Mr. Horatio Ross said, as the hon. member for Reading had not proposed an Amendment, he would move, that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. The House would commit an act of great injustice, if it were to assent to this Bill; the object of which was, to give the tenant the right to kill and sell the game on all farms where the right had not been specially reserved by the landlord. The agreed cordially in the Resolutions that were come to by the Committee. In the first place, it was resolved that all game should be the property of the person on whose land it was found. The question then arose, whether this was the landlord or tenant; and the Committee determined that the property was in the landlord. True, the clause which it was now proposed to alter was not in the Bill when it passed through that House, but was intro-hon. Gentleman below him had said, that duced in the House of Lords; but then, it the Game Bill deprived all the tenants of a should be recollected, that this Bill passed right which they previously possessed; but in a very hasty manner through that House; he (Mr. Ross), would venture to observe, and he himself had been very glad that the that there was hardly a tenant in the alteration was made in the Bill by the other country who was deprived of his right. If House. Parliament was justified in taking every tenant in the country were allowed credit to itself for having passed the mea- to shoot, the end would be, the destruction sure in the form in which it now stood. of all the game in the country. All GenHe was aware some Gentlemen were of tlemen in that House were not such keen opinion, that all Game Laws were bad, and sportsmen as himself; but he trusted that he would not then stop to argue with them. the majority of the House would not conIt should be recollected, however, that the sent to destroy these sports, which operated Act which it was now proposed to alter, so powerfully in inducing gentlemen to regreatly ameliorated the former law. It side on their estates. He would trouble allowed game to be sold-it extended the the House with only one other observaqualification in the most extensive manner, tion. It was said to be unjust, that tenants where, formerly, the qualification was most should not have the right to kill the game objectionable. The Lords had placed the which was fed on their farms; but it must matter on the right footing; and it was be recollected that they were aware that inexpedient and unjust to alter the prin- they would not be allowed to do so, when ciple of the Game Act. It had been said they took their farms. If they were that tenants who had taken leases since the allowed to kill the game, of course they Game Act passed had waived their rights; would have given more for their farms than but tenants could not waive a right which they actually did pay; and, at present, it landlords never granted to them. An as- was not at all uncommon for gentlemen to sumption of that sort seemed the oddest make an allowance to their tenants, in cases perversion of words imaginable. Until the where it appeared that the game had been landlord granted away his property by a destroying any portion of the crops. He lease, all the land, trees, and game, belonged trusted that the House would not consent. to him; and nothing was more common to take away from country gentlemen such than for the landlord to reserve particular a powerful inducement as they now had to rights to himself; for instance, in the case live on their estates in the country. The of trout-streams, to this day-and formerly, hon. Member concluded by moving his the right of shooting. It might be said Amendment. that the tenants would not take farms if the landlords reserved to themselves these rights. He could only say, that he never knew an instance in which there was such a refusal. The landlord had ever claimed, and ever exercised the right, of granting the game to the tenant, or any other person. He hoped that this Bill would be rejected, and that the country would be allowed to see how the present system worked-which he had no doubt would be better and better every year. He regretted that it had not put an end to poaching; but he was sure that, taking it altogether, it had done great good. Mr. Rolfe hoped the House would not come to a decision on this Bill, with the impression that the state of the law was such as it had been described to be by the opponents of this Bill. Both the hon. member for Reading, and the hon. member for Montrose, were completely wrong as to the law on this subject. It had been said, that there were very few cases in which tenants, who had, at any time, had the right of shooting, had not reserved to themselves this right, in special clauses in their leases. He was able to state, on the authority of a most eminent conveyancer and lawyer, that he never knew a case in which a lease contained a reservation of game for the tenant. Indeed, such a reservation would have been absurd, it would have been as extravagant as if the tenant had stipulated in his lease that he should have the use of the rooms in his farm-house. The only reservation, in reference to game, which ever appeared in a lease before the passing of the Game Bill was-a reservation of it for the landlord. The reason of this was, that, according to the old law, if nothing was said about game, it belonged to the tenant; and, therefore, if it was agreed that the landlord was to have the game, it must be specially reserved. If it was agreed that the tenant was to have it, nothing was said about it. The clause, however, in the Game Bill was to the effect, that, for the future, all the game should be the property of the landlord. But it had been said, that an unqualified person could not shoot-that most tenants were in that situation-and that there were few who were owners of property to the amount of 100l. a-year. He had reason to believe, that a great number of tenants had been deprived of the right they possessed, by the operation of the clause of the Game Bill which