rose, to move the second reading of this bill. In legislating upon this subject, it was, he said, proper to consider whether parliament could not give protection to the amusements of country gentlemen, without doing injustice to the community at large. The evils which resulted from the present system were many; but the most important was the great increase of poaching, which—such was the effect of the existing laws—was not looked upon as a moral offence by scarcely any portion of the community. How was that evil to be diminished? Severe laws, he was convinced, would be of no avail. It was necessary to generate a different feeling amongst the body of the people. That, then, should be his first object; and the next the opening of the market for the sale of game, and thereby destroying the monopoly which the poachers at present enjoyed. The existing system of qualifi- cation to kill game was most absurd. To be qualified to kill game, a man must have an estate of in heritance, in his own or his wife's right, of the yearly value of 100l, or an estate for the term of ninety years, of the annual value of 150l. Those were the two principal qualifications: but, there was another curious mode of qualification, derived, not from any thing belonging to the person himself, but from the accident of birth. The eldest sons only of esquires, and persons of higher rank, were allowed the privilege of shooting. He proposed to remove all qualifications, the only effect of which was, to engender ill blood, and to give to every person who held land a property in the game which was on it, and a power to prevent any person from destroying it. He apprehended there would be no more difficulty in making game property, than fish in a river which ran through several estates. He certainly did not propose to make the taking of game a felony; but, there were many articles well protected by the laws, which it was not a felony to steal. He did not believe that the change in the law which he projected would increase the number of shooters. If the bill should pass, it would be necessary for an individual, after taking out a licence—he must go to the expense of that—to have the means of shooting. Under the existing system, many persons went out to kill game, who had no right to do so, and took the chance of being found out. When it was considered, that, according to the provisions of his bill, a person who went out to shoot must first purchase a certificate, and would in the next place be liable, if he were found shooting on another person's land without his consent, to be taken before a magistrate, he thought there was ground for presuming that the number of shooters would be much diminished. The great objection which was urged against the bill last year was, that it would have the effect of destroying fox-hunting—that was to say, that farmers and other small landholders, having property in the game on their land, would find it their interest to kill the foxes. But, when it was recollected, that foxes were generally to be found only in great woods and preserves, where they might be protected by those who thought it worth their while to preserve them, he did not think that that objection was entitled to much weight. He should, indeed, be sorry to do any thing to the prejudice of fox-hunting, which he considered a most manly and truly English sport. Another objection to the bill was, that it would render game so common in the market, that country gentlemen would soon give up all idea of sporting. He did not believe that. For his own part, be could say, that he did not feel less pleasure in shooting woodcock or wild fowl, or catching a fish, because he could buy such animals in the next town. After declaring, that all the objections made to the bill were quite threadbare, he concluded by moving the second reading of it.

said, that the present bill, as it seemed to him, instead of checking poaching, would go to encourage it. All that the poacher wanted was a free vent for his plunder, which this measure of the hon. member for Yorkshire went precisely to afford him. He was decidedly opposed to the bill, as far as regarded its effect upon the preservation of game; and not the less so, because it added a new felony to the Statute-book, in making night poaching a transportable offence. Under these circumstances, he should move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."

was surprised how any one could think that the measure before the House was calculated for the preservation of game. The effect of the bill would be, by making every land-owner a legal dealer in game, to render the small farmer's house a constant resort for poachers, and the man himself an agent for the sale of their commodity. He should have no objection to support a proposition for extending the existing scheme of qualification; but, for the bill of the hon. member, he thought it would create more crime than it would prevent. With respect to the right of preserving game, he thought it quite unreasonable that gentlemen should be asked to resign any right or property, purely because there existed, on the part of some persons, a disposition to violate or destroy it. He should certainly support the amendment.

