existed, their operation should be made uniform, which was the object of the present bill. He could not help remarking, that the report alluded to involved two historical errors; first, that game was originally the property of the owner of the soil; and secondly, that the game-laws were formerly milder in their operation than at present. Those statements appeared to him to be unfounded. The game-laws had now, instead of being more severe than formerly, lost almost all their rigour; and he did not object to improvements by which their remaining penalties might be lessened; but as this was a work requiring mature deliberation, and attended with much difficulty, it should not be precipitately undertaken. In the mean time, temptation to a breach of the law, while it existed, should be reduced as much as possible, and this would be done by the present bill. He had heard it objected to this bill, that if it passed, as game could not be afterwards bought, the class of consumers who now purchased it would have no means of obtaining it. He did not see the force of this objection. Game not found in the market would be sent to town as gifts, and the tables of the rich might thus be as amply supplied as before. If there was any thing enviable in the situation of a country gentleman, as connected with this species of wealth upon his estate, it was the power of making presents of game to his friends. The value of this privilege depended on a prohibition to sell, either on the part of the proprietors, or of those who might invade their rights. It had been said that this bill enforced severe penalties, and might lead to oppression. This was not the case. It merely enacted penalties against the higher ranks for the purpose of removing temptation from the lower. He had received a letter from Bath yesterday which illustrated his present object. Some poulterers there having been prosecuted, stated that they could not have incurred the penalties had they not customers, who would be their customers only so long as they could supply them with game. His bill, therefore, by prohibiting the purchase of game, would protect this helpless class of persons. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.

