tice of poaching, and of the various crimes of which it was the fruitful parent, he maintained that the bill before the House was calculated to increase that evil, and to create a dozen poachers, where only one now existed. Poachers would become so numerous, that they would be extinct only with the extinction of the game itself; and then, although the vice of poaching would be got rid of, the taint would remain: the persons who had been employed in that practice would be let loose on property in general, and their evil habits would burst forth into acts of a more atrocious character even than those to which they had hitherto been accustomed. He was inclined to think that this crime was rather diminishing than increasing at present; as was also, he believed, the practice of selling game. Indeed, he did not think they could correct the sale of game. As to this bill, it made no sort of provision for it whatever; but, on the contrary, it put game and the power of buying and selling game, into every man's hands. London, a very respectable body of men, told him that if they could obtain game for their customers through a legal channel, they would never have any thing to do with poachers. And if the present bill were to pass into a law, why should they? Did they now buy stolen chickens? Did butchers buy stolen sheep? The greater part of the arguments against the bill were directed, not against its principle, but against its provisions, and ought therefore to be postponed until it was committed. The question now for the House to determine was, whether the game laws should be allowed to exist in their present state? As to all that had been said of the danger to which great game preserves would be rendered liable, he begged to know whence the metropolis of London was at present supplied with game, if not from these preserves? Was it not notorious that, night after night, the mails were laden with the game of which those preserves were plundered? There was one argument urged against the bill, which, if valid, ought to have great weight. Colonel Wood observed, that the hon. It was said, that the bill, by aiding in member for Corfe Castle had entirely mis- the destruction of game, would tend to understood the nature of the accident induce gentlemen not to reside on their which was described by the hon. member estates. He thought it would not have for Norfolk, as having happened to a wo- the effect of destroying game. And it man in some cover or other. That woman ought to be recollected how comparatively had not been shot by a game-keeper, but few were the districts in which game was by a spring-gun. [Mr. Coke observed, now found, and yet how general was the that he had certainly stated, that the wo- residence of country gentlemen. Besides, man had been shot by a game-keeper.] there were other field amusements much Colonel Wood apologized for his error. better than shooting. For instance, huntThe bill before the House would, how-ing; fox hunting in particular. And yet ever, prevent even such accidents; for if he believed that the preservers of pheagame were made private property, that sants were often the poisoners of foxes. petty warfare between the higher and the One fox, too, amused hundreds of genlower orders, between the game-keeper tlemen, while hundreds of pheasants and the poacher, would be at an end, and amused only one gentleman. The oldthe ferocious practice of shooting, whe- fashioned practice of gentlemen going out ther by spring-guns or otherwise, would for a whole day to shoot in the country, be checked. Gentlemen set no spring-was, he understood, becoming obsolete; guns to protect their turnips or their poultry. He denied that the bill would increase the number of poachers, by assuring them of a market; for no man went out at present to poach, before he was assured of a market for the game he took; otherwise it would spoil before he could sell it. He believed that if the bill passed, although there would still be stealers of game, as well as there were now stealers of poultry, yet that the majority of those who dealt in game would be honest dealers. When a measure was sometime ago in the House on the subject, the poulterers of and that the existing usage was for a gentleman who had got together in a neighbouring wood as many pheasants as he had barn-door fowls (and nearly as tame too), to turn into the wood with a dozen friends with guns, and a dozen clowns with poles, and then quietly to let fly at the alarmed birds, and to fancy himself shooting. In France, the mode of hunting was similar. The peasants surrounded a wood, and drove out the game, which the gentlemen standing in a row killed as it passed. This was, however, as different from English hunting as French gentlemen were from English gentlemen. He should certainly give the bill his cordial support. Mr. Frankland Lewis conceiving the system of the game laws objectionable in the highest degree, thought that when a measure to supersede that system was brought before the House, it was their duty to give it a fair consideration. The bill was called a bill for the amendment of the laws for the preservation of game; but it might fairly be called a bill for the better protection of game, and for the prevention of poaching. It had been said, that the bill was full of absurd contradictions; that among other things, it first declared that game was the property of certain persons, and then allowed those persons to remain subject to penalties for using that property. Was it absurd to say, that those who had the land should have a right to the game on it in prefer ence to all others? Was it subversive of the right of property to say, that that property should be put under regulation? Were not fisheries put under regulation? Were not the proprietors of fisheries limited to fish only in particular seasons? And was it not well known, that by means of these regulations fish continued to be preserved notwithstanding