said, it was his intention to vote for the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire. When he looked to the antiquity of the game laws, and considered the great changes which had taken place with reference to that species of property, he could not but entertain a strong suspicion, that those laws required alteration. He conceived that there was no one circumstance which tended to call for that alteration so strongly, as the conduct of the game-preservers themselves. The mode of sporting, and the way in which game was preserved, were entirely changed within the last thirty or forty years. Almost every plantation in the country was converted into a preserve for game. Gentlemen were not now contented with sporting in the manner in which their ancestors sported. It was now a common occurrence for a single party to kill three or four hundred head of game a day. He had himself seen in a single larder a thousand pheasants, which were the produce of only three days shooting. What was the consequence of this change which had taken place in this mode of sporting? The increase of preserves, and the immense accumulation of game, had produced a corresponding change in the habits of the people. Almost every body of a certain rank in life now partook of game. In fact, it was considered a very unfashionable thing not to have a certain quantity of game at one's table. It was true, there was no legal vent for this enormous accumulation of game; but game, nevertheless, found its way among every class of society in the kingdom, which had any pretensions to elegance or conviviality. You might restrain the sale of game by legal enactments as much as you pleased, but it was idle to talk of preventing people from having game at their tables. Legally or illegally, people who could afford to buy game, would have it. It was impossible to deprive the 3 per cents consols of the luxury of eating pheasants. The interest of the game-preservers themselves called imperatively for some attempt to ameliorate the present system. It was not necessary at present to enter into the details of this bill; but he thought his hon. friend had stated quite sufficient grounds for its being read a second time. Whether it would be expedient to make game property or not, was a question which would be better discussed on a future occasion; but he thought no reasonable objection could be made to the proposition for giving to every individual the right of sporting on his own land, and of allowing others to do so, and afterwards of selling the game, if he thought fit. He would put it to hon. gentlemen, whether it was just, that any individual should have the right of preserving game, when, by so doing, the crop of his unqualified neighbour might be destroyed? He was persuaded that the effect of the proposed alteration would be, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, to lead to a just compromise between the rich proprietor and his poor neighbour. The owner of two or three acres would gladly forego the right of sporting on his land, if his rich neighbour would give him a reasonable consideration for the waiver of his privilege. The way in which game was preserved furnished another, and a very good reason, for altering the existing system. Game was preserved in this country by an armed force, for it was, strictly, an armed force. He him-self preserved his game in what was considered the mildest manner. And, what was that manner? Why, he kept five or six keepers, with twenty or thirty attendants, who were subject to be called out, in case of any attack on the keepers, and, if necessary, to repel force by force. This was surely a most unsatisfactory mode of preserving any species of property; and necessarily introduced a great deal of ill blood between the game-preserver and the inhabitants of the district in which he resided.—Another mode of preserving game was by setting spring-guns. This showed, that, under the existing law, there was no safe or satisfactory mode of preserving a species of property, which could be maintained only by armed force, or by weapons, which might destroy the life of a human being; which life we had no right to take away. Looking, therefore, to the immense changes which had taken place in society, and especially with respect to this peculiar species of property, he thought it impossible for any man to contend, that the present system of the game laws was a satisfactory one; or that there did not exist the strongest reason for allowing this bill to be read a second time. There could be no doubt also, that an alteration was required in the law of qualifications. Under the existing system, the second and third sons of a qualified person might be violating the game laws at the very moment that he was enforcing them against others. But, even supposing the law of qualifications were so altered as to entitle gentlemen of the learned and liberal professions to kill game, it would be necessary to make an alteration in the landed qualifications for killing game. The law, with respect to qualifications, had been placed on a rational footing in Scotland; and in no country had game increased so much as in the lowlands of Scotland. There every individual possessing a ploughgate of land, or about thirty or forty acres, was allowed to kill game on his own property, and to qualify other persons to kill game on his own property.—He, however, would not disguise his opinion, that the provisions of the bill proposed by his hon. friend would not answer all the expectations of those who supported it. He did not think that any alteration which could be made in the game Jaws, would entirely put a stop to poaching. The poacher was actuated by two motives—the love of sporting, and the love of gain. The first of these motives would remain untouched, whatever law might be enacted; but the Jove of gain must be naturally interfered with by a bill which should legalize the sale of game, and enable a gentleman possessing a thousand pheasants, as in the case he had alluded to, to compete with the poacher in the market. The present state of the law offered strong and irresistible temptation to the poacher? Suppose the sale of grapes or pine-apples were prohibited in this country by legislative enactment; would not the effect of such a Jaw obviously be to tempt gardeners and servants to act dishonestly? What reasonable objection could there be to putting hares on the same footing as rabbits. He really could not account for the process of reasoning, by which a gentleman felt himself at liberty to sell a rabbit, while he hesitated to sell a hare. He himself had not the least scruple in disposing of his rabbits for a reasonable price; as all the gentlemen in his neighbourhood did. If the law enabled gentlemen to sell their hares in the same manner, he saw no distinction between the two quadrupeds, which ought to raise any insurmountable difficulty. When he was told, that the proposed alteration in the game laws would deprive gentlemen of the pleasure of sporting, he begged to recal to their recollection what the fact was with respect to woodcocks. No species of game was pursued with greater avidity, and yet woodcocks were sold every day in the week in Leadenhall-market. An hon. member had said, that this was matter of so much importance, that he (Mr. P.), ought originally to have taken it up. The fact was, that when he first came into office, he found the subject of the game laws in the hands of an hon. member, now lord Salisbury; it had been subsequently taken up by his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire, who had be- stowed upon it a persevering attention' which entitled him to the highest credit He had given his hon. friend every assistance in his power, and he should support his proposition, because he thought the best measure that could be adopted, even with a view to the interest of the game-preservers themselves, was, to give to game the same sanction which was given to every other species of property. If the House should follow the course they did last session, and reject his hon. friend's bill, he should probably feel it his duty to submit to the House a proposition, which, without altering the law as to qualification, might legalize, for two or three years, the sale of game. He should propose such a measure, not certainly with any view to maintain the privileges of the game-preserver, but for the sake of the public interests; for if they could not obtain all the good proposed by his hon. friend, the most prudent course would be to take as much as they could get.

