made of the number of churches which would be wanted to supply the demand, and he concluded that one in three, or one in four, of the general population, would be a sufficient allowance. He then went through the metropolis and several of the towns in which a superabundant population was accumulated; and he then calculated the means by which this additional number of churches was to be provided for. This was, in the first place, the parliamentary grant of one million. To this might be added the exertions of public-spirited individuals who were likely to come forward in aid of the general contribution; and from these sources he expected that from 150 to 200 churches might be erected. He then touched upon the apparent advantage which the dissenters possessed by building places of worship to any extent and with out limitation, in which, he said, that it was the duty of their lordships to afford the established church the means of balancing them. In fine, he took into consideration the appointment of commissioners for the purpose above-mentioned, and he concluded with moving the second reading of the bill.

Lord Holland, who said he did not rise to oppose the bill, which, upon the whole, he approved, attacked with some severity the earl of Liverpool, who had affirmed that the dissenters enjoyed advantages beyond the established church,

You, gentlemen (said he) who pay for yourselves, who pay for your own chapels and your own clergy, in addition to paying tithes for ours,

shall also contribute to the erection of those churches in which you have no interest whatever." This, his lordship thought, was most invidious in the noble eart to affirm of the dissenters under these circumstances.

After some other noble lords had spoke, the bill was read a second time.

On May 20th, the House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, when the first clause was read, Lord Holland observed, that when he had stated his objections to a grant of the public money under the present circumstances of the country, he had not been aware that in the present reign a precedent for the practice he recommended had been established. In an act of the 37th of George III, the emoluments of two prebends of Lichfield were sequestered for the purpose of repairing the cathedral. Now, though the bill to which he alluded might be regarded as a private bill, he saw no reason why the principle should not be adopted in the present measure, and applied to the benefit of the public.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said, that the measure to which the noble lord had referred was resorted to for the advantage of the individual church from which the sequestration of the prebends had been made, which was a very different case from that which had in view the supplying the general deficiency of churches by building

so large a sacrifice, he was of opinion that a church so richly endowed as that of England was, ought to be expected to supply from its own bosom some of the means required to carry into effect this bill.

On the clause limiting the powers of the commissioners to the building of churches so as to afford the greatest possible accommodation to the largest number of persons, Lord Grenville expressed a doubt whether the words were sufficiently explanatory of what were the intentions of the framers. He agreed that to afford the greatest possible accommodation to the largest number of persons ought to be a primary principle; but he thought that that mode should be adopted which was best calculated to inspire that devotion which was characteristic of the established church.

The Earl of Liverpool entirely agreed with the noble baron in the view he had taken of this clause, though he was completely adverse to incurring a heavy expense for mere splendor.

The Earl of Harrowby and the Archbishop of Canterbury both seemed to lean towards the indulgence of granting somewhat to decent decoration.

The bill then went through the committee, and afterwards passed the House.

A bill, commonly called the Purchase of Game Bill, which was brought in by Mr. George Banks, was moved for a second reading on May 6th.

Mr. Curwen said, that in his opinion, the discussion of a bill of that importance should not be

brought on in so thin a House; and he therefore recommended the hon. gentleman to postpone the second reading till there should be a fuller attendance.

Mr. G. Bankes objected to a farther postponement; saying that it was extremely necessary that the second reading should take place before the holidays, if at all. He then said that he would enter into a short statement of the object of the bill, and a reply to the attacks brought against it. 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. This bill placed the purchaser of game on the same footing as 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, 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 recommendation to make game private property. That report had been faid 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 would 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 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 be as amply supplied as before. The value of this privilege depended on a prohibition to sell, either on the part of the proprietors, or on 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. His bill, 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.