the open sale of it in the markets by those who had the property of it? He wished to see game preserved, and better laws for that purpose than those which existed at present; by giving an interest in the game to those who had the greatest power of preserving it. Was not this object more likely to be accomplished than by the existing laws? With respect to the comments of the hon. gentleman on the floor, on what had fallen from the hon. mover of the bill as to natural rights, they were altogether founded in misconception. God forbid that any person should insist on natural rights in a state of society! As well might it be said that every man had a natural right to the land of a country, as that certain persons had a natural right to the game on that land. But did it follow that, because you made game the property of the person on whose land it was, you therefore said he had a natural right to it? Property of various kinds was put under restrictions in this country. It was necessary, for instance, to have a license to deal in horses. For the sake of the morals of the people, public-houses were put under restriction. But it was contended by the hon. gentleman, that licenses did not prevent smuggling-as notwithstanding the licensing of teadealers and spirit-dealers, smuggling still went on. But it was not the licensing the dealing in those articles wnich created the smuggling, but the amount of duty on them. They wished to distinguish between an honest mode of selling game and a dishonest mode. He would say, continue the severe laws against those who steal game, but not against those who sell the game which they come honestly by. It was not right to punish those things which were not crimes in nature. There was no person acquainted with the game laws who would not agree, that the present system of qualification was extremely absurd. He had no hesitation in saying, that the bill as it now stood was not drawn up as he thought it ought to be drawn up. He thought the qualification ought to be of the nature of a license. What the amount of that qualification should be, would be a fair subject for after consideration. The selling of game ought in like manner to be subjected to a license. Persons who had game in their possession ought to be bound to show that they came honestly by it; and it ought to be made penal, tremendously penal, to sell game dishonestly come by. Mr. Cripps said, he had heard objections made to several of the clauses, but there were none of them that might not, in his opinion, be got over, and, therefore, he should vote for the second reading of the bill. It was due to the hon. gentleman who introduced it, and to the committee who came to the resolution on which the bill was founded, to suffer it to proceed, and to see, whether, in its progress, they could not remove the objec tionable parts. With respect to the objections of the hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes), they did not strike him in the same point of view they did the hon. gentleman. He was not sorry to see those provisions retained to which the hon. gentleman urged his strongest objections. One of his observations was, however, correct. He had stated, that the number of criminals imprisoned foroffences against the game laws at present were less than they used to be. This he believed was the fact; but the circumstance was owing to a bill introduced into that House by a near relative of the hon. gentleman. In one clause of that bill there was a very great omission. Every person, purchasing game, was, by that clause, subject to a penalty of 51. to be levied on his goods and chattels-but, if he had no goods and chattels, no punishment followed. If this was a mere omission, it ought to be rectified; if it was intentional, it certainly defeated the object which the clause appeared to have in view. Mr. Brand said, he could not recollect that a single argument of any force had been adduced against the bill. The market, it was observed, could be as easily supplied with stolen game as with stolen turnips. But the market was not supplied with stolen turnips, ergo it would not be supplied with stolen game. It was also stated, as a proof that the present bill must fail, that all previous enactments had failed in preventing depredations on rabbit-warrens. He could have stated, à priori, to the hon. member who made the observation, that no law could possibly prevent that species of offence, when persons possessing property in the neighbourhood of such warrens were absolutely interested in the destruction of those animals. Of this he was well convinced, that no legislative enactment, however severe, could prevent the supply of game to the metropolis. It was therefore, the duty of legislative wisdom to devise some means by which a regular supply of game might be afforded, without encouraging vice, or immorality. He had followed a resolution of the last parliament, which declared "that game ought to be the property of the owner of the soil." He contended that the exclusion of small proprietors was contrary to the principles of equity and of natural law. He was much mistaken by an hon. gentleman who fancied that he had confounded the doctrine of the law of nature, with that of the natural state of man-and he had argued to prove the fallacy of such an association. But, if the hon. gentleman reflected a little, he would not have supposed that he could be guilty of so extravagant a blunder. He must be aware that there were natural laws, anterior to those of a conventional description, and that the validity of the latter was supported by their coincidence with the former. From this he contended, that it was contrary to the law of nature and of equity to preclude a man from the use of that which was nurtured on his own soil-always considering game as the growth of the soil. He was astonished, when an hon. gentleman declared that, in this bill, he had described the former laws as unjust. This