opposed the bill, as tending to destroy all the game in the country. If people were allowed to purchase game openly, they would eat so much of it, that there would soon be none left. Eating game would become a custom; and people would look for their pheasant on the 1st of October, as regularly as they did for their goose on Michaelmas day. If foxes and other game were destroyed, country gentlemen would look to other sports, and would, very probably, dissipate their time and their money in those graves of property which were kept up in St, James's street.

said, it must be evident, that the present restrictive laws on the sale of game did not prevent its being supplied in the largest quantities in the metropolis. It was proved before the committee up stairs, that two poulterers had said they could furnish the whole House of Commons twice a-week with two head of game for each member; and one of them added, that on one occasion, he had actually thrown a thousand head of partridges into the Thames, not being able to obtain a sale for them.

opposed the bill, on the ground that much evil would arise from legalizing the sale of game. The proposed alteration of the game laws would, in his opinion, interfere with the recreations of the country gentlemen.

said, that the law, as it stood, was extremely objectionable, since it operated to prevent men from doing what they pleased with their own property. Some gentlemen seemed to have great prejudices against any innovation on the game laws, because they looked upon the present state of things as perfectly natural, A friend of his, who had paid a visit to the continent, said to him on one occasion, "Could you believe it, sir John, they sell game in the streets abroad just like any other commodity?" Upon his asking him what he found extraordinary in that, "Oh," said his friend, "can you conceive any thing more unnatural?" Prejudices of this kind were not uncommon in that House. They had heard, a short time ago, gentlemen opposing the repeal of the usury laws, before they considered that 5 per cent was the "natural" interest of money; and they had also heard hon. members opposing Catholic emancipation, because, forsooth, Protestants were "naturally" opposed to the claims of the Catholics. These were prejudices of habit, and ought to be got rid of. He would support the bill, because it tended to put an end to poaching.

