that it destroyed the qualification, and made game property-that it enabled every proprietor of land to secure the right of it to himself. A man that rented 500 acres, and paid 1,000l. a year to his landlord, was, by the present law, liable to every species of depredation from game, and in quest of game, and could not destroy it himself if he wanted a qualification. He could not believe that the sale of any article would have the effect of diminishing the quantity of it. He did not see that the sale of horses or cows produced that consequence; on the contrary, he was of opinion, that rendering the sale of game legal, would cause an increase to 'meet the increased demand. If this bill should pass into a law, his conviction was, that in the course of time the mass of the people would renounce the opinion they entertained of the severity and oppression of the game laws, and that they would learn to respect property in game.

no small surprise, as it seemed to imply that the gentlemen of England returned into the country, not to cultivate the affections of their tenants, but for the trifling and contemptible object of enjoying the amusement of killing game. It had been justly remarked by Madame De Stael, that the influence of individuals in this country depended not on the splendor in which they lived in the metropolis, but on the influence which they possessed in the country. It was this, and not the trifling amusement (he ought, perhaps, to call it by a harsher name) of shooting game, that gave weight to the character of an English gentleman; and he hoped he should never more hear this argument urged. He was aware of the force of the objection which had been founded on the inordinate power which the bill gave to search for game; and he had nothing to place against it but the moral feeling which he hoped to excite by the bill. The Mr. Alderman Heygate said, it was pre-argument of the hon. gentleman who had tended that this bill tended to increase, so warmly opposed the measure, had prorather than diminish game, a proposition duced in his mind no conviction as to the which he could not assent to, because the principle of the bill, although the hon. bill went to increase the number of de- gentleman had displayed great ingenuity stroyers. He thought the morals of the in attempting to shake it to pieces by atpeople would be injured rather than im-tacking its details. The ruin of many of proved by it. He conceived their morals would be better improved by the residence of gentlemen of property on their estates in the country, to which the exclusive privilege of destroying game was a principal inducement.

Mr. H. Sumner opposed the bill. The learned gentleman opposite had defended the principle of the bill, by arguing, that poachers did not at present look on game as private property, and that if it were once understood to be property, it would be as much respected as poultry and pigs. He differed entirely in opinion from the learned gentleman. In that part of the country where he had the honour to act as a magistrate, whenever he had found a man robbing a hen-roost or a pig-sty, he had always discovered that that man was a notorious poacher. If poachers were conscious that game was as much property as any thing else, a moral feeling would not restrain them from committing depredations on it.

Mr. Brand rose to reply. He said, that most of the objections he had heard had been directed against particular clauses; but he had heard none of any weight against the principle of the bill. There was one objection which he had heard with

the most spirited and most promising young men in the country could be traced to the rigorous prohibition of the sale of game. One of the best labourers he had ever known had been executed for a most atrocious murder in consequence of this very evil. He had, while attempting to take larks in a net, caught some game: he did not know where to dispose of it till he was directed by an acquaintance to a set of poachers, who, having thus obtained a power of informing against him, induced him by menaces and invitations to adopt a course of life which terminated in his execution at the last assizes in Chelmsford, for a most atrocious murder. All this had taken place in the course of three years. It was with a view to prevent the recurrence of such afflicting cases, that he had brought forward the present measure.

The question being put, that the words "bill be re-committed" stand part of the question, the House divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 119. The bill was consequently lost.

PENRYN BRIBERY BILL.] The House having gone into a committee on this bill, Thomas Treloar was called in, and examin

ed by sir C. Burrell. The witness said, he | conversation took place, which the witwas acquainted with election transactions ness throwing himself on the candour of in Penryn. There had been a strong party the House, begged to say Mr. Anderdon in favour of sir Masseh Lopez. Meetings never expected would be revealed. He had been held in his favour.-Does the was, however, in the hands of the House, witness recollect attending on sir M. and should obey their orders. The witLopez, with a statement of the numbers ness then read an article from the newsthat would vote for him?-No. In what paper, highly complimentary of the conterms did the witness convey to sir M. duct of Mr. Anderdon, and his popularity Lopez the number that was ready to at Penryn. This article was given to him vote for him?-He could not state the for insertion by Mr. Anderdon. In the terms in which he had spoken of support course of conversation, Mr. Anderdon for one of the candidates. He had never talked of the bribery practised at Penryn said that a certain portion of the electors by the returned members. Witness rewould vote for sir M. Lopez, for a pecu- marked, that any man who knew Penryn, niary consideration. He had, however, knew that nothing could be effected withsaid, that sir M. Lopez would carry his out money. Mr. Anderdon admitted the seat if he came down.-The witness was fact, and said, that all his engagements asked if he never said that money would should be fulfilled when he could do so be given, and he replied that he could not with safety. deny but that money was mentioned for a seat. Being asked, if he had stated the sum requisite, he replied that he had, and that he had mentioned 2,000l., which was to be divided among 200 persons. He said that this sum was sufficient to influence 100 persons. He always considered a present of 24 guineas to each voter to be requisite.