was not the fact. The (VOL. XXXIX.) preamble merely said, "that those laws were found inadequate to their objectthat they were impolitic and inconvenient and, in many cases, oppressive and unjust." He did not say that they were generally oppressive and unjust, but that they were, in some instances, contrary to equity and natural law. The hon. gentleman said, "if individuals want game, let them purchase land." But this would not do; it would be necessary for them to purchase manors. And, as the system now existed, an individual with a manor of 100l. a year, and a qualification might shoot on the land of any person he pleased. Indeed, he believed that some persons had acquired qualifications, merely to carry on the business of poaching. There might be many clauses in the bill that required amendment. There were many interests, a variety of property which it was impossible for him, in the first instance, to protect or include in a measure of this kind. But he was convinced the more the House considered it, the more they would see the necessity of carrying it into effect. The greatest practical mischiefs flowed from the present system-one of the most prominent of which was, that the great body of the lower orders were opposed to the higher classes on this point, and the morals of the country were deteriorated to an alarming degree. In his view of the subject, this was the most important revision and amendment of the criminal law, that was likely to be submitted to parliament during the present session. The question being put, "That the bill be now read a second time," the House divided: Ayes, 110. Noes 83. The bill was then read a second time. CIVIL CONTINGENCIES DEFICIENCYPRESENTS TO FOREIGN MINISTERS.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day for receiving the report of the Committee of Supply. The resolution, "That a sum not exceeding 79,154l. 8s. 9d4. be granted to his majesty to make good the deficiency of the grant of parliament for the year 1818, to enable his majesty to provide for such expenses of a civil nature as do not form a part of the ordinary charges of the Civil List, having been read. Mr. Hutchinson said, it was not his intention to enter upon the hacknied topics of the public burthens and the duty of that House. He meant merely to justify himself for affirming that the expenses in (4 A) these papers were evident extravagance. | perial grand duke lately on a visit to this They had voted 3,500,000l. of the public country, had been presented with one. money for the navy and ordnance, and yet Would the noble lord cloak himself under they were called upon to vote 79,154l. for a precedent of this kind? In times of pub. the purposes stated in these papers. The lic prosperity these items were frequently House was bound to watch narrowly overlooked, and perhaps did not deserve such accounts and items. By doing so so minute a scrutiny; but at present the they not only did their duty to the coun- distress under which the nation laboured try, but essential service to ministers was so great, that economy ought to be themselves; for if the House would not introduced into every part of the public suffer extravagant expenses to pass, mi- expenditure; and though the strictest nisters could retire to the cabinet secure economy could not produce an immediate of the support of the House in their meaor any great relief, still the House ought sures of economy and retrenchment. This to show an endeavour to carry retrenchwould give them a strength in the cabinet ment as far as possible. After some late which otherwise they could not possess. votes, the people would be led to distrust The first item he had to remark upon was professions. After the vote of last night 3,1951. 12s. for furniture to the Royal to continue a board on the war establishGeorge yacht. This expense appeared ment, whose principal duties terminated to him most extravagant. This was not with the war-to continue the same num for furnishing the ship generally, as might ber of lords of the Admiralty, with a navy be supposed, but for the furniture' of one of 20,000 men and 120 ships, and during room. The next item he would advert to profound peace, which was reckoned newas 8,4327. as the expense of a noble vis-cessary, when we were in hostility with all count and a noble duke at Aix-la-Chapelle. He did not conceive this expense to have been necessary. Whatever good the noble viscount and the noble duke had done at Aix-la-Chapelle, they could have done by their remaining at home, and by any ordinary character being sent to the conference. Not one thing had been done at Aix-la-Chapelle, which had not been settled before the noble viscount, the noble duke, or any of the other great personages, had gone thither. The other item on which he had to remark was, 13,300l. for the Grand Duke Nicholas. He saw no reason for incurring such an expense for any royal or imperial visitant. If we thus paid the expenses of one during his residence here, we could not refuse to pay the expenses of fifty, and thus a serious burthen would be imposed upon the country. In going over the items, he found one of 20,000l. for law charges, which he could not but think extravagant. The item to which he was now desirous of calling the attention of the House, was the sum of 22,510l. 15s. 1d. for snuff-boxes as presents to foreign ministers. How could ministers, in the present state of the country, justify themselves for incurring such an extravagant charge for such a purpose? They, no doubt, relied on precedents, but he thought precedents in this case of little value. He had been informed, that the absurd practice of giving snuff-boxes had been carried so far, that the coachman appointed to drive an im the world, with a navy of 130,000 men, and more than 1,200 ships, the House should endeavour to recover its character for economy by endeavouring to retreneh in some way or other. It was only lately that a vote of a few hundred