expressed his assent to the measure.

concurred in the propriety of passing the bill.

said, he considered the bill in its present state exceedingly objectionable, but he should vote for the second reading, in the hope that the alterations which he required might be effected in the committee. Should this end not be attained, he should oppose the third reading.

thought, that the only just mode of legislating on the subject of the game laws was, to make game the property of those who had been at the expense of rearing it. He should, therefore, support the motion.

said, that, having been prevented from attending on the night when the Army Estimates were discussed, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few observations; because he conceived that the explanations given by the noble lord opposite were quite unsatisfactory. If the proposed augmentation were to be temporary, and were justified by real ne- cessity, he should be as ready to support the proposition as any man; but, from the statement of the noble lord, the clear inference was, that the projected increase was to form the regular peace establishment, below which it was impossible the number could be reduced. The question, then, was, are we to be satisfied with the reduction of taxes which has taken place? The committee of 1817,whose suggestions the House had professed to follow, had recommended the reduction of the army to the lowest possible standard; and, in 1821, the House was so sensible of the propriety of the advice, that they had agreed, that the only mode of producing an economical change, and affording general relief, was by reducing our expenditure, or doing away with that absurd system, the Sinking-fund. Now, although it might not be possible to come down to the standard of 1792, still it was the duty of the House to approximate it, as nearly as possible; and he was quite prepared to show, that there was an abundantly sufficient force in our colonies, unless there was an anticipation of war. The large disposable force which parliament had given the government had enabled them to continue that odious and mischievous system of misrule in Iteland, which they had hitherto pursued instead of resorting to the wise and politic system, of concord and tranquillity, which would promote the prosperity of that country, and save to England the expense of ten thousand men. With respect to Gibraltar he differed from his hon. and gallant friend (sir R. Wilson). The state of that garrison was well known, both before and after the visit of his hon. friend. He found, by the last returns, that we had 3,900 men in that fortress; and, with such a force, considered it perfectly safe during a time of peace, when it was defended as much by the faith of treaties as by the force of arms. Another hon. gentleman, had said, that additional troops were wanted in our colonies. He should like to know in what colonies. Was it in the Ionian Islands, or at the Cape of Good Hope? He allowed that the condition of the Ionian Islands had been much improved since the accession of the present governor; but he still believed, that if Greece were free, the inhabitants would shake off our protection, in consequence of the insulting regulations with which it was accompanied. At the Cape of Good Hope we had a governor who was exciting discontent by the most arbitrary proceedings, and who was compelling the most valuable part of the colonists to return home to England, to obtain shelter from his oppression. If fresh troops were wanted to confirm the authority of arbitrary governors, he for one should be unwilling to grant them. Indeed, be was of opinion, that if we tolerated the present augmentation of the army, we should never again hear a reduction of its numbers mentioned; but that the amount at which it was now fixed would be taken as the proper amount of our military force in a time of peace. Instead of increasing the regular army to 86,000 men, he would reduce it to 68,000 men; and by so doing, he would get rid of the window-tax, and have a considerable surplus to spare for other purposes. If we were to have an excess in any part of our armed force, it ought to be in our navy; which was our best and most effectual defence. An hon. member had said, that we ought to have our garrisons in a permanent state of defence, so as to be prepared for war. To this he would reply, first of all, that we wanted no permanent garrisons; and next, that he did not expect that we should speedily have occasion to go to war. We had had a twenty years' war, and he could not see any reason why we should not have a twenty years' peace. Indeed, he thought that the probabilities were all in his favour; since the world grew wiser as it grew older. To put his sentiments upon record, he should move a resolution, which he knew would meet the approbation of the people out of the House, whatever might be its fate with their representatives. The hon. member then moved, by way of amendment, "That, in the opinion or this House, it is not necessary, in a time of profound peace, to maintain, for the service of the current year, the number of 86,438 regular land forces, exclusive of those for India, and also exclusive of 9,000 Royal Marines; of about 7,800 of Royal Artillery and Engineers, of 53,258 enrolled Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers in Ireland; and of 55,000 Militia, and 43,000 Yeomanry and Volunteers in England, and of 3,000 Veterans; making, in the whole, 257,496 men actually in arms, or ready to be called out, if necessary, exclusive also of Colonial troops at Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope, and in Africa, amounting to about 4,000 men, not included in the above numbers."

