England, did infinite service. We incur the risk of banishment, then, by this commentary; and yet there are reptiles base enough to say that the Press is more free here than itis in France! The Chancellor Comment on these reports we said he thought that the Bill was must, however, or we are the very spoiled when the transportation basest slaves that the world ever was taken out of it. Most people saw; and yet, if we do comment think that the banishment clause on them, in any other way than is pretty well for a "free press." that of eulogium, we are liable to However, I shall not comment on be banished for it. If we call the any thing as proceedings of Mr. debates, debates of the House of FREDERICK ROBINSON'S House. I Commons, and if we say any shall comment on nothing as the productions of legislators from GATTON and OLD SARUM. I deal only with these stupid devils of newspapers. They have put forth certain publications. I know not who are the real authors of these publications. They call them speeches, and they say that these speeches were made in the House of Commons. I know nothing of that. I find the stuff (and glorious stuff it is), in the newspapers; and as such I remark upon it; be thing in disapprobation of any part of the debates, we say that which has a tendency more or less direct to bring the House into contempt: and this subjects us to the liability to banishment, and for life, too. It is not correct, perhaps, to call the thing debates. It is a report of proceedings in the House. Mr. CANNING says it is of great use to publish those proceedings. Of what use can it be, unless we are freely to give our opinions upon those proceed-ginning with the following extract ings? If our opinions differ from relative to the Game, which ex those of the House; and if we state them clearly and ably, and show that the projects of the House are absurd and impracticable, and ludicrous into the bargain; does not all this tend, and immediately, tend to bring the House into contempt? Certainly it does. tract I take from the Morning Chronicle of the 26th March. On the motion of Mr. S. Wortley, the House resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Game Laws Amendment Bill, and the Bill was recommitted. The Preamble was postponed. parts of former Acts relating to Game, Igame by the common law of the land, was agreed to. are made so by the present measure, On the second Clause, a discus-and that rabbits, teal and widgeons sion of considerable length ensued. The clause is as follows: are also included. This was an enormous extension of the system of the "And be it further enacted, That Game Laws, of which the people of all hares, rabbits, pheasants, par- England complained so justly as a tridges, grouse, black game, heath grievance. The object of the Bill and moor game, bustards, wood-was, as he conceived, to mitigate that cocks, snipes, quails, landrails, wild grievance, and to diminish the mass ducks, teal and widgeons, and the of crime which every man complained young and eggs thereof, found in or of from one end of the country to the upon any inclosed land, are and shall other [hear, hear!]. It was therebe deemed to be the property of the fore inconsistent with the object person or persons, body or bodies which they professed, to extend the politic, corporate or collegiate, seised operation of the Game Laws to a of, or entitled as owner or owners great variety of animals not heretothereof in possession (and not in re- fore included. He objected to the version) to, the land on which the whole clause, and the Bill altogether, same shall be found; and all hares, though he was prepared with no plan rabbits, pheasants, partridges, grouse, of his own upon the subject. On black game, heath and moor game, the contrary, what he wanted was to bustards, woodcocks, snipes, quails, get rid of legislation. They had allandrails, wild ducks, teal and wid ready legislated too much on that as geons, found in and upon any stinted well as on other subjects. By the pasture, uninclosed common, or waste present Bill, they would have half a land, are and shall be deemed to be dozen lords of the manor where they the property of the lord or lady, had but one before. He objected lords or ladies of the manor, lordship particularly to that clause which or royalty within which such stinted vests in the occupier of fifty acres of pasture, uninclosed common or waste land a property in things not capable land shall be situated; and it shall be of being made property. As to the lawful for the person or persons, sale of game, he approved of it, and body or bodies politic, corporate or was favourable to the principle of doing collegiate, so entitled to the property away all penalties on the sale of game. of the Game within their own lands, Sir John Sebright said, that the and for the lord or lady, lords or Game Laws were unpopular, because ladies of the manor, lordship or roy- they confined to an exclusive class alty so entitled to the property in the the privilege of shooting game. But Game on such stinted pasture, unin-was it unpopular, he would ask, to closed common or waste lands re-open this privilege to other classes, spectively, to demise and let the Game who had been hitherto exposed to. to be found therein." considerable penalties for sharing in Sir J. Shelley objected to the clause this amusement? For his own part, that the proprietor of the soil could he looked to the measure as attended take or kill game upon it, but could with many conveniences. As the not give the right of doing so to ano-law stood at present, he could make ther person. no return to many of his neighbours Lord Milton asked whether, if this for civilities; his wish would