it was now proposed to alter. He would state a circumstance which came within his own knowledge, in which this clause operated in a most injurious manner. A friend of his, who was a large landed proprietor, hired a farm of 1,200 acres of land, and as the landlord did not reserve the right of shooting to himself, of course it rested with the tenant. This Gentleman was, unfortunately, not on good terms with his landlord, and, there.fore, since the passing of the Game Bill, in consequence of the insertion of the clause giving all game to the landlord, he had not felt himself justified in killing a head of game on his farm. He did not know that the landlord had interdicted him from doing so; but the tenant, who was a gentleman of high feelings, said that he did not consider himself to be in a situation to do so. There was another case, in which the clause he alluded to might have had a most injurious operation. A friend of his at the bar, had assured him, that it came before him in his professional character, in which character, indeed, he was called upon to give an opinion on it. The facts of that case were these:-A gentleman hired a manor of 1,500 acres of moor land, in the north of England, for three lives, for the sole and express purpose of grouse-shooting, at a rent of 2001. a-year. Last year the owner of the property died; and immediately after, the new landlord warned off the tenant from sporting on the manor, and himself and friends sported on it; at the same time, too, he demanded the 2001. a-year, which was only given on the condition that the tenant should have the right of shooting. Fortunately, his legal friend had been enabled, from the mode in which the agreement had been drawn up, to prevent the infliction of a most shameful piece of injustice in this case. These cases, however, seemed to him sufficient to show that the clause, which was introduced as an Amendment into the Game Bill, was attended with great injustice in its operation. It had been said, that this Bill was founded in injustice, as its tendency was to deprive the landlords of their game. If this were really the case, there might be some ground of complaint; but the truth was, that it was only to remedy a piece of injustice, by which the game was transferred from the tenant to the landlord. Mr. Lamb was aware that the House was impatient to come to a decision on this Bill. He would, therefore, take up but a very few minutes in the observations which he felt called upon to make. When the Game Bill had passed through that House, and received the sanction of the other branches of the Legislature, he had not anticipated that, in the short space of a year and a-half, they should have been called upon to make an important alteration in it. He was not disposed to assent to this proposition, because this Bill would, in its operation, be attended with much injustice to the landlords. The hon. member for Maldon had stated two or three cases in which he said that the clause in the Game Bill, which he desired to alter, had been productive of hardship to tenants. (Mr. Lamb) did not take the same view of those cases as the hon. Member did; and did not consider them of such a nature as to render it incumbent on the House to alter the Game Bill. His hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, had also expressed himself warmly in favour of the measure now before the House. If he and other lawyers would pass a little more time in the fields-in the country-in sportingthey would not be so indifferent as they appeared to be to field sports, and so desirous of interfering with these pursuits of country gentlemen. It must be recollected that formerly very few tenants were qualified so as to entitle them to sport; so that the clause in the Game Bill could not have He been extensive in its operation. That Bill, also, licensed or qualified a most numerous class of persons to sport, who could not formerly do so; so that the operation of a measure like the present would certainly tend to the destruction of all the game in the country. Again, hon. Gentlemen should remember that the Game Bill constituted a new species of property, which was very properly vested in the owners of the soil. It constituted a property which did not formerly exist, inasmuch as it allowed game to be bought and sold. If the landlords had been aware that a measure like this was likely to receive the sanction of the Legislature, they would not have granted a single lease without reserving to themselves the right of killing game. As it was, he did not believe that, in a single instance, such reservation had taken place; and, therefore, it would be an act of injustice to them to pass this measure. He did not dispute the correctness of the law as laid down by his hon. and learned friend; but he was sure that he was wrong as to the practice. The House divided on the Amendment. Ayes 43; Noes 29: Majority 14. Bill postponed for six months. List of the NOES. Petitions presented. By Lord SuFFIELD, from forty-eight Places; by the Duke of RICHMOND, by the Earl of MORLEY, the Earl of RADNOR, and the Earl of ALBEMARLE, by Lord DACRE, and by Lord BARHAM, from a great Num ber of Places,-for the Abolition of Slavery.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from several Places, against the existing System of Church Patronage in Scotland.-By the Bishops of GLOUCESTER and LLANDAFF, Earl HOWE, and a NOBLE LORD, from several Places,-for a Better Observ ance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of WICKLOW, from three Places, against the Irish Church Reform.-By Lord GRANTHAM, from the Justices of the Peace for the County of Bedford, against the Beer Bill.