seconded the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at such an unexplained augmentation of the army.

contended, that the proposed augmentation of the army was rendered necessary by the increased population of our colonial dependencies, and the increased duty to which some of our garrisons abroad had recently been exposed, in consequence of certain occurrences. Indeed, the duty which some of our colonial garrisons were obliged to go through was so harassing, as to be destructive of the health both of men and officers. The state of the West Indies rendered it necessary for us to have efficient garrisons in every island; and almost every governor had sent pressing requisitions to the government at home for an increased number of troops to defend them. The same was the case in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, where the military had to perform the duties of the police. Under these circumstances, he had no doubt that the House would see that this increase to the army was required by imperious necessity, and was not of a nature to excite fear in any friend of constitutional liberty. The hon. member had, as heretofore, alluded to the numerical military force of 1792; but he had overlooked the great change that had since taken place, not alone in the number of our colonies, in the increase of the population, and in the comparative military strength of other countries. These were considerations which the House was bound to bear in mind; and not the mere abstract question of the numerical difference between the establishments of 1792 and that called for by circumstances at this period.

said, that if the duty to which our army was subjected was as harassing as it had been represented, ministers were deeply to blame for not having come forward before to relieve it. He did not, however, believe it to be so severe as to require this augmentation in time of peace. He recollected that, last year, 4,500 men had been voted, on the express ground that they should be sent to defend the West Indies. He wished to know whether that force had been sent there, and if it had, whether it had been found insufficient? He complained, that we had now been engaged in the Algerine, the Ashantee, and the Burmese war, without any information being given by ministers to the House. He contended, that the proposed ex- tension of our army was utterly uncalled for, and that the circumstances of the country required a reduction of it, rather than an increase. Ministers, though they had gained, had not yet deserved any popularity by their reduction of taxation. In point of fact, they had not reduced the revenue by it; but had obtained the same revenue from a diminished taxation, in consequence of the spirit with which the people of England entered into all commercial transactions.

should not have risen, had not his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, seemed to think him mistaken, when he said, that the present garrison of Gibraltar was inadequate to its defence. His hon. friend had said, that Gibraltar might as safely be left with its present garrison, since it was defended by the faith of treaties. It might be so; but he should think the government very criminal, if it left Gibraltar to that species of defence, while the French army were in possession of Cadiz, and a large French fleet was cruising in the bay. He believed his hon. friend had been at Gibraltar; but, if he thought it could be defended by 4,000 men, he had never looked at it with the eye of a soldier, or the knowledge of an engineer. He was quite as great an economist as his hon. friend, but he was a provident economist, and would spend 1,000l. now upon our garrison, to prevent our spending millions hereafter.

said, he had recently been at Gibraltar, and begged leave to add his testimony to that of the gallant officer, to the inadequacy of the garrison to perform the duties of the place.