John Edwards was the next witness. He described himself as an attorney at Truro, much in the habit of attending the elections for Cornwall. He was pretty generally consulted as to the right of voting according to the constitution of the several boroughs in that county. Among other places he had been at Penryn at the last election, where he had heard that sir M. Lopez was invited to become a candidate. The Penryn breakfast he understood to mean a pledge or promise of 24 guineas to any voter who would support two candidates. Had heard of some dissatisfaction with respect to Mr. Swann for not giving any public breakfast; but he did not believe that any candidate could be returned for Penryn by means of money [a laugh.]. If such a man as Mr. Sewell, however, would introduce a candidate with money to the electors that introduction would, no doubt, have great weight. Witness believed, but he could not state with certainty, that there were from 8 to 900 freeholders in the two adjacent hundreds.

Edward Budd was next examined. He was editor of the newspaper published in Cornwall, called "The West Briton." After the election of Penryn, Mr. Anderdon had an interview with him, and a (VOL. XL.)

The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, May 17.

ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.] The Earl of Donoughmore rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to call their lordships' attention to the petitions on the table, praying for relief to the Roman Catholics. In furtherance of the object he had in view, he felt it to be his duty to submit to their lordships a resolution, to the effect that this House do resolve itself into a committee to consider the state of the laws which inflict civil disabilities on account of religious opinions, particularly in so far as those laws deprive his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects of the exercise of their civil rights; and in how far it may be expedient to alter or modify the same. Such was the nature of the motion with which he intended to conclude, and he believed no question of greater importance in all its relations could be brought under the consideration of parliament. The importance of the subject could not fail to be felt by their lordships, when they recollected the great proportion of his majesty's subjects affected by the severe and, as he must contend, illiberal exclusions which it was his object to remove. The law as it now stood, disqualified and rendered incapable of sitting in parliament and holding various civil and military situations, no less than four-fifths of the population of the country from which most of the petitions now on the table relative to this question (2 C)

Protestant constitution. He had no doubt that, like all other unfounded appréhensions, these would soon be removed. As to the only important point, the foreign. supremacy, it was altogether spiritual, and the Roman Catholics acknowledged none that in any way interfered with their allegiance. On this point they were willing to give the most complete pledges and securities; and if that were done, surely no objection could exist in the mind of the noble earl to the repeal of the disqualifying statutes-laws which, so far from affording any advantage to the state, tended only to its injury, by exasperating the feelings of those against whom they were directed. If the House went into the committee, the ulterior measures which he should propose would be chiefly some alteration in the oaths required to be taken by members of parliament and persons holding appointments under the

In the first place, he

had come, and if to that portion were added the Roman Catholics of England and Scotland, it would be found that the exclusion applied, to at least one-fourth of the population of the whole united kingdom. This was a state of things which appeared at the first sight strongly marked with severity and injustice: for the men composing this great proportion of their lordships fellow subjects' were disqualified, for no other apparent reason, than a conscientious adherence to the principles of the religion in which they had been educated. The old unreasonable grounds on which their exclusion was defended had gradually been abandoned. The opinions which had been attributed to them had been, both in and out of that House, acknowledged to be unfounded; and yet laws enacted on these erroneous views were still maintained in force. It had been asserted, that Roman Catholics held the doctrine, that engage-government. ments made with professing other religions would propose the repeal or modification were not binding on themselves, and of the declaration oath, a great part of that they would make use of any power which amounted merely to a denial of which they might obtain to destroy our doctrines held by those who believed them establishments in church and state. If it to be the great truths of the Christian rewere possible that such absurd charges ligion, and had no reference whatever to had ever been believed, the whole experi- the political question on which disqualifyence of the last century, and especially ing statutes had been founded. His next that of the last forty years, was sufficient to object would be to obtain the repeal of prove its falsehood. The legislature had, the oath of abjuration. What reason to a certain extent, already mitigated the there could be for maintaining on the stalaws which operated against them; and in tute book an oath against the claims of a proportion as the disabilities were re non-existing family, except to exhibit to moved, their loyalty and attachment to the world an absurdity, he did not know. the constitution had been more and more The oath of supremacy he thought might strongly evinced. What objection could remain. After all that had passed, and now be made to the total repeal of these the great light which had recently been disqualifications? No proof had ever thrown on the subject, he trusted that the existed of the charges which had been relief asked by the Roman Catholics would made against the Catholics, and nobody be granted. Through the whole of his parnow believed them. As a proof of the liamentary life he had earnestly and sincerechange of opinion on this subject, he ly supported their claims. It would be difwould refer to what had passed in another ficult for him to offer any new arguments, place, where a right honourable gentleman, in their support; but he thought it would distinguished for his opposition to the be still more difficult to maintain the conclaims of the Catholics, had distinctly dis- verse of the problem, and show any good avowed the absurd charges made against reason for their exclusion from the benefits them. The noble lord opposite had also of the free constitution which their fellow abandoned most of his objections to subjects have the happiness to enjoy. He granting relief to the Catholics, and now should therefore refrain from troubling insisted only on one or two points as af- their lordships farther. Were it necesfording ground for opposition to the relief sary, which it certainly was not, he was not demanded. These objections were, the well enough to enter into all the details foreign jurisdiction asserted to be ac which this important question presented, knowledged by the Catholics, and a per- and should consequently, conclude by suasion of the impolicy of admitting Ro-moving the resolution stated in the comman Catholics to participate fully in a mencement of his speech.