said:—Sir; in opposing the further progress of a bill to make penal the purchase of game by qualified persons, it is not with a design to continue to the monopolist a right of doing with impunity that which subjects other individuals to punishment. My hostility to the measure arises out of a very different view of the question. The misery and suffering produced by the game laws call imperiously on the legislature to remove them from our statutes, rather than to adopt any measure which may increase their number. The bill now before the House, if passed into a law, I am thoroughly convinced would be found ineffectual for accomplishing its object, as the qualified purchasers of game are beyond the reach of legislative enactment. Though I feel assured it would fail in effecting its purpose, yet I conceive very serious mischief would result from its operations. The design of the bill is doubtless to protect game—but how would it act? The additional difficulties intended to be thrown in the way of purchasing game would operate, if at all, to enhance its price, and ultimately to become a premium to the poacher. I do not mean to contend that it might not afford facilities in convicting the agents employed in the purchasing game; but, however, it might swell the number of victims in that catalogue, not one would be found of the description against whom the bill is levelled. The cure of this evil will require a very different remedy. I would intreat the House to pause before it is prevailed on to take any step calculated to extend more widely the crime and wretchedness produced by the laws in question. The House cannot have forgotten that it was in proof two sessions ago, by the papers on your table, that 1,200 persons were immured in various parts of the kingdom for offences against the game laws. Did not this disclosure shock every unprejudiced man within and without the walls of this House?—The legal criminality and fatal consequences which spring from these offences call loudly for prevention. The ruin and distress that overwhelm so many poor families are perhaps the least of their calamitous effects. The contamination of morals, contracted in prisons, leads to the commission of every species of crime. Does any one suppose that poaching can be suppressed whilst the game laws remain as they are? I hope the period is not far distant when the legislature will be induced to go seriously into their revision; for, whilst they inflict the cruelest sufferings on the working, classes of the community—whilst they are wholly inadequate to the purposes for which they are intended—they contribute to destroy what they were meant to protect. I am no enemy to the preservation of game; for whatever can contribute to induce gentlemen to reside in the country is an object of national importance. This preservation, I verily believe, is to be obtained with as general a consent and with a full approbation in its favour, as most of the existing game laws are contrary to both. Were game to be made property, and protected by moderate penalties, the destruction of it would be considered in a very different point of light. It is hopeless to look for obedience to laws which, by a great proportion of the higher orders, as well as by the whole of the subordinate ranks in society, are regarded as oppressive, tyrannical and unjust—trenching on the rights of the many to favour the few. The poacher, however obnoxious to the sportsman, suffers nothing in moral estimation while his depredations are exclusively confined to game—no turpitude is attached to the offence—public opinion holds the game laws in detestation. Those only who resort to their protection are friendly to them; attempts to enforce them rigorously are always attended with general disapprobation and odium. How many estimable individuals, misled on this point, have, from the unpopularity of seeking their inflictions, been driven from their mansions! Nothing, in my opinion, would contribute more to the comfort of country gentlemen than a total and radical change in the game laws.—To judge fairly of this question, it behoves the legislature to take into its consideration the changes which have taken place not only in the country but in its national character. The game laws originated when there existed but one source of affluent property—the landed proprietor was exclusively in possession of the riches of the country. The monopoly of game, whilst this state of things continued, was little felt as a grievance, and there were few temptations to induce a breach of the laws. How is the country now situated? Within the last century so far from the landed proprietor being the great possessor of wealth, the capital from manufactures, trade, and funded property, is seven times as great as that from the land. The expenditure in luxuries is on the side of commerce—the national bent and feeling is commercial Public estimation is equally the reward of merit in all ranks—exclusions there are none. If we had the power, would it be wise, or even expedient, to maintain a monopoly which is invidious? The thing cannot be permitted: it is out of our power to protect it, and I will add, it ought not to be attempted.—The temptation which will be held out by the wealthy, for procuring that which is deemed a luxury, will defeat any penalty, any punishment, we can inflict. Both wisdom and humanity demand of us to remove all obstacles to the fair and open sale of game. So obnoxious are the game laws, that few consider the transgression of them a crime. The cause and the effect are too remote. The proprietors of land under 100l. a year consider these laws as a direct violation of every principle of justice. The labouring classes, one and all, share this opinion, and the only motive operating on their minds to restrain them from the destruction of it is the fear of punishment.—A right founded on injustice is, in truth, entitled to no respect. The poacher considers he is only retaliating the wrong done to all that class of proprietors who are below the scale of the monopoly. By rendering game property, and by giving to every one the right which belongs to him, mankind would be induced to view the subject in a very different light. Gentlemen are much mistaken if they attribute the decrease of game to the destruction of it by poachers. It is the tyranny, the oppression of the laws for its protection, that causes its decrease. How few are there who preserve their game with strictness! How large a part of the possessors of landed property have a direct interest in its destruction Make the laws equitable, and every one would be found disposed to protect it. The increase would then soon be seen, as every great town in the kingdom would be supplied without the least interference with the pleasurable pursuits of sportsmen. The poacher would then have not only all the penalties of the law to hazard, but he would incur the odium of public opinion; there would be so multiplied an interest against him, that few would be so fool-hardy as to attempt it, while the temptation would be lessened by the prices of game being reduced.—Sir, the principle of espionage which this bill is calculated to establish is what I detest; it is contrary to every British feeling. To put masters in the power of their servants is odious. To hold out a temptation to a domestic in a moment of irritation to such revenge, is to open a door to the destruction of the individual. If the bill should work at all, it would be highly injurious to the country. Believing, as I do, that it will be either nugatory, or will give greater facilities to the conviction of inferior offenders only—in either view I am hostile to the measure: I would not consent, for one, to any step that could have the least tendency to perpetuate the game laws. If game can only be preserved by the sacrifice of the liberty of twelve hundred British subjects, I should rejoice at any means which could at once be invented for the total destruction and extinction of it. I say, Sir, that for one, I feel it a national reproach that the preservation of game should be maintained by such a visitation of legal misery to my fellow creatures; and it is in the power of the legislature, by adapting laws to the existing state and circumstances of the country, not only to cure these crying evils, but at the same time to contribute, in a high degree to the comfort, and increase the amusement of the sportsman.