pounds for two equerries had been lost; and yet if any public servants were to stand in the way of public economy, these individuals deserved their salaries. To one of them, sir Brent Spencer, he was glad of an opportunity to pay his tribute of respect. He had served in the army forty years; he had been engaged in every war during that time, and in every part of the world he had faced dangers and shed his blood in the service of his country. His gallant conduct in Egypt on the glorious 8th of March was known to every one acquainted with our military annals; and yet these claims were not sufficient to continue him in the receipt of a salary which he obtained as the mark of his sovereign's confidence, and the reward of his fidelity. He would apply the case of the equerries to his present argument, by stating, that if the House refused on a late night 500l. a year to a gallant officer, they ought to abolish 20,000l. of useless expenditure. The sum now in the estimate for snuffboxes would more than afford the two equerries their salaries for life. He was satisfied that, by examining in the way that he had done the papers submitted to the House, the public interest might be highly benefitted, and thousands saved The Speaker suggested, that there was a Resolution before the House that 79,1544. be granted to make good the civil contingencies. The hon. member could propose an amendment, by subtracting the sum of 22,510/. from it, and by adding the concluding words of his resolution. Mr. Hutchinson said, he did not wish to negative the grant, as the money had been expended; he would therefore propose his resolution after the question before the House was disposed of. which were now uselessly squandered. | it was incurred out of that courtesy which Ministers would thus receive a check in usually prevailed between governments, their course of extravagance, and would be The expenses which we had to provide more cautious what estimates they brought for in this respect were not so great as forward for parliamentary sanction. He some other states. During the congress concluded by moving, "That the sum of of Vienna, the emperor of Austria had en22,510l. 15s. 1d. which from papers on the tertained all the sovereigns, princes, and table of the House is stated to have been ministers, assembled in that capital. The expended for Snuff Boxes, appears to this principal part of the hon. member's objecHouse to be a most profuse and improvi- tions was directed against the practice of dent expenditure of public money." making presents to foreign ministers. The hon. gentleman had not represented the matter fairly in allowing it to be supposed that the 22,000l. of expenditure under this head had been incurred within the year. The truth was, that the present account comprehended the money expended in this way for more than two years, from July, 1816, to Jan. 1819. It was likewise to be recollected, that in that period the country had not been in its natural state. To show that the sum thus distributed over two years, or about 11,000l. per annum, was not extravagant or extraordinary; he would refer the hon. gentleman to papers laid on the table in 1811. In them he would find an account of the expenses incurred for presents to foreign ministers during the seven preceding years. These charges amounted on an average to 10,000l. per annum. By looking a little farther back, he would find that in 1804 Mr. Pitt had laid on the table an estimate of such expenses, which likewise amounted to 10,000l. a year. He (lord C.) was well aware of the general opinion, that any thing in the shape of a present might be advantageously dispensed with; but whatever degree of obloquy might be thrown on him for defending a custom in which he might be supposed to be interested, he would still contend against its abolition. The hon. member did not seem well acquainted with the regulations under which these presents were given, nor with the limitations both as to the persons on whom they were conferred, and the number of them that must, according to custom, be provided. Their amount was not in the least arbitrary, nor could they be connected with any improper influence. The practice of bestowing them on the signature of treaties, was as old as the monarchy, and nearly co-extensive with civilized states. He knew that it was a principle with the United States neither to give or receive presents; but the practice was general among the monarchies of Europe. The East India Company, in their transactions with the states Lord Castlereagh, in rising to give the explanations required by the hon. gentleman said, he could not promise to speak to every point, as there were several totally out of his own department, and which he must refer to his right hon. friend. He perfectly understood the hon. gentleman not to have meant any thing like a personal charge by his motion, but to have brought it forward merely out of a sense of duty, to enforce an economical application of the public money. With respect to the fitting out of the royal yacht, he could say nothing, for he knew nothing. As to the expense incurred at Aix-laChapelle, the observations of the hon. member had been rather of a political than a financial nature. The hon. gentleman had said, that a king's messenger could have transacted the business as well as himself and his noble friend. If such observations had been made when the treaties and protocols concluded at Congress were laid on the table, they might have deserved an answer. If the hon. gentleman, however, required any explanations on the head of expense, he would not refuse the most ample. By examining the account, he would find that there had been no improvident waste of the public money, and that the sums expended had been less than on former missions of the same nature. With regard to the item of charge for his imperial highness the grand duke, who lately visited this country, all that he would say was, that |