be, not clause were agreed to, it would pre- to give them game, for they could clude the right of making any re-buy it, and would continue to buy it, marks on the new descriptions of however that House might accumugame introduced in it? He observed in the enumeration contained in the clause that woodcocks, which are not late laws to the contrary; and, he would say, they ought to buy it when they could, and how they could, in spite of all legislative enactments; his wish would be to make them the compliment of a day's shooting, but that he could not do in many instances, for some qualified gentleman, or some pauper in the workhouse who happened to be the son of an Esquire, might object to the amusement of the respectable tradesman, who had perhaps waited with great patience for his bill [a laugh.] Notwithstanding the objections of the Noble Lord, he had no hesitation in saying that a more popular measure could not be brought forward. As the law now stood, a man could not shoot a hare in his own defence [a laugh ;] and no one could persuade him that it was not just and reasonable to mitigate a system so fraught with illiberality and injustice. Mr. Bernal expressed an apprehension, that by making game the property of the landowner, a person who had taken game away would be guilty of felony. Before he could agree to the clause which made it property, he would wish to hear a satisfactory answer to that doubt. Mr. Monck said, that the person guilty of such an offence would be a trespasser, and liable to punishment as such by the common law. He thought, however, that it would be better to leave out the enumeration of birds not considered as game by the existing Statutes, and therefore he would move an Amendment to that effect. Mr. R. Smith objected to the extension of the laws of property to game, as it might have a tendency to increase the rigours of the system, and to excite bad feelings between the higher and lower classes of the community. Mr. S. Wortley declared himself willing to agree to the omission of all the words after the word grouse. Mr. Monck wished to know whether it was certain that no action or indictment could be maintained for that kind of property. His own opinion was that it could not. Mr. S. Wortley said, that as the penalty was stated in subsequent clauses, the punishment was defined. The Amendment was then agreed to, as were also several verbal Amendments. Mr. Bernal repeated his question. Lord J. Russell concurred with him in opinion, that an action might be maintained if game should be made property. Mr. S. Wortley said he would make inquiries on the subject, and if he found it was the case, it would be easy to propose a clause providing that no other penalty should attach to the offence than those contained in the subsequent clauses. The clause was then agreed to. Mr. Goulburn opposed the clause. He said that at present lords of manors, he believed the majority of them, enjoyed the right of shooting over their manors, although they were not the owners of the soil. He was himself in this case; he was a Lord of a Manor, and owner of the tithes, and for him his rights as Lord of the Manor were as perfect, as far as shooting was concerned, as if he were the owner of the land; pass this Bill, and his rights would be entirely destroyed. It was an invasion of a very ancient right, and he should oppose it. Mr. Bernal defended the clause. Manorial rights were only by sufferance; and Gentlemen who made themselves respected in their neighbourhood would, after the passing of this Act, have the same privileges and enjoyments as before. Manorial rights were of no value. Sir John Wrottesley agreed with Mr. Goulburn, that this clause would be an invasion of very ancient rights, and he wished to see those rights his ancestors bequeathed him preserved. He had long appointed two gamekeepers, which this Bill would deprive him of. Sir John Sebright said, he believed the Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, was allowed only to appoint his gamekeepers by sufferance. As to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, he would observe, that his possessing the tithes gave him a great power over the property of the parish -a power which was indeed so great, that he (Sir J. Sebright), though a great tithe-holder himself, thought no man ought to possess it. Sir J. Wrottesly explained. Alderman Heygate contended manors were good property. He had known one purchased from Government which had no other quit rents but 51. a year, and no other common belonging to it than a few acres, and for this manorial right 1600/. had been given. If this Bill were now to pass, this person would be cheated out of 1400l. He trusted the House would protect the rights of lords of manors, which were not so imaginary as some Gentlemen supposed. Mr. Cripps opposed the clause. Mr. S. Wortley defended the clause. He had, he admitted, taken something from the lords of manors by his Bill, but he granted them a great deal more than he had taken from them. By this Bill they would have the absolute property in all the game which was found in unenclosed lands. There was so much division of opinion on this clause, that he hoped some Honourable Member would take the sense of the Committee on it. Lord Milton thought the Bill was a very considerable violation of the right of property, such as ought not to take place without some good reason assigned ; and it being clearly made out that great public advantages would ensue. The evils of the Game Laws were not any of those trifling discrepancies in the Qualification Act, of which Gentlemen complained, but the numerous commitments which took place under the Game Laws. Our gaols were filled with persons guilty of no other crime hut violations of these laws, and this it should be the great object of the House to remedy. He did not think the Bill of his Honourable Friend at all calculated to effect this object. It would extend the Game Laws to many manors now not subjected to them, and thus rather tend to increase than diminish the number of crimes. But this was not all. It would make game more valuable, more preserves would be established, and as it would never be possible to make the wild animals of the woods respected as property, in the same manner as other species of property, before he agreed to the clause, he must see its advantages, which he did not at present; on the contrary, he thought it would increase poaching and commitments. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had long deliberated whether it would be right to revise the Bill of last Session, permitting the sale of Game, and leaving the whole law of qualification untouched, or whether it would be better to make at once the extensive alteration proposed by his Honourable Friend; and after long consideration, he must confess he was not yet prepared to come to a decision. The Noble Lord appeared to him to express a wish to have all penalties abolished, and to have the Game Laws altogether set aside-(Lord Milton dissented.) He (Mr. Peel) really thought that that was the meaning of the Noble Lord. Such a principle as that would indeed be strange and alarming. It would have the effect of putting arms in the hands of the entire population, and of giving them the right of traversing the country with those arnis in their hands, and to kill game wherever game might be found. Mr. Stuart Wortley said he voted. for the Bill of the last Session, be cause he looked upon it as a step. towards the removal of all the Game Laws. It would be the highest act of injustice and oppression to authorize the sale of game-to make game property, leaving that property in the hands of the Lord of the Manor-to say to a man that he should not sell the game which he had on his own land, but that another person, to his exclusion, should have the right to sell Jable Member considered this provi it, was what would be too monstrous to endure. Mr. Peel said that he wished the experiment to be limited in the first instance. Sir John Sebright said, that to make game saleable for the benefit of one class of the community, to the exclusion of the other, was what the country would not bear. Mr. William Bankes said, that the House ought to pause before they throw open to the great class of the people a right, which, from the numbers, the power, and disposition of that class, they never afterwards could recal, He was one of those who considered that a species of property, which had been enjoyed for ages, ought not to be lightly dealt with. He did not conceive that the proposed alteration would have the effect of making the gaols less full, or the people more moral or more contented. sion most unjust towards the occu piers of farms, as it not only deprived them of a right they now possessed, but conferred it upon their landlords. Mr. J. Smith supported the Amend ment. If tenants were thus deprived of vested rights, some compensation ought to be given to them. Mr. S. Wortley vindicated the clause as it stood, contending, that if it were not inserted, landlords would in all cases be warned off their own estates by their tenants. Alderman Heygate insisted, that to pass the clause as it stood, would work most scandalous injustice; it would place the landlord in a far better situation than that he occupied at present. Mr. Goulburn supported the rights of Lords of Manors. Colonel Davies agreed with the Honourable Proposer of the Amend ment. If it were agreed to, tenants would be just as ready to allow their landlords to sport, as they were under the existing law. Lord Binning said, that the state of things under the Game Laws was so abominable, that any measure Mr. F. Lewis suggested, that if a which would afford a chance of es-tenant were legally qualified to kill caping from that state he was dispos-game, he ought to be allowed to posed to consider a benefit. If he were sess the right, notwithstanding this convinced that legalizing the sale of Bill, in any case where it was granted game, without introducing the princi- by his lease. The Lord of the Manor ple of property, would prove effectual, ought to enjoy a concurrent right. he would willingly agree to it; he A clause, he thought, might be could not indulge that hope. He worded to avoid the difficulty at precould not help saying, that what had sent started. fallen from the Honourable Member for Yorkshire, had gone a great way to reconcile him to the clause. After a few words from Lord Milton, Sir John Shelly, Mr. Evans, and Sir John Wrottesley, the House divided on the clause. Ayes, 82.—Noes, 29.—Majority, 53. On entering the gallery, we found Mr. Bernal upon his legs, proposing an Amendment to the clause which gave to landlords the power of sporting over the grounds of their tenants in all cases, whether such a reservation of right were or were not made in the leases. The Honour Sir J. Shelley instanced his own case, arguing that if the clause passed, as now worded, he should be ousted of an important right, for which he had paid a considerable sum. Mr. Bernal could not consent to any compromise like that proposed by the Honourable Member for Beaumaris. Colonel Wood was of opinion that if the landlord possessed the right of shooting now, he ought not to be deprived of it. Nevertheless he supported the Amendment, because it was only just to preserve equally the right of the tenant. Lord Binning said, that as the |