opposed the bill. The game laws, as they at present existed, were, he said, opposed to nature, justice, morality, and social intercourse. Their severity ought to be diminished instead of being increased. The system demoralized the lower orders; for persons who were rich would buy game at any events. It was also objectionable on the principle of universal justice; it was but fair that he who maintained the game should have the enjoyment of it, and the occupier maintained the game as much as his own stock. For the last two years he had intended to bring the subject before the House, but had delayed it, partly on account of its difficulty, and partly because another measure was before the House, and he wished to hear the opinions of some, who he knew, agreed with him, and others who differed. He opposed the bill, in the hope that the present cruel and mischievous system might meet with reprobation; and he trusted that they would get rid of this absurd remnant of feudal aristocracy, which caused so much discontent and bribed the poor into vice. He wished to make game property, and give all who could afford it an equal chance of the enjoyment. It had been objected to this plan, that if a man made a preserve for the purpose of sale, his neighbour might kill all his game that flew out of the preserve; and so, in his opinion, the neighbour ought, for he contributed mainly to its support, and the preserver might-avoid the inconvenience by purchasing the next field. The oppressive severity with which the present laws were enforced, Was attested by the fact of 1,200 persons having been imprisoned for offences relating to the game last year, and their resistance had caused the death of many others. Besides all this, the poacher's habits led to other vices, and the laws that attempted to repress them were in every respect pro-motive of the evil.

said, the bill was unnecessary. Unqualified persons were already subject to penalties for having game in their possession, and a bill which prohibited purchasing could not prevent it more than those penalties. As to qualified persons, they had a right to the possession; and therefore to convict them under this bill, the contract must be proved. But by whom? by the seller?—would he so destroy his own market? By the poacher?—would he impeach his best friend? The contract could only be proved by the treachery of servants or near relations, and by creating dissension in families. Clauses of this description, excusing an offender if he discovered another, had been found ineffectual in other statutes: for holding out indemnification to the person who made discovery of an offence, and therefore excusing his own, led only to chicanery. An offender might inform against a person in league with him, who was constantly on the move, and in some distant country. In the statutes against bribery, a clause of this description had wholly failed, and the law only removed the punishment from the head of the tempter to one who was comparatively innocent. In all our penal statutes, the offence was, having goods in possession, not merely buying. Thus, as to smuggled goods, or the embezzling of naval stores. The bill did not say that game had decreased, and he believed, that it had considerably increased in quantity. As to the proposal for making game property, he did not think it would obviate all the evils of the game laws; it might be very well for one who possessed a whole parish, but the small landholder might find it worth his while to league with poachers, and allow them to decoy his neighbours game on his own slip of land. In France it was found advantageous for the commune to appoint a game-keeper, and let any person sport who would pay for the privilege. Though he despaired of seeing any radical change in the game laws, he thought the present bill unnecessary.

defended the bill. The game-laws, he said, occasioned no injustice where the landlord retained in his lease the right of sporting. He thought the bill would not have the effect of shifting the punishment from the most guilty. As to the 1,200 persons committed, there had been an increase of crimes in every way, and this was but a small proportion of the whole. A man of large personal property would in all probability have a hundred acres of land somewhere, so that there was no exclusion in the present system. It was not that system which encouraged crime, but the purchasers of game. There had been very little unanimity in the former committee, except on the question as to the sale of game. He himself wished that game to be made property; he thought it the only way to cure the evils of the game laws. But as he considered the present bill salutary, and as the House was so thin, he should move that the debate be adjourned till Monday the 18th.

objected to the bill, which he remarked was very different from that which he had last year introduced to the House. He feared the poacher would only be encouraged by the bill, to commit depredations, from the circum-stance of the fruits of his plunder hereby carrying a greater price. He would wish to see every person enjoying his property in this respect, as he thought best. Some enclosures would then be carefully preserved for purposes of sport, whilst others would be preserved for purposes of sale. The game would thus lose its fictitious value, and though, a partridge might be rendered of more no worth than a pigeon, or a pheasant than a barn-door fowl, there would not be one sportsman the less, nor would the pleasure of the sport be one whit diminished. No animal was less valuable than the fox, yet no sport was more congenial to Englishmen than foxhunting.

, in reply to sir C. Burrell, who complained that he had used unparliamentary language in the epithets applied to the game laws, observed, that the English language did not contain any mode of expression that could sufficiently express the injustice, tyranny, and oppression of the game laws. Could any man view, without feelings of detestation, laws which left the quantum of punishment to the option of the individual? The killing of a partridge in one instance, was punished by a fine of five pounds, the same offence by suing in a court of law was made eighty or a hundred pounds—thus amounting to imprisonment for life. Could such a system be treated with too much abhorrence.

The second reading was then deferred till the 18th.