-By Lord DACRE, from the Independent Dissenters of Wetherfield, for a Removal of all Civil Disabilities affecting the Dissenters; and from Hoddesdon, for a Revision of the Criminal Laws. HOUSE OF COMMON S, Thursday, April 18, 1833. MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Account of the Shipping employed in the Trade of the United Kingdom in the year 1832: also Copies of the Notices delivered to the Clerks of the Peace in Great Britain and Ireland, by Jesuits and Members of other Religious Orders, pursuant to Act of Parliament. Bill. Read a first time:-Bribery at Elections. Petitions presented. By Sir G. PHILLIPS, by Colonel GORE LANGTON, by Mr. BRISCOE, Mr. PEASE, Mr. PETER, Mr. NICHOLL, Mr. JERNINGHAM, Mr. HARDY, Mr. PAGETT, Mr. DIVETT, Mr. ToOKE, Mr. PENLEAZE, Mr. LOOH, Mr. RIGBY WASON, Mr. PRINGLE, Mr. GODSON, Mr. HODGES, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. STAVELEY, Mr. POULTER, Mr. HALL, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, Mr. WARRE, Mr. WEYLAND, and Sir JOHN ASTLEY, from a great Number of Places,—against Slavery.-By Sir ROBERT SIMEON, by Lord SANDON, and by Mr. PRINGLE, Mr. HALFORD, and by Mr. WILSON PATTEN, from several Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Mr. WADHAM WYNDHAM, from the Clergy of Sarum, against the Church of Ireland Bill.-By Mr. CHILDERS, from Cambridge (County) and the Isle of Ely; by Lord EASTNOR, from Reigate; and by Colonel GRANT, from the County of Elgin, for a Repeal of the Malt Duty.-By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Salford, for adjourning the Assizes from Lancaster to Manchester and Liverpool.-By Mr. TOOKE, from Truro, for the Removal of the Spring Assizes from Launceston to Truro-By Mr. PRINGLE, from Selkirk, and Mr. WEYLAND, from Charlbury, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill.-By Mr. PEASE, from the Congregation of Bethel Chapel, Darlington, for redress of the Grievances affecting the Dissenters in relation to Marriages, Parochial Rates, and Registration.-By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and by Colonel GRANT, from two Places in Scotland,-for an Alteration in the System of Lay Patronage in Scotland.-By Mr. HALFORD, from Countesthorpe (Leicestershire) complaining of Excessive Poor Rates, and praying for an Equalization of them all over the kingdom.-By Mr. ROEBUCK, from Bath, for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Offences against Property; also for Vote by Ballot. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.] Major Beauclerk presented a petition from the inhabitants of Wandsworth, in the county of Surrey, praying the House not to permit the second reading of the Bill introduced for the better Observance of the Sabbath. The petitioners gave, as their opinion, that the Observance of the Sabbath was better kept now than informer years; and that any further enactments would only go to create dissatisfaction and schism. The hon. Member bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, who, he stated, comprised above 200 of the oldest inhabitants of Wandsworth. If he thought for a moment that fine and imprisonment could tend to the propagation and support of the Christian religion, he would willingly vote for the present Bill; but, conscientiously believing the contrary, he could not support it in any of its Clauses. Mr. Briscoe felt the greatest pleasure in bearing testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, but he thought it right to state, that he could not concur altogether in the prayer of the petition, that no legislative enactment whatever should take place on the subject. He had already presented a great many petitions from different parts of the country to the House, and they all prayed that some law might be introduced for the better Observance of the Sabbath-day. He could not, certainly, give his consent to the Bill as at present introduced; but, at the same time, it was very necessary that some legislative enactment should take place; and he believed all parties agreed that it should go to the extent of the entire suppression of Sunday trading ["Hear, hear! "]. He was very glad to hear those cheers, for it convinced him that there were Members of that House of the same opinion. The measure was called for by the industrious classes of the country, to enable them to enjoy a day of rest free from the ordinary demands made upon them during the other days of the week. To that extent he would give his support to the Bill of the hon. Baronet. Whether the Bill after the second reading would undergo such an alteration or not as would make it palatable to the country, he could not say, but he should be very sorry if no Bill whatever were carried through; and he was quite sure that in saying so, he expressed the opinion of the whole of the moral, enlightened, and religious people of the kingdom. Major Beauclerk wished to set his hon. colleague right as to the prayer of the petition. It did not pray that no law whatever might be passed on the subject, but that no measure which might tend to restrict the innocent amusements of the people might be passed. The hon. Baronet's Bill went to shut the gates of the Park, which he quite objected to, though he had no objection to any measure which merely had for its object the prevention of Sunday trading. Mr. Roebuck was glad to hear the observations of the hon. member for Surrey regarding the Bill of the hon. Baronet, for he believed that many of the Members of that House had yet to learn the real purport of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the object of the hon. Baronet was chiefly to protect the poor man in the enjoyment of a day of rest. Now, he could assure the House that every one of the provisions of the Bill had a directly contrary tendency; for it would compel the poor man's wife to cook his Sunday's dinner at home, instead of being able to have it done at the baker's. He was in favour of some alteration in the state of the law as it regarded the Sabbath, provided that legislation could improve the morality of the people, without interfering with their innocent recreations. He wished, and the people wished, for such a Bill as would prevent trading, so that they might be relieved of the toil and labour of the week, without suffering loss. He did not mean to speak of the motives of the hon. Baronet who brought in the Bill; but he could not help