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 laws, 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 love 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 law 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 Leadenhallmarket. 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

(956

stowed upon it a persevering attention* which entitled him to the highest credit. He had given his hon. friend every assisthis proposition, because he thought the ance in his power, and he should support best measure that could be adopted, even with a view to the interest of the gamepreservers 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 bill, he should probably feel it his duty last session, and reject his hon. friend's 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.

tending to destroy all the game in the Mr. John Douglas opposed the bill, as country. chase game openly, they would eat so If people were allowed to purmuch of it, that there would soon be none left. Eating game would become a cuspheasant on the 1st of October, as regu tom; and people would look for their larly as they did for their goose on game were destroyed, country gentlemen Michaelmas day. If foxes and other 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.

that the present restrictive laws on the Sir J. Yorke said, it must be evident, 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.

ground that much evil would arise from
Mr. W. Peel opposed the bill, on the
legalizing the sale of game. The pro-
posed alteration of the game laws would,'
in his opinion, interfere with the recrea-
tions of the country gentlemen.

stood, was extremely objectionable, since
Sir J. Sebright said, that the law, as it

Sir Alexander Don expressed his assent to the measure.

Mr. Pelham concurred in the propriety of passing the bill.

it operated to prevent men from doing | cessity, he should be as ready to support what they pleased with their own pro- the proposition as any man; but, from the perty. Some gentlemen seemed to have statement of the noble lord, the clear ingreat prejudices against any innovation on ference was, that the projected increase the game laws, because they looked upon was to form the regular peace establish- 、 the present state of things as perfectly ment, below which it was impossible the natural. A friend of his, who had paid number could be reduced. The question, a visit to the continent, said to him on one then, was, are we to be satisfied with the occasion, "Could you believe it, sir John, reduction of taxes which has taken place? they sell game in the streets abroad just The committee of 1817, whose suggestions like any other commodity?" Upon his the House had professed to follow, had asking him what he found extraordinary recommended the reduction of the army in that, "Oh," said his friend, "can you to the lowest possible standard; and, in conceive any thing more unnatural?" 1821, the House was so sensible of the proPrejudices of this kind were not uncom- priety of the advice, that they had agreed, mon in that House. They had heard, a that the only mode of producing an ecoshort time ago, gentlemen opposing the nomical change, and affording general repeal of the usury laws, before they con- relief, was by reducing our expenditure, sidered that 5 per cent was the "natural" or doing away with that absurd system, the interest of money; and they had also Sinking-fund. Now, although it might not heard hon. members opposing Catholic be possible to come down to the standard of emancipation, because, forsooth, Protest- 1792, still it was the duty of the House to ants were "naturally" opposed to the approximate it, as nearly as possible; and claims of the Catholics. These were pre- he was quite prepared to show, that there judices of habit, and ought to be got rid was an abundantly sufficient force in our of. He would support the bill, because colonies, unless there was an anticipation it tended to put an end to poaching. 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

Mr. J. Martin 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.

Mr. James 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.

The House divided: For the second reading 82. Against it 26. Majority 56.

ARMY ESTIMATES.] The report of the committee of supply was brought up. On the first resolution being read,

Mr. Hume 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

Mr. Wilmot Horton contended, that the proposed augmentation of the armý 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 popu lation, 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.

proceedings, and who was compelling the | such an unexplained augmentation of the most valuable part of the colonists to re- army. turn 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, he 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 of this House, it is not necessary, in a time of profound Mr. Bright said, that if the duty to peace, to maintain, for the service of the which our army was subjected was as current year, the number of 86,438 regular harassing as it had been represented, land forces, exclusive of those for India, ministers were deeply to blame for not and also exclusive of 9,000 Royal Marines; having come forward before to relieve it. of about 7,800 of Royal Artillery and He did not, however, believe it to be so Engineers, of 53,258 enrolled Militia, severe as to require this augmentation Yeomanry, and Volunteers in Ireland; in time of peace. He recollected that, and of 55,000 Militia, and 43,000 Yeo-last year, 4,500 men had been voted, on manry 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."

Colonel Johnston seconded the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at

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