contended, that we had been the aggressors, and not the aggrieved party in the Burmese war. The marquis Wellesley and lord Hastings were not men likely to permit themselves to be bullied; and yet they had both avoided a war with the Burmese, when there was great provocation to commence it. He maintained, that we had no prospect of succeeding in a war with that people; and said, that, even if we gained possession of the Burmese capital, we should have done but little to subdue the spirit of that gallant nation. He regretted that we had not sent 15,000 or 20,000 men to the East Indies; as the sending of such a force would place our empire in the east out of the reach of all danger. He complained of the manner in which the troops were sent to India. The vessels which conveyed them to that country were noble ships; but then they were crammed and loaded in a manner which almost defied credibility. The "Inglis," had on board of her the other day 700 troops, and was so much crowded, that before she left the Downs, her captain requested, but in vain, that 100 men might be taken out of her. Intelligence had arrived that day of an accident which had befallen another of the company's ships, in which a similar number of troops were packed together; and had it not been for another vessel which fortunately came in sight, every soul on board must have perished. He could not but express his astonishment at a very singular practice of the East-India Company's sending out each ship singly, when they had two or three sailing about the same time to the same place of destination. It might have been expected that they would be glad to send them together, in order that they might afford assistance to each other in case of accident; but he believed that they were sent separately, with the express intention that they might not assist each other. His reason for thinking so was this:—Two vessels had sailed about the same time from China to England. In passing through the Straits of Sunday one of them got aground; the other quickly came to its relief, took out part of her cargo, and, by the exertions of her men, saved the vessel to the company. On his return home, the captain of the vessel which saved the other made a slight claim of 1,500l. on the company for demurrage. The company refused it, under the idea, that one of its servants would never think of going to law with it for such a claim. The directors were, however, mistaken. The captain brought an action against them; and, instead of recovering 1,500l. demurrage, recovered 12,000l. for salvage. The company, therefore, determined that no two ships should ever sail again together, to prevent their ever being called upon in future to pay for salvage. The directors had a right, if they thought fit, to risk their tea in this manner: but they had no right so to risk the lives of the brave men who were going to fight their battles in India.

stated, that the ships provided by the East-India Company for the conveyance of troops, were better and more commodiously arranged than those of the government at home, and had 18 inches room allotted to each soldier's birth, while 14 were only allowed in the British service. It was also an arrangement with the former to allow one-third of the troops to be always on deck. He hoped his majesty's government would unite with the East-India Company in doing something handsome for the ship which had so providentially rescued the crew from the outward-bound vessel, the Kent, which had unfortunately taken fire at sea.

denied, that the object of the proposed increase in the army was to extend the patronage of government. With regard to promotions, they would be made without any regard to interest, and with the view of promoting those officers only whose service entitled them to it. The lieutenants who had been promoted were those of seventeen years standing. This was sufficient to prove that the charge was undeserved. As to the garrisons on foreign stations, he was willing to rest that question on the testimony of the hon. and gallant officer (sir R. Wilson), on whose opinion he was sure, both the House and the country would place the fullest confidence.

asked, whether government would effect the arrangement which he had suggested on a former evening, with respect to the quarterly payments of wounded officers on half-pay.

said, that since he had the honour of holding the office which he now filled, the number of pensioners who were paid quarterly, instead of half-yearly, was doubled. It did, however, so happen, that the class of officers alluded to by the gallant member, had not received their pensions quarterly; but, if any one of them had only communicated their wishes to receive it four times a year instead of twice, to the proper quarter, he had no doubt that the intimation would have been complied with. He had taken measures to carry such an arrangement into effect: but it would not be practicable to have it commence before the 24th of June. He took that opportunity of expressing to the hon. and gallant officer how much indebted he was to him for the suggestion.

could not approve of the present estimates, which exceeded, by half a million of money, and 12,000 men, the estimates for the year 1823. This augmentation was attempted to be justified upon the apprehension of impending dangers from abroad, which were, he thought, quite unreasonably felt by some honourable members. Did the colonies now require treble the amount of force which Mr. Pitt thought sufficient in the year 1792? He certainly thought not; and believed that it would look much better in the eyes of foreign powers, to place the strength of Great Britain upon the foundation of her national wealth and prosperity, instead of the numerical amount of her military force. He should therefore protest against this uncalled-for increase of the standing army.

strongly recommended that the quarterly payments to wounded officers should commence forthwith, instead of in June.