saying, whatever were the motives which he cherished, this Bill seemed to have the intention, and would have the effect, of preventing the people from enjoying themselves quietly, peaceably, innocently, and calmly on the Sabbath day. The steam-boats were not to be allowed to go down the river, and everything was to be done to confine within the unwholesome purlieus and dense houses of this metropolis those industrious artizans, who, confined closely to their workshops all the week, had an opportunity only one day out of seven to enjoy the fresh and healthful air of the surrounding country. His great objection to this Bill was its inequality. The poor man would be prevented from riding on horseback, because he had to hire the horse; but the rich man keeping a horse of his own would be permitted to ride or drive when and where he pleased. If the Bill were passed, he would move a clause, that if a gentleman's carriage or servant were seen in the streets on the Sunday, the master should be fined 501. He would also move that Hyde Park should be shut up, and not a single beau or belle should be seen there; so that the whole metropolis should be converted into one solemn scene of unmitigated gloom and fanaticism. The petition laid on the Table. BEER SHOPS.] Mr. Roebuck presented a petition from nearly 4,000 in Merthyr Tydvil, in favour of the Beer Shops. This petition was a very singular one→ almost every person who had signed it, which had been presented to the House had signed it by affixing not their names proceeded from persons who had not duly but their marks; they could not write, considered what would be the effect if the therefore it was, in every respect, to be Sale of Beer Act were repealed. By that considered the petition of the poor man, Act, which had been so much abused, he and entitled on this subject to great atten- thought most absurdly and unjustly, the tion. The petitioners denied that the poor man could now buy his pot of beer increase of crime was in any degree owing for 4d. instead of 7d., which he had paid to the Beer Shops; and he was de- during the reign of monopoly. The concidedly of opinion, not only that that sumption of malt since the passing of that statement was correct, but that there was Bill had increased nearly one third; and no increase of crime. Proof of increase the additional demand for barley arising of crime did not depend on the number of from that increased consumption of malt committals, or even on the number of con- was of vast importance to the agriculturist. victions; but on the state, habits, and For his part, he trusted, that the House manners of the people. The state of the would not concur in any measure which people had been improving for the last would interfere with the most perfect thirty years the mode of spending their freedom of trade in beer. If any well-conlives and their earnings had been regularly sidered regulations for maintaining order improving. Mr. Place, of Charing-cross, in the beer-houses should be found neceswho was originally in humble circumstan- sary, to them he should make no objection; ces, and was peculiarly well able to form but he must protest in the name of coman opinion on this subject, had told him mon sense against placing it in the power lately, that forty years ago, in the alleys of any set of men whatever to grant or and courts of the neighbourhood in which withhold a license for the sale of beer, as he lived, almost every woman was a pros- it would lead to great abuses, and be, in titute, and almost every man a thief his opinion, exceedingly injurious to the ["laughter"]. Hon. Gentlemen might community. laugh, though the subject when properly considered, was far from being a laughable one; at present that very neighbourhood was occupied by exceedingly respectable and industrious persons; and it had been proved that a similar change had taken place in many other parts of London. He had other petitions to present, and those petitions were from persons in prison praying for relief, but as none of his Majesty's Ministers were in their places, it was impossible for him to present them. He thought it a serious cause of complaint that the petitions of the people were not listened to by his Majesty's MiWhen it was first proposed that the sittings should be at twelve o'clock, it was distinctly stated, that there would always be at least one Minister present, but that had not been attended to. If the newspaper reporters were not present, neither the Ministers of the Crown, nor the public would know anything about the presentations of petitions in that House, which had become a mere farce. There were none of the Ministers present and the benches were nearly empty. Mr. Parrot said, that he was happy to see one petition on the subject of the beer shops which contained common sense. It appeared to him, that most of the petitions Sir George Phillips said, he did not want the beer-shops to be shut up, but only that persons should be confined to the purchase of the beer simply from the shops, and to carry it home, there to be drank. Men Mr. Hardy believed, that every Grand Juror throughout the country, was prepared to come forward to declare, that the beer shops were the most complete nuisances that could possibly exist. met there, not to obtain refreshment, but to concert schemes of plunder. They were nurseries of crime. Public houses afforded accommodation to travellers, beer shops could only encourage tippling. It was, supposed when the sale of Beer Act passed, that men would buy their beer as they did their bread and meat, and take it home and consume it, instead of which they went to these beer-shops to carouse and commit all kinds of excesses. Petition laid on the Table. The Marquess of Chandos rose to submit a Motion to the House with reference to the beer-shops, which, he said, had given rise to an alarming extent of crime and pauperism. It was not his wish to abolish them, but he wished them to be better conducted. At present they were receptacles for every thing bad. He attributed a |