Mr. Curwen rose and said, The bill now before the House, if passed into a law, I am thoroughly convinced would be found ineffectual for accomplishing its object, since the qualified purchasers of game are beyond the reach of legislative enactment. The design of this 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. It might, indeed, swell the number of victims in that catalogue, but 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 legal criminality and fatal consequences which spring from these offences call loudly for prevention. Does any one suppose that poaching can be suppressed while 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. 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. 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, 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. 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 only one source of affluent property. The monopoly of game, while this state of things continued, was little felt as a grievance, and

there

there were few temptations to induce a breach of the laws. How is the country now situated? The capital from trade, manufactures, and funded property, is seven times as great as that from the land. 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, that 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 we can inflict. Believing, as I do, that this bill 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 would have the least tendency to perpetuate the game laws.

Mr. Brand 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. The oppressive severity with which the present laws were inforced was attested by the fact of 1,200 persons having been imprisoned for offences relating to the game during the last year.

Sir C. Burrell defended the bill, which, he said, occasioned no injustice when the landlord retained in his lease the right of sporting. But as he considered

the bill as salutary, and as the House was so thin, he moved that the debate might be adjourned till Monday the 18th.

This motion accordingly passed. Mr. George Bankes, on May 18th, moved the second reading of his bill.

The principal speaker on this occasion was Sir S. Romilly, who thought that the present bill would be a great improvement on the existing system. He could not see how, when the House refused to make it legal to sell game, they should hesitate to punish the buying of game. How could gentlemen reconcile to themselves the allowing the purchase of game, by which persons of low rank must be infallibly allured to become poachers, and then punish those persons with the utmost severity? But this was not the only mischief to the lower orders. By becoming poachers, they brought upon themselves the far greater evil of becoming thieves in consequence of associating with men of the most infamous characters; for it was established by evidence, that in nearly all the prisons there were no means of preventing the comparatively innocent from associating with the most hardened criminals. Among the higher orders the laws were violated with little compunction to obtain the desired luxury, though the utmost rigour in imposing penalties was exercised against the lower.

The general opinion of the House was in favour of the bill; and on the question being put, That the bill be now read a

second

second time, it passed in the affirmative by Ayes, 116; Noes, 21 Majority, 95.

In the House of Lords, on June 2nd, this bill being read a second time, the Earl of Carnarvon moved for its being committed. The sole object, he said, was, to place the buyer and the seller of game upon the same footing. If there existed any principle of law more cruel and unfair than another, it surely was that which punished the poor, and acquitted the rich, when equally criminal. The state of the game laws was altogether objectionable; but, bad as the system was, it became their lordships duty to do what they could to improve it. The question, however, was of a practical nature, and merely consisted of the comparison between the poor man and the rich man.

The Earl of Lauderdale spoke warmly against the bill, which he supposed would unite all persons acquainted with the state of the gaols throughout the country, to oppose it. After speaking a considerable time on this idea, his lordship said, that at this period of the session it was impossible to go into the general consideration of so important a question as that of game laws; he thought the bill ought to be withdrawn, in order that the subject might hereafter be taken up on more enlarged principles.

Earl Grosvenor and Lord Holland spoke in favour of the bill. The Lord Chancellor said it was impossible for him to give his assent to it as it now stood; and he instanced the inequality

that was still left in the act between the rich and the poor.

The House at length divided; Contents, 33; Not Contents, 9: Majority, 24.

The House then went into the committee.

On the 3rd of June, when the third reading of the Game bill was proposed, the Earl of Limerick moved an amendment to the effect, that for the first offence the person convicted of violating the statute should be committed to the house of correction for three months, and for any subsequent offence for four months, without bail or main prize.

The Earl of Carnarvon, though agreeing in many points with the noble earl, could not assent to the proposed amendment.

The amendment was negatived. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.

On May 19th the Lord Chancellor presented a bill for varying and amending certain of the provisions of the Regency act. By that act, his lordship said, a council was appointed to assist her majesty in the execution of the trust reposed in her with regard to the care of the king's person, some of whom, in the absence of her majesty, were to reside at Windsor. Several of the members of the queen's council having official duties to execute, it was impossible for them to reside at Windsor; and it being thought advisable that her majesty, in the present state of her health, should continue in town, it became necessary to make provision